interfaith dialogue of the day, part IV

Rammstein goes in a new direction…

no Christian candidate

In an editorial in today’s Daily, innocuously titled ‘Democratic hopefuls offer conflicting rhetoric,’ Matthew Felty asks, “Why is a religion that stands up for its core beliefs ‘intolerant?’”

Unfortunately, Matthew spends the rest of the article demonstrating the answer.

He writes:

A Christian voter cannot cast his or her vote for a candidate who supports abortion and/or gay marriage.

Both of these issues conflict with Christian doctrine.

This is nothing new.

What is new is how Christians — entire churches, in fact — are turning a blind eye to what were once fundamental truths.

In one fell swoop, Matthew has decreed that the only possible correct interpretation of scripture is his own, and that this also determines how all Christians should engage in politics.

Many Christians would say it is foolish to think a human being can perfectly know the mind of God. But not Matthew. From Presidential candidates to entire churches, he can tell us who is and who is not a Christian.

Of course, he doesn’t provide any evidence for this stunning claim, from the Bible or anywhere else. We are supposed to take him at his word.

I won’t pick on Matthew any further, because frankly, it’s too easy. But his arguments follow a larger, disturbing pattern that is worth discussing: the constriction of religion to a few political issues that just happen to coincide with the platform of the Republican Party.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t let religion influence their political beliefs. If someone truly defines their identity through God, it would be foolish and impossible to try to ignore that in the voting booth. Religious believers have been at the forefront of important social movements throughout American history, working against slavery and poverty, for Prohibition and civil rights.

But when religion is entirely coopted by a political party, both are trivialized.

Look at the complete “pro-life” agenda, as it is held by the Catholic Church. Against abortion, stem cell research, and physician-assisted suicide, to be sure. But also against the war in Iraq and the death penalty, and for greater measures to reduce poverty and ensure universal health care.

I don’t agree with the entire “pro-life” agenda outlined here, though I do respect it. However, no single candidate running for the Presidency from either party follows all of those positions, and if they did, they wouldn’t get elected. It is necessary for politicians to come down on these issues based on the current divisions in the electorate. But make no mistake: that is a political choice, not a religious one.

That is because politics is built on coalitions and compromise. To get anything done, you have to sacrifice principles. Politicians often take a lot of criticism for this, some of it fair, some not so fair. But that is the nature of the beast.

Most religions, however, find power in looking beyond our earthly existence, to an ideal not marred by the necessary compromises of living in a diverse and free society. Unfortunately, some Christians (and plenty who belong to other religions too) have become so eager to choose sides in politics that they’ve given up the larger perspective that religion provides.

I respect those who try to act out their faith as best as they understand it. But I don’t recognize that there is a “Christian” candidate, nor should there ever be.

In this way the separation of church and state is misinterpreted by both the right and the left. Because of religious freedom and the lack of an establishment of religion, believers have the right to implement their faith in public and private life however they see fit. But they don’t get to decide who or what God is for the rest of us.

Photo by Flickr user Ben McLeod used under a Creative Commons license.

everything good for you is bad

It’s amazing to me how the nutrition of our own bodies, the one thing we have the most direct experience with, remains wrapped in so much falsehood and confusion.

Exhibit A — Fellow Hub blogger Tiara busts some common food myths:

We’re supposed to eat two to three dairy products a day to build up healthy, strong bones, right?

Nope, the high fat levels and concentrated proteins found in many dairy products can increase a person’s osteoporosis level by depleting calcium from the bones.

The food pyramid that teachers have ingrained in our brains since Kindergarten are pure advertisements. No nutritionist or dietician ever developed the food pyramid. Instead, the respective associations of each food group determined through their individual “research” how many servings of their food we should consume.

