Jackson Free Press

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days." (James 5:1-3)

The row of houses that line this shadowy street are full of broken lives and the broken promise of the enigmatic American dream. Each house lies on a rickety foundation. The paint is slowly chipping away from the rotting wood that encompasses barely enough space for a family.

I walk down the street with my photographer friend Kate Bruce—it's so tough to take in the entire surrounding. There appears to be some level of distrust as two young white college students wander down an ever-beaten path alongside poor African Americans. But we continue. How can we respond to Christ's command to do unto the least among us if we do not witness the conditions in which they live?

Kate grabs my hand in nervousness, and we try to feign confidence. She takes some snapshots and the interest of "them" begins to heighten. As our steps turn to a brisk walk, I catch sight of a particular home—abandoned—that sits on Prosperity Street. How ironic, I thought, Prosperity Street in one of the poorest areas of our city. As Kate and I circled several angles of this house, a young woman approached us guarded closely by her friends. She inquired as to how we found ourselves on this side of town. We introduced ourselves as students working on a piece covering poverty in Jackson. I added that it intrigued us to see a street entitled Prosperity Street among a vast absence of wealth. She became pensive for a moment and thanked us for highlighting the condition of their neighbors. We parted ways and drove off in our nice SUV filled with various feelings.

I grew compelled to discuss this situation with friends and, yet, my heart told me that talking ad nauseum was not going to quell this deep-seated emotion. So, I began to ask more questions, and I came to think about God in relation to this suffering. I am reminded of a priest's quote: "Jackson has more churches than anywhere in America. But all that means is that we love to worship, just not together."

The conservative voice here—besides a select few—has a tight grip on evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity. One can drive around the city and even around the tri-county area to see these massive institutions. First Baptist Jackson maintains a parking garage along with a first-class overpass to protect their congregants. Pinelake Baptist hosts soccer fields, flat-panel TVs and stadium seating. First Presbyterian has a gorgeous complex along with Christ United Methodist's new first-rate facilities.

The result of these barriers can be damaging on two levels—it reinforces poverty and socially alienates the congregation. Imagine for a moment if all of the fund-raising for soccer fields and flat-panel televisions were redirected to community development projects. What if the congregants were forced to park their cars on the streets next to the poor instead of inside an enclosed parking garage? They could see a much larger picture of the world that so many often ignore. The socio-economically divided community could become united by their very exposure to the suffering that many of the elite ignore. But on a much more spiritual level, they would be truly living out the Christian message that is advocated by these institutions.

More importantly, the congregation could become more socially aware and politically progressive, if they altered their perspective on the church's role outside of their own community. However, it is widely admitted that these churches, in conjunction with their leadership, support a conservative worldview. And what has this conservatism led to over the past four years? Unemployment has risen to 8 million, slowing the economic growth for the poorest of Americans. The poverty rates have climbed steadily under President Bush, while they fell under Clinton. The greatest sin, though, is the millions of Americans without health insurance.

How can we justify this under the banner of a wide Christian community? It cannot be the message of Christ to support an agenda that does not radically live for the well being of others. Or can it? This must be for each community to decide. Progressive Christians cannot force this upon fundamentalists, but conservative Christians must reexamine their particular viewpoint of the Christian message. Our world depends on it.

Prosperity Street is one of those places where poverty is entrenched. Many regularly face such decisions as food or housing, health care or education. This cannot be the great society, the great compassionate world envisioned by Christ. We are called to give without qualification and without prejudgment. People on Prosperity face a grim hope—they are the human faces that sleep on streets and beg for food on the corners. As poverty tightens its grip, conservative Christians must look deep within their souls and deep within their church coffers to fully actualize their call.

John Sawyer is a senior political science major at Millsaps College. He plans to enter the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in the fall to become a Roman Catholic priest dedicated to social justice concerns.

