Thursday, August 29, 2019

Reflections on Donald Trump's Use and Abuse of Immigrants


Reflections on Donald Trump’s Use and Abuse of Immigrants

Fascism, whether of the right as in Hitler’s Germany or of the left as in Stalin’s Russia, needs an enemy to attack and on which to blame a country’s problems. It matters not that the identified enemy is in no way responsible for the country’s problems. It matters not that the enemy’s characteristic(s) which supposedly make it an enemy are not actually that group’s characteristics at all. By far most of the people Stalin killed as enemies of the people were in no way enemies of the people. Germany’s Jews were not the cause of Germany’s problems. The function of fascism’s identified enemy isn’t actually to be a problem for the fascists’ country. It is merely to serve as a strawman on which the fascists can pin the country’s problems though the strawman has nothing important to do with those problems. It is to act as a distraction from those problems, for it is always easier to blame problems on a strawman than actually to address them in a serious and effective way.
I saw how the fascist use of a strawman enemy worked in Germany. I spent the 1957-1958 academic year in Berlin, Germany, where my father was doing historical research. We shared a large apartment with our German landlady. She may not ever have been a Nazi herself, but her deceased husband had been one. She still had his Nazi party uniform hanging in a big wardrobe in the hall way. She once tried to put the armband off that uniform on me, something I refused to let her do though I was only eleven years old at the time. I knew enough even then about the Holocaust to know how hateful that armband was. I don’t remember how the subject came up, but I sure remember something she said to us once. She said: “It was too bad what happened to the Jews, but then something did have to be done.” That statement is quite simply a lie. Nothing “happened to” the Jews. The German people committed one of history’s greatest atrocities against them. It wasn’t “too bad.” It was a tragedy of unsurpassed proportions. Nothing “had to be done.” The Jews were not responsible for the desperate situation Germany found itself in after its defeat in World War I or for its disastrous economic situation in the 1920s and early 1930s. Our landlady seemed for the most part to be apolitical. She didn’t make up the lie she told us about the Holocaust. She learned it from the Nazis, perhaps most of all from her Nazi husband.
The lie worked. Most German people didn’t kill Jews, but almost all Germans sat idly by as their Jewish neighbors disappeared, never to come back. They didn’t ask questions. They didn’t object. They didn’t protest. That was partly or maybe largely because protesting would get you killed, but it was also because they bought the anti-Jewish lies of European history generally and of the Nazis in particular. Hitler needed that lie, for without it he never would have come to power. He never would have sold his idiotic racist ideology to so many people. It matters not whether Hitler actually believed the lie. What matters is how he used it and how it helped him gain and hold power.
Donald Trump is an American fascist. For a more detailed analysis of that truth see the essay “American Fascist” elsewhere on this blog. He dreams of ruling as an dictator. He calls the free press enemies of the people. He plays to the basest emotions of an ignorant and frightened base of white men who are losing their unchallenged power among us. Most importantly, he has created a strawman enemy on which to blame our country’s problems. Donald Trump’s strawman enemy is immigrants. Mostly immigrants who have come here without proper documentation, but to some extent also immigrants who are here legally. He directs the fear and anger of his base onto those people. He calls immigrants rapists and murderers. He says they take jobs away from “real Americans,” by which he mostly means white American men. Not one of those thigs is true. It doesn’t matter. They are the lie Donald Trump uses in the same way Hitler used his lies about the Jews. In all of these ways and in many others as well Donald Trump is an American fascist.
Of course Donald Trump has erected no Auschwitz. He hasn’t started murdering immigrants, although several of them have died in his custody. He hasn’t yet committed genocide, but he has instituted policies toward immigrants that are horribly cruel and inhumane. He tears children, even nursing infants, from their mothers’ arms. He locks them up in cages. He withholds most of the things, from toothbrushes to medical care, that they need in the same way all children need them. He has incarcerated undocumented immigrants in enormous numbers. I recently heard of one facility in southern California that was designed for less than two hundred inmates that today holds more than nine hundred. Most recently his acolytes in the federal bureaucracy have told parents who have been exempt from deportation because their seriously ill children are receiving lifesaving medical care here they couldn’t get anywhere else to get out of the country. Fascism is heartless. Donald Trump is heartless. Fascism is cruel. Donald Trump is cruel. The cruelty of Donald Trump’s policies toward immigrants is simply unconscionable. It violates everything we Americans have always said we stand for.
It is true that thousands upon thousands of people from Central America enter or at least seek to enter our country without going through lawful immigration procedures. There are a couple of reasons why they don’t go through those procedures. The main one is that if they did they would never be given legal permission to enter, for we allow only a trickle of immigrants to come here legally. That truth combines with a situation that I like to compare to weather pressure gradients. In the atmosphere there are high pressure areas and low pressure areas. The atmosphere always works to even out those areas of different pressure. High pressure air moves into areas of lower pressure until the pressure in the two areas is equalized.
In this metaphor, Central America is a high pressure area, the United States is a low pressure area. Central America is a high pressure area because in most if not quite all of the countries of that part of the world life has become unbearable for millions of people. The economies are a wreck. The governments are so corrupt that they don’t even try to meet their people’s real needs. Violence is rampant. Violent gangs rule the streets, and the governments are powerless to do anything about it or even are the behind that violence. I have heard of mothers bringing their sons to the US precisely so they will not be forced into the gangs. Because of corruption and climate change food supplies are disappearing. I recently heard a story of a woman in Guatemala who watched her child starve to death because there was food that she could give her. All of these conditions motivate millions of people to migrate in search of a better or even a merely bearable life for themselves and their children. That’s the high pressure. It is pressure on people to find a better life.
In this metaphor United States is a low pressure area because for all of our own significant problems we Americans are much safer in our daily lives than are many people in Central America. There is food for children and their parents. There is a functioning law enforcement system that while it may deport these folks also works to make our streets significantly safer than they are in much of Central America. There is employment to be had. It may be illegal for employers to hire undocumented immigrants, and because they are not here legally people who take those jobs may be at the mercy of merciless employers. Still, that work at least pays something of a salary, and such work is not be found in the countries from which these people come. Life is significantly better here than it is for all but a few people in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador. That’s why the US is the low pressure area compared to most of Central America.
So just as high pressure air moves toward low pressure air, people from high pressure Central America move toward the low pressure United States. Since we haven’t yet turned our country into a high pressure area, the only way to stop Central Americans from entering the US is to reduce the pressure in Central America. I’ve heard brief talk of the US establishing a Marshall Plan for Central America, but that proposal makes far too much sense ever to become US policy. So the pressure of people from the south seeking to come to El Norte will not stop.
Tragically, that reality creates an unending opportunity for Trump to lie about immigrants and use them to whip up the fervor of his bigoted base so that they will continue to vote for him despite the fact that his actual policies harm rather than benefit them. That’s what fascists do. There is no hope that Trump will stop doing it, for he is indeed an American fascist. He will continue to use and abuse immigrants for his own fascist political purposes. The only thing we can do about it is get him out of office. If we do that in 2020 we may have some hope of making American policy decent again. If we don’t, we’re lost.