Tiara also discusses some of the environmental and ethical problems with our factory farm system. For anyone (like myself) who is concerned about the treatment of livestock but finds meat too delicious to give up completely, I recommend the Oklahoma Food Coop. With a $50 lifetime membership, you can buy sustainable, humane meat and vegetables directly from Oklahoma farmers and have them delivered to a pick-up site in Norman or one of many other locations around the state. The coop has been rapidly expanding this year; they recently leased their own warehouse, and it has been a model for similar projects in nearby states.

But back to nutrition myths. Exhibit B — A fascinating article in New York Magazine that asks, “Does Exercise Really Make Us Thinner?” Surprisingly, this is a relatively new belief:

Until the sixties, clinicians who treated obese and overweight patients dismissed the notion as naïve. When Russell Wilder, an obesity and diabetes specialist at the Mayo Clinic, lectured on obesity in 1932, he said his fat patients tended to lose more weight with bed rest, “while unusually strenuous physical exercise slows the rate of loss.”

The idea sounds absurd to modern ears, but it makes more sense when you realize that strenuous exercise also gives you a healthy appetite. Not to mention that after we exercise, we are more psychologically inclined to reward ourselves with delicious brownies. To make matters worse, much of our weight may be determined by where unconcious biological processes decide to send those calories:

Ultimately, the relationship between physical activity and fatness comes down to the question of cause and effect. Is Lance Armstrong excessively lean because he burns off a few thousand calories a day cycling, or is he driven to expend that energy because his body is constitutionally set against storing calories as fat? If his fat tissue is resistant to accumulating calories, his body has little choice but to burn them as quickly as possible: what Rony and his contemporaries called the “activity impulse”—a physiological drive, not a conscious one. His body is telling him to get on his bike and ride, not his mind. Those of us who run to fat would have the opposite problem. Our fat tissue wants to store calories, leaving our muscles with a relative dearth of energy to burn. It’s not willpower we lack, but fuel.

But these brief excerpts can’t do justice to the article. As they say, read the whole thing.

Photo by Flickr user Mrs Magic used under a Creative Commons license.

interfaith dialogue of the day, part III

The faiths in this case being Louis Armstrong and shadow puppets…

Cherokee Freedmen posts

If you are here looking for info on the Cherokee Freedmen, you can find my latest posts at the new blog:

Who is an Indian? 

Race, sovereignty, politics 

Don’t use that word 

don’t use that word

I agree with almost everything in today’s Our View on the Cherokee Freedmen. I have to take issue with one line, though. The editorial approvingly cites Rep. Diane Watson’s comment that expulsion of the Cherokee Freedmen is akin to “ethnic cleansing.”

That is a totally inappropriate use of the term, which typically refers to the mass slaughter of an ethnic group. It is needlessly inflammatory to use a word referring to one of the worst crimes that humanity is capable of in ordinary politics. Some variation of Godwin’s Law has to apply here.

Not to mention that when it comes to both Indians and former slaves, the United States government is far more guilty of ethnic cleansing than the Cherokees will ever be.

While I ultimately support her side in the issue, Rep. Watson has on the whole been a terrible advocate for the Freedmen’s cause, whether through irresponsible talk about ethnic cleansing or an earlier claim that she is a descendant of Pocahontas.

It’s a cliche that anyone white or black or any color in between will claim to have an “Indian princess” ancestor, which is too often a superficial appropriation of Indian identity by people who do not take it seriously. Frustration at such sentiments may be one of the reasons that the vote to expel the Freedmen passed so overwhelmingly.

From an editorial by Indian Country Today:

In the Indian world, it is said that aside from tribal enrollment or documented proof of citizenship, it is indicative of one’s identity as an Indian person if you consider yourself part of something rather than part-something. As a vocal proponent for the freedmen, Watson should realize that their strongest claim to full Cherokee citizenship lies in their family and community ties to the nation. These tangible bonds matter just as much as Watson’s notions of indiscernible Indian-ness by blood.

While it is important to protect the Freedmen’s right to be in the tribe, if it is done at the expense of making all other Cherokees into villains then it will do lasting damage to the Cherokee Nation. Watson and other overzealous defenders of the Freedmen would do well to recognize this.