Previous Commentsshow

Hey John, I love what you have to say. I feel like the great conundrum for us today is figuring out how to successfully build a just economy from where we are now. We need to talk about how taxes are a moral responsibility, and we need to be willing to provide more services for the community and common good. One of our greatest problems, perhaps, is that when we're in the church, we considering giving to the poor a good thing, but when we're in the political arena, giving handouts to the poor becomes a bad thing. We need to recognize that the church does (and has) set the standard for civic duty that the state should follow. In the Hebrew scriptures, helping the poor and ending poverty is the law, not just a good idea. How do we create a society in which we take less for ourselves and allow for everyone's needs to be met?

bradc

Dec 18 2004

Thanks for the comment - much appreciated! Are you a churchgoer yourself? If so, where do you go and have they implemented social justice operations? I can help if need be. John

John Sawyer

Dec 21 2004

Good stuff! I only wish that the hard heats of those who are addressed here will soften for our brothers and sisters. I pray for you and I pray that others may come after you to do the work that you and other brothers are trying to do.

muhammed

Dec 21 2004

Muhammed Are you a Jackson resident - do you attend a place of worship committed to justice? Send me your email address if you would like to work on some things in the Jackson area. Peace

John Sawyer

Dec 21 2004

Yo John, It's Brad Corban, just so you'd know. Did you read the article in the Free Press a couple of weeks ago about the Rise of the Religious Left? I had a pretty cool picture in it.

bradc

Dec 22 2004

Here's the Religious Left story, by the way. It's brought amazing comments, although we've heard that at least one talk-radio yuck said it meant that we wouldn't be allowed through the pearly gates. ;-) Also, gentlemen, this is a great dialogue here from people of different faiths. After the holiday, we are going to start our religious discussion series and would love to have you all involved. And there's some movement on putting together a group of younger people of different faiths to talk about banding together on social justice issues here. Let's use this thread to talk about some ideas for it if you'd like. And if there's something existing that people can plug into, please post info on it. I hear from so many frustrated people of faith who want their voices heard, and to make a difference.

DonnaLadd

Dec 22 2004

The problem is not fundamentalism, as you call it. There are two issues that I see at the heart of what you're talking about: 1) sin, and 2) poverty. It's obvious that poverty is bad, but not that poverty is sin; if it is a sin, you have to attribute that sin to people, or a group of people, and I think that would be impossible to do in Jackson simply because of the quantity that would entail, and the difficulty of attributing sin to collective numbers without a qualitative error. When you say "the greatest sin is the millions of Americans without health insurance", you misunderstand sin; you use it colloquially, which is to say by default that you use it improperly. I think community service is not the answer spiritually. The people in these monolithic churches are at least on the right level, supposedly--the level of the individual, communing directly with God (at least the Protestant churches). I assume that you criticize this, because they're not involving the collective outside the community in some sort of 'poverty praxis' in the local environs. But that is not their role, they feel. It's hardly easy to criticize them on this basis--but in judging them on that, we must clarify that ANY amount of time or money that is LESS than the full amount--the clothes off of our back, the very totality of life, etc., should be seen as just what it is; i.e. far less than Christ gave. So if you give 3 hours of community service each week, then you give 3/168 of what is required. If you work 0 hours of community service each, then you give 0/168 of what is required. These numbers must be looked at in the sense that 168/168 is what Christ gave for 33 years, and while 3/168 is certainly more than 0/168, it's 165 hours short of what is Christ-like, quantitatively. Thus, perhaps as people look to be spiritually enlightened, alleviating poverty should be welcomed, but also, we must look at the individual him/herself, and realize that just because one alleviates poverty, that that does not make them a more moral person--in fact, there are many psychologists and spiritualists alike who would argue that such service is often covering up some greater spiritual deficiency, perceived or real. It is clear that a person's actual morality is measured the time that they are not giving, even if they are giving 160/168 hours in a week. This is the real barometer of their spirituality. They could kill, rape, brutally torture someone in the other 8 hours, and we could fall back on "Well, they served soup, and they built houses in West Jackson, so let's give them a medal"--of course, this is absurd. It's very, very dangerous to tie in poverty with religious devotion, because it is so easy to abstract out certain values, like individual morality, and replace them with collective values, like "making everyone better off"--and the former is so much more important for personal salvation, which I think is the mission of these churches you reference; at least, as they see it.

