Saturday, March 5, 2005

Bankruptcy and the Bible Journalists like Thomas Franks have noted the political alliance in recent years between pro-business conservatives and Christian evangelicals. In fact, it was a topic of discussion on last Friday's Scarborough Country (and what a discussion that was -- the transcript isn't posted yet, but when it is, I'll be sure to comment on it). However, the bankruptcy bill being debated in Congress seems to be putting a strain on the relationship. The Des Moines Register explains: A national group of Christian lawyers is appealing to church leaders to join them in lobbying against the bankruptcy reform bill introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia. The lawyers say the legislation runs contrary to the forgiveness of debt and charity required by the Bible. "As Christian attorneys, we strongly believe that it was never God's intention to create a society where indebtedness was a crime or a badge of dishonor," Christian members of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys wrote in a letter sent Feb. 26 to hundreds of church leaders across the nation. [snip] The lawyers note that in the Old Testament, God did not outlaw borrowing and lending, but provided that loans would become discharged every seven years. And how did Congressman Grassley respond? Surely he chose his words carefully, in light of the importance of Christian evangelicals to the political supremacy currently enjoyed by the Republican party. The article reports: In response, Grassley said Congress could not be bound by biblical mandates because "the Constitution does not provide for a theocracy." "I can't listen to Christian lawyers because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population," Grassley said. "I'll bet those lawyers wouldn't want us to impose the principles of forgiving debt every seven years. If that were the law, nobody would loan them money." So in response, he basically dismissed their criticisms as a call to theocracy and added some ridicule of Christian fundamentalism for good measure (never mind the moral point of the critique). The article adds that the lawyers don't appreciate his use of language either. When introducing his bill, Grassley said bankruptcy was not intended as a "convenient financial planning tool where deadbeats can get out of paying their debt scot-free while honest Americans who play by the rules have to foot the bill." Iowa bankruptcy lawyers who signed the letter said Thursday that their spiritual hackles were raised by Grassley's depiction of their clients as "deadbeats." It seems Chuck is fed up with these people, and I can see why. I mean, don't they like clear and simple moral language -- the kind invoked by President Bush? And wasn't the tough talk on gay marriage and abortion enough for them? And what does Christian morality have to do with business law anyways? At any rate, this trend deserves some attention. 5:17:26 PM    comment [] UPI "News" What happens when people like Rev. Sun Myung Moon buy a media company like UPI (almost bought by Rev. Pat Robertson in the 90's)? You get remarkable articles like this one, entitled "Science, 'frauds' trigger decline in atheism." Godlessness is in trouble, according to a growing consensus among philosophers, intellectuals and scholars. [snip] Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings. The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground. Evidence for the first development? There are some humanists who now accept intelligent design (yes, humanists) and there is some scientific evidence suggesting a correlation between spiritual activity and recovery from illness. Evidence for the second? There are some atheists who are immoral. Atheism's other Achilles' heels are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name. "With time, [atheism] turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively," Mr. McGrath wrote in Christianity Today. One worry the article registers is that the worldwide trend is more towards a spiritual paganism than towards traditional Christianity. "The rise of all sorts of paganism is creating a false spirituality that proves to be a more dangerous rival to the Christian faith than atheism," he said. After all, a Satanist is also "spiritual." Nevertheless, there seems to be some confidence that Christianity will win out in the end, because, as President Bush has told us, freedom will win out in the end and freedom is a gift from the Christian God. [The Rev. Paul M. Zulehner, sociologist of religion and dean of Vienna University's divinity school] sees Christianity's greatest opportunity when its message addresses two seemingly irreconcilable quests of contemporary humanity -- the quest for freedom and truth. "Christianity alone affirms that truth and God's dependability are inseparable properties to which freedom is linked." As for the "peril of spirituality," Mr. Zulehner sounded quite sanguine. He concluded from his research that in the long run, the survival of worldviews should be expected to follow this lineup: "The great world religions are best placed," he said. As a distant second he sees the diffuse forms of spirituality. Atheism, he said, will come in at the tail end. Thus reports United Press International. 4:39:04 PM    comment [] Social Security Mischief The New York Times has an interesting cover article today on the respective Social Security campaigns being waged by Republicans and Democrats. It notes that President Bush had decided to change his terminology and borrow from the Democratic lexicon in discussing his plans for Social Security reform (perhaps in response to polling): Despite widespread evidence that the public is wary of changes to the benefits system, Mr. Bush did not retreat from his plan to divert some payroll taxes into individual accounts. Instead he shifted his language a bit to emphasize the parts of Social Security that would stay the same, describing the popular program as a "safety net" and borrowing a term for the types of accounts some Democrats have favored, "add-on" accounts outside the Social Security benefit system, to now describe his version of private accounts. How nicely bi-partisan that President Bush is now amenable to "add-on" accounts! Only that, in mentioning "add-on" accounts, the President is not in favor of add-on accounts. As many philosophers of language will tell you, you have to be careful with the "use/mention" distinction -- especially with this president. White House spokesman Trent Duffy explains: Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush was not embracing the alternate plan, which he said would amount to creating an entirely new program outside Social Security. Instead, Mr. Duffy said the president used the term "add-on" to describe his own proposal. "Social Security is facing its own problems and the president's mission is to save Social Security," Mr. Duffy said. So by "add-on," the President means the portion of Social Security benefits that are replaced by private accounts under his plan. This is like tearing down and rebuilding a room in a house and calling it an "add-on." It's difficult for journalists to describe such use of language in the current political climate, but Josh Marshall has some suggestions. 3:42:35 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2005 David V. Johnson. Last update: 4/1/05; 4:18:59 PM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.