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

On the Mortality of the Earth


On the Mortality of the Earth
It is I guess a fairly recent scientific deduction. Most of the people who have ever lived have never thought of it this way. It turns out however that the earth is mortal. The earth is mortal because the sun is mortal. Sometime in the far distant future the sun will exhaust its supply of nuclear fuel. As it does it will grow hotter and expand. As it expands it will destroy the earth, or at least it will render the earth incapable of supporting life. It may even be true that the universe itself is mortal. There does not appear to be enough mass in the universe to reverse its ongoing expansion. If there isn’t the universe will one day in the very, very distant future lose all of its energy and become a static place lacking all dynamism and life. Science tells us these supposed facts quite dispassionately. For the scientist these are simply facts. They are predictions of the future, but scientists today are confident that they are accurate.
To scientists these are just facts, but to those of use with a more spiritual understanding of reality they seem at first glance to be quite disturbing. How can it be that this earth and its sun, positioned in an unremarkable corner of an unfathomably large universe, where we believe God created humans to live, cease to exist, cease to support life? I mean, didn’t God create us humans to live forever? Not individually of course, but as a species? If the scientists are correct the only possible answer to that question is no. God it seems didn’t create humans to exist as a species forever. One day long before the end of the universe and indeed probably long before the death of the sun we humans (along with all other life forms on earth) will cease to exist. Unless we dismiss the findings of science out of hand, which I am not willing to do, that conclusion is simply unavoidable.
This scientific truth used to bother me a lot. I used to think that if God’s creation was temporal not eternal that nothing has any meaning. I mean, it’s all going to end someday. Not the way biblical literalists fantasize about it ending based on utterly untenable readings of the book of Revelation. No, not that way; but it will still end. That scientific truth used to strike me as hopelessly depressive. How can anything mean anything if it’s all going to end anyway? I used to avoid thinking about it. Thinking about it was just too hard, too spiritually enervating. It was a whole lot easier to live in denial of these truths of science.
But I’ve been using the past tense here on purpose. I don’t think of the matter that way anymore. Here’s why. I finally figured out that it has to be this way. Why does it have to be this way? Because creation is not God. Pantheistic theology to the contrary notwithstanding, God and creation are not the same thing. Because creation is not God, it cannot be immortal. It cannot be immortal because only God is immortal, and creation is not God. Therefore it simply could not be that the earth, the sun, or the universe itself would last forever. They must be mortal because they are not God. These seemingly disturbing scientific truths turn out to confirm rather than deny one of the foundational convictions of any spiritual conception of creation.
That understanding has greatly relieved my angst about the earth, the sun, and the universe being temporal not eternal. How? Consider this. The desire to be eternal is a desire to be God. It is a yearning to be more than God created us to be. It is a corruption of another aspect of what it is to be human, namely our innate striving for connection with that which is greater than we are, for connection with God. We humans are always tempted to become more than we are. We want to know everything. We want to control everything. We resist being who we really are. We are loathe to accept the limitations of our created nature. We need to get over it. We need to come to terms with the reality that God is God and we are not. Neither is the earth. Neither is the sun. Neither is the universe. That’s just how it is.
And it is not cause for angst or doubt about the reality of God. God’s universe is exactly not just what it is but what it must be. We can assume I think that God could have created other gods. Perhaps we can never know why God didn’t do that. We do know that God didn’t. We must trust that God knew and knows what God was and is doing. If we can truly trust God, then we can live free from anxiety about the mortality of the universe, of the sun, and the earth. We can even live free from anxiety about our own individual mortality. If we can do that, then perhaps science telling us of the mortality of creations far greater than we are will be one of science’s greatest gifts to humanity. May it be so.