Kevin J. Maguire

Dec 30 2004

Kevin I think you missed the total point of the article - which was well received by those that are Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic, non- Christian, and Atheist alike. The point of my article is not the perfection of Christ. Rather, it is total abrogation of Christian values - e.g. social justice programs - by those who actually claim to be Christian and following Christs call. You are attacking a well motivated article that is asking the community to do more by inserting your own inventive rhetoric that really means little to those that are starving on Prosperity Street. When we ask those of faith to attempt to follow through with what their faith calls for, we are not failing society or the individual believer or asking for a dramatic reversal in traditional Protestant dogma which concerns itself with individual salvation. Instead, I would go so far as to say that one's attention to one's neighbor is heavily tied to their own salvation. Therefore, helping the poor - in some way - is not only beneficial to those being helped, but also for the person's soul who doing the service. Thanks for your comments!

John Sawyer

Dec 30 2004

Kevin- I may be completely off base here as I am not "religious" at all; but, don't you think that giving "Christ-like" qualities an actual numerical value in hours is sorta...well, scary as hell? I've never before seen a mathematical equation that calculates whether or not someone is "Christ-like" or "Pearly Gate worthy" as I prefer to call it. I, myself, see the hypocrisy in the fact that the new church off Old Canton (don't ask me what denomination it is...I don't remember things like that) cost ten million dollars. That makes me want to vomit. You build golden altars to a God that asked you to worship in private because your relationship to him should be a personal one. In this country, Religion is for sale just like coffee, tube tops, and Hummers. It just seems to cost a lot more, look at lot better, and give less than a shit about the people they are supposed to support. John- I understand an appreciate the sentiment behind the article. In fact, I believe it wholeheartedly. In my "real" life I am a Master's level social worker who walks into the neighborhoods everyday with nothing but a clipboard and a smile. I have done this everyday for three years and have never been confronted by residents or hurt in any way. I profess no religious denomination and make no claims of being "Christ-like", but probably help, and do more, for these families than the majority of "Christian" church communities in the area. I don't want to toot my own horn because its a job for me, but I've been called a heathen and told I was going to hell more times than I can count. It was always by someone that goes to a church I couldn't find my way around without a map, drives a beamer, and wouldn't take that beamer down Prosperity Street If Jesus himself offered to lift his knickers and show us all his heaven sent ass. By the way...I was raised Catholic. I am recovering nicely. :) We need more people like you in the church. Good luck with your studies.

Lori G

Dec 31 2004

Now, where the hell is Knol? ;)

Lori G

Dec 31 2004

I have a feeling he will materialize. ;-) Hear, hear on the $10 million comment, Ali. Strikes me as a heartbreaking work of staggering hubris to spend that much dough on a building in which to worship anything, much less a religious leader so focused on helping the poor. Kevin wrote: It's very, very dangerous to tie in poverty with religious devotion, Is it really? Mustn't we? because it is so easy to abstract out certain values, like individual morality, and replace them with collective values, like "making everyone better off"--and the former is so much more important for personal salvation, which I think is the mission of these churches you reference; at least, as they see it. I don't think anyone is arguing that "individual morality" be replaced by "collective values." What I kind of hear John saying is that "collective values" (which I would argue are synonymous with "community values" -- I don't get the "outside" part who refer to) are too often *being replaced by* a rather bizarre obsession with a couple of over-hyped individual "sins" (that happen to be convenient political wedge issues for a certain wealth-focused political party). I know for me that I am much more respectful of someone who is opposed to abortion who also works to help the community -- and the unwanted children once they're born, and when they're in school and later in life. In other words, I may not agree with how other people define "sin"; however, those same people who are concerned with both the community as a whole, and its weakest members, as well as with individual morality, make a whole a lot more sense to me, and gain my respect more, than people who, well, go to $10 million churches, drive Hummers, think God blesses only Americans and then spew constantly against gay marriage. I tend to agree with the people who argue that those people just might not get it.