Photo: Rep. Diane Watson (D – Calif.)

Is it too late to sell the whole place to Disney?

Because Florida apparently doesn’t get enough attention from Presidential candidates already, despite being a heavily contested swing state in the last two elections, the state legislature moved its primaries up to January 29.

This created a problem for the Democratic National Committee. It has always been an inviolable principle that Iowa and New Hampshire host the first primaries, because it is important that our nominees are determined by tiny, rural states with no minorities in them. But to work in a little more diversity, the DNC scheduled South Carolina and Nevada to have early primaries as well. All four early states are at least small enough that candidates without a ton of money still have a chance in them.

In order to prevent an insane rush of ever earlier primaries, the DNC made rules that any other state which put its primary before Feb. 5 would be stripped of half its delegates, and any candidate that campaigned in that state would receive no delegates there, even if he or she won the election.

Naturally, Florida reacted to this by realizing the destructive potential of an unregulated free-for-all in the primaries and bowing to the DNC’s wishes.

Ha ha, just kidding!

Actually Howard Dean and the DNC were treated to a storm of petulancy. Many Florida Democrats made unfortunate comparisons to the 2000 election debacle:

”We’re going to fight to have Florida Democratic votes counted,” said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, the state’s top Democrat. “It’s always been a top priority for the Democratic National Committee to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote, and we hope the DNC is going to continue to honor this right.”

(If you are looking for sympathy, Florida, you may not want to remind us of how your botched election gave us George W. Bush.)

The DNC has so far stuck by its threat, but Florida is not budging from its early primary. One concern of the party leaders seems valid:

Also, Florida will vote on a constitutional amendment during its primary election that could significantly cut property taxes. Democratic party leaders felt pushing their delegate selection plan past Feb. 5 would have affected turnout in the ballot question.

If only the Republican primary was held on that day, their turnout would greatly outnumber the Democrats and sway the referendum on taxes. But that is just another argument for centralizing control over the primary schedule so that questions of national importance won’t be swayed by local disputes.

The Florida brouhaha is just the tip of the iceberg of ways that our electoral system is irrational and probably harmful. Sadly, it doesn’t seem like we are going to look past petty local concerns and see the big picture any time soon.

Photo by Flickr user TeddyBare used under a Creative Commons license.

race, sovereignty, politics

The AP picks up on some Cherokee Freedmen related ugliness in California:

Diane Ross-Neal grew up hearing about her Cherokee heritage, so when the tribe promoted clubs for the thousands of members living in California, it seemed natural for her to share her own story. She soon realized that not everyone wanted to hear it.

At meetings, she says, organizers tried to pry the microphone from her hands, called her a liar or refused to let her speak at all. The reason, Ross-Neal says, is simple: She is black.

… “I went to all the meetings and I felt so unwelcome,” Ross-Neal said of the California clubs. “I kid you not, it was like, ‘What are you doing here? You’re black, you’re not Cherokee.’ It was so thick you could cut it with a knife.”

The sides in this fight have tended to line up as sovereignty versus racism. Defenders of the expulsion try to muddy the waters over the racism complaint by bringing out dark-skinned Cherokees who remain in the tribe. And some of those Cherokees take that side themselves:

At a recent meeting for California Cherokees at a park in Riverside, about a half-dozen black Cherokees shared a Cherokee blessing, potluck dinner and nature walk with several dozen other club members. The black attendees, however, were quick to point out that they had Cherokee blood — unlike the recently ousted freedmen like Ross-Neal who can’t prove it.

Lloyd Thompson, who is one-quarter Cherokee, said he supported the tribe’s vote to kick out the freedmen because those with no Indian blood were trying to use race to get benefits they don’t deserve. “There are people who are dark-skinned, like mine, and they interbred with the Cherokee and they lived with the Cherokee. They are authentic,” he said. “These other people are interlopers. Cherokees are a proud people and we know who we are.”