Friday, August 16, 2019

If the Bible Accepts Slavery, How Can Slavery be Wrong?

If the Bible Accepts Slavery, How Can Slavery be Wrong?

I’ve been reading the book Bounds of Their Habitation, Race and Religion in American History, by Paul Harvey, a professor of history at a branch campus of the University of Colorado.[1] In the first chapters of that book Harvey describes how the racist slaveowners in the antebellum American south used evangelical Christianity as a foundation for a theology and social theory that justified and even romanticized the horrors and injustices of the slave system upon which their economy depended. In their theology these self-identified Christians pointed to the way that neither Testament of the Bible ever condemns or rejects slavery. They were right about that of course. They don’t. In Exodus Moses gets angry with and kills an overseer of Hebrew slaves and has to flee the country. Exodus thus condemns the mistreatment of the Hebrew slaves, but it never condemns slavery as an institution. In the Torah Hebrews are expressly permitted to own slaves as long as the enslaved person is not another Hebrew. St. Paul never condemns slavery. At least in texts attributed to him he counsels slaves to be obedient to their masters. In Philemon he sends a slave back to his slave-owner master. The slaveowners of the American south understood this truth of Christian scripture. It never condemns the institution of slavery. These supposed Christians combined that truth about the Bible with the evangelical belief that everything in the Bible is divinely inspired. Thus, they insisted, slavery is part of God’s will for humanity. The Holy Spirit inspired the biblical texts that accepted it, so it can’t be wrong. They taught this theology to the slaves and hurled it at northern abolitionists. It constituted a foundational aspect of their justification of the brutal, inhumane, profoundly unjust, un-Christian, and sinful institution upon which their economy and their society depended.
So if the Bible accepts and never condemns slavery, which it undeniably does, how can slavery be wrong? Not many American Christians today accept the divine sanction of slavery the way their antebellum ancestors did, yet a great many of them continue to insist that everything in the Bible is at lease divinely inspired if not actually divinely dictated. Are they not then faced with a radical inconsistency in their thinking? Yes they are, and in order to avoid that inconsistency while maintaining our moral aversion to slavery we must somehow obviate the notion that the passages in the Bible that accept slavery are divinely inspired. There are at least two ways to do that. One is to assert that while the Bible is divinely inspired in everything necessary to salvation it also contains some human error. The Bible’s acceptance of slavery is human error, therefore the Bible’s acceptance of slavery is not inconsistent with the Bible’s divine inspiration. The other is to reject the idea of the divine inspiration of the Bible altogether and to reject its acceptance of slavery as both inconsistent with other parts of it and wholly inconsistent with any notion of morality and justice. I will examine both of these alternatives here.
A great many American Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired in everything necessary for salvation but that it also contains some human error. In my book Liberating the Bible, Revised Edition, Volume One,[2] I (citing the late Marcus Borg) call this position the soft version of the belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible. It functions well enough as a refuge for people who must believe in some divine inspiration of the Bible while being unable to accept everything in it as either factually true or morally acceptable. Yet as I explain in my book there is a fatal flaw in this conception. It unavoidable creates the necessity of distinguishing between those parts of the Bible that one believes are divinely inspired and those that one believes are not. It is certainly possible to do that, but to do it with any integrity one must be able to express the criteria one uses to make the distinction. It is also certainly possible to do that, but any attempt to do it is necessarily subjective. The stated criteria may be valid for the person stating them, but there is no way to establish that they are objectively valid for everyone. There are possible criteria that are wholly contradictory. One person might say that everything in the Bible is divinely inspired that speaks of divine love. Another might say that everything in the Bible is divinely inspired that speaks of divine wrath and judgment. Which is the appropriate criterion? There is no valid, objective way to answer that question. The notion that some things in the Bible are divinely inspired and some things are not fails because of this unavoidable internal contradiction.
The other way to avoid the conclusion that the things in the Bible that accept slavery are divinely inspired is to abandon the idea of the divine inspiration of the Bible altogether. This is the solution I advance in Liberating the Bible. It is simply undeniable that there are a great many things in the Bible that are not and cannot be divinely inspired, at least if they’re taken literally the way that those who insist on divine inspiration always insist we must take them. No, Joshua did not make the sun stand still in the sky so he would have more daylight hours to slay his enemies. The author of the book of Joshua thought that was possible because he thought the sun revolves around the earth as it appears to do. We know it is impossible because we know that the sun does not revolve around the earth as it appears to do and that the earth is rapidly spinning on its axis. There’s no way to stop it, but if you could it would destroy the earth in an instant. There is no geological evidence for a universal flood that killed everything living on land except Noah, his family, and a few animals in a big boat. The story of Noah and the flood is simply not factually true. The New Testament too contains things that cannot be literally true. Did Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem when Jesus was born as Matthew says or did they live in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem as Luke says? Both of those assertions cannot be literally true. Did the Holy Family flee to Egypt after Jesus’ birth to escape the wrath of King Herod as Matthew says, or did they not as is unavoidably implied by the fact that no New Testament author other than Matthew has any awareness of that happening? Was Jesus baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist as he is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Or did he encounter John but not get baptized by him as in John? It really can’t be both. We must assume that God would not make mistakes like these, yet each of these things is undeniably in the Bible. It is easy to produce other examples of statements of the impossible and internal contradictions in the Bible. The notion that any of the Bible is divinely inspired just doesn’t work.
So how then are we to understand the Bible and its authority, if any? We could reject it as a fraud having no authority whatsoever. Most of us Christians however are loathe to do that. Here’s how I  propose solving this problem in Liberating the Bible

Let me suggest that you think of the Bible as invitation. The Bible doesn’t dictate truth to us. Rather, its ancient authors say here are the experiences and understandings of some of your ancient forbears in the faith. Generation after generation of faithful Jewish and Christian people have found meaning, hope, comfort, and challenge in these pages. So come on in. Learn what we have to say. Do the difficult work of really understanding our ancient texts on their own terms. Then do your own discernment. We did ours, now you do yours. We hope that what you read here will light your path to God, but we cannot relieve you of your duty to discern God’s truth for you and your world. We don’t all say the same thing. We didn’t all understand God the same way. We didn’t understand the universe and human nature the way you do. But come on in. Learn from us. There is great wisdom here. Learn from us, but don’t parrot back what we had to say. We invite you not to rote responses and easy answers. We invite you to the hard but sacred work of study and discernment. May God be with you in that work. Amen.[3]
What I propose in this passage is that we consider the Bible to be what it truly is, a human product created by human beings as fallible as we are that contains great wisdom but to which we must bring our own minds, understandings, and questions. Once we see the Bible as not divinely inspired all of the problems with rejecting the Bible’s acceptance of slavery disappear (as indeed do a great many other problems that arise when we cling to the notion of divine biblical inspiration). We are free to read the Bible as a proclamation of God’s will for peace and freedom for every human being without getting hung up on expressions of ancient cultural ways and understandings that no longer apply in our world (if indeed they ever did properly apply to any other world, which I doubt).
Two hundred years ago many American Christians thought they could use the Bible to justify and defend slavery and the sea of horrors associated with it. They were wrong. Their use of the Bible in this way surely was driven primarily by what they perceived to be their own economic and social interests. Yet turning the Bible into a justification for the horrors of race-based slavery in the United States required an understanding of the Bible and everything in it as divinely inspired. Once that proposition is accepted seeing the Bible as a justification for slavery is nearly if not quite totally impossible. Once we understand what the Bible truly is, namely, a wholly human product, we can free ourselves from erroneous and even sinful uses of it. May more and more of us come at long last to a proper understanding of Christianity’s foundational document.


[1] Harvey, Paul, The Bounds of Their Habitation, Race and Religion in American History, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, 2017.
[2] Sorenson, Thomas C., Liberating the Bible, Revised Edition, Volume One, Approaching the Bible, Coffee Press, 2018.
[3] Id., page 211. I consider this paragraph to be perhaps the best thing I have ever written.