But the truth is, it is about both sovereignty and racism. Cornell University professor Eric Cheyfitz sums it up very effectively in Indian Country Today (emphasis mine):

Morally, the issue is clear: Why attempt to disenfranchise a particular group of Cherokee Nation citizens based, it would appear, solely on their race? The response from the government of the nation has been that this move, contrary to the way it appears, is not racist – there are black Cherokees on the ”blood” rolls, it argues – but a matter of sovereignty, a question of who gets to decide tribal enrollments: the nation itself or the federal government. While under federal Indian law the tribes are granted autonomy in the area of enrollment, the Secretary of the Interior, under the same proviso, has a right to intervene in these decisions. Legal matters notwithstanding, a nation constituted by ”blood” is a nation constituted by racial borders; and a nation constituted by this kind of exclusivity is by definition racist. The irony here is that the constitution of tribal rolls by blood quantum is a federal imposition of the Dawes era, a stricture that the tribes themselves later adopted in contradiction of traditional practices.

Legally, the issue is also clear: as noted above, Article 9 of the Treaty of 1866 grants the ”freedmen … all the rights of native Cherokees.” End of story. If Indian nations expect the federal government to abide by the treaties, which are the foundation of federal Indian law, recognizing the government-to-government relationship between Indian nations and the United States, then the federal government has a right to expect the same, even though the trail of treaties broken by the government is all too long. The irony here is also evident – the habitual treaty-breaker insists on the sanctity of the treaty – but does not negate the principle or fact of the law.

What complicates the legal issue, but has gone unstated, is that the relationship between the tribes and the federal government, as determined by federal Indian law, is a colonial relationship, in which Congress has ”plenary power” (final say) in Indian affairs. Within this structure, the tribes are ”domestic dependent nations” (my emphasis), effectively minors before a law in which the federal government holds their lands in ”trust.”

One can only understand the Watson resolution, then, if one understands that the history driving it is not only the violent and troubled history of race in the United States but also the violent and troubled history of the struggle for sovereignty of colonized Indian nations with the colonizer.

It is unfortunate that the sovereignty of an Indian Nation is being endangered over this issue. Even if Congress resolves the legal and moral complaint by removing Cherokee sovereignty and forcing them to readmit the Freedmen, the Cherokees will be left a divided people, once again at the mercy of their colonial overseers. Is it worth the cost? I’m not sure.

But there are hints of a more sinister story beneath the elevated principles of national identity and race. Again from the AP:

John Velie, an attorney for the freedmen, said that until the recent ouster, freedmen were more politically active in the tribe and voted in much higher numbers than their non-black counterparts. He sees the new communities for far-flung Cherokees as an effort to counter that influence and drum up new voters who will toe the tribe’s anti-freedmen line.

It hasn’t been discussed much in the media, but it’s suspicious that Principal Chief Chad Smith’s great defense of sovereignty has the added bonus of kicking out an active group of citizens who do not support him politically. It would be doubly tragic if this whole conflict began as a venal grab for power by Smith.

Photo by Flickr user dbking used under a Creative Commons license.

where are the grown-ups?

Last night, Bill Clinton said on the Daily Show that one of the biggest problems in Washington DC today is that most Congressmen are perpetually sleep-deprived, due to the hectic fundraising and constant travel between DC and their home district required for a modern politician.I believe him.

There has to be some way to explain how an entire city can throw a temper tantrum over somebody calling David Petraeus a mean name. I would like to see a bill that requires every Senator who voted for this resolution to repeat 100 times: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”

Photo by Flickr user jemsweb used under a Creative Commons license.

interfaith dialogue of the day, part II

A mandala is a traditional art form of Tibetan Buddhist monks. They spend days or weeks sprinkling colored sand into a gorgeous geometric design. Then, to symbolize the impermanence of all things, the sand is all swept away and poured into a body of running water.

In a variation on this theme, artist Phil Hansen has created a Jimi Hendrix sculpture out of 7,000 matches and set it on fire.

(Okay, this might not have anything to do with religion. But it is still badass.)