DonnaLadd

Dec 31 2004

And, Ali, I'll toot your horn for you for doing that kind of job. You don't have to. You make the choice to spend your time helping the needy. To me, that's heroic; to hell with the people who call you a heathen. I doubt they'll be standing next to the pearly gates making decisions on anyone's behalf. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Dec 31 2004

ali thanks for your comments

John Sawyer

Dec 31 2004

Kevin, I'm sorry but your comment has several logical failures--or rather, just plain misleading sophistries. First, you argue that poverty is not sin because 1) sin must be attributed to people, and 2) because of the quantity of people in Jackson, it would be impossible to do that, therefore, poverty is not sin. First of all, the first premise is kinda shaky on hebrew biblical grounds, as God often attributed sins--such as the state of the poor-to Israel collectively even when some of them weren't doing it, etc. But letting you have your premise, your syllogism doesn't work because the second clause merely says it'd be hard/impossible to define who exactly is being sinful--even if that's true, that just makes it hard, not something else. Second, you state that community service is not the correct spiritual answer. Your evidence: 1) That they're individually communing directly with God (at least the Protestants). Well, since that's a pretty Protestant conception of worship, you may be on to something! But I would note that even among the Protestants, reducing the whole of Christian practice to communing directly with God is the position of a tiny minority (and typically a reactionary minority I would add). Are the fruits of Christian practice just how deep an impression your butt leaves on the pew? "Faith without works is dead." 2) You state that they don't "feel" its "their role" to be involved outside their Church. Strange bringers of good news to the poor these church folks. Also, it doesn't matter much to the truth how they feel about it. 3) "in judging them on that, we must clarify that ANY amount of time or money that is LESS than the full amount" a) And here's the best part, you try to argue against community service as spiritual practice by saying that those that do service don't do enough! The answer to the human failure to approach perfection isn't to give up but to try our best. You admit here the very thesis you're arguing against. b) "just because one alleviates poverty, that that does not make them a more moral person--in fact, there are many psychologists and spiritualists alike who would argue that such service is often covering up some greater spiritual deficiency" True, but so what? Considering the scriptural commandments John quoted in his article, it seems likely that one can say that biblically speaking, if one tries to alleviate poverty one is engaging in a good act though the person may be doing it for the wrong reasons and may be sinful in other ways, but the flip-side is: if one isn't engaged in fighting for social justice, one is almost definitely immoral. Lest my comment be misleading though, I don't lean on religion for social progress. An interesting history lesson is that Luther's teachings inspired the peasants of Germany to revolt for their freedom against the heretical Catholic Church and the feudal society it supported--and then Luther turned on them and his former principles and urged the princes to kill them like one would a "mad dog." One of Luther's disciples, Thomas Muenzer, went to his death fighting to realize the kingdom of God ("the first shall be last" & "woe to the rich" and all that).

jason

Jan 3 2005

I believe you have good points that have been drawn out by other readers, principally. But let me point to just one thing that you said, that I think is utterly and completely wrong, and is a contention my rejoinder to John shows to be wrong. I do this so the reader may clearly see what your stance entails. You say, "The flip-side is: if one isn't engaged in fighting for social justice, one is almost definitely immoral." This is the exact kind of correlation I wanted to point out as being faulty--that participation is NOT a moral requirement, though may be beneficial, both to the community and to the individual. The less-than-conscious acceptance of it as a moral requirement, or in this case, your statement that it plainly is, is what I find wrong, and I think deceptive, for use by otherwise immoral individuals who wish to, excuse the expression, "score some points", apart from their otherwise sinful lives (and those are led by all, there's nothing one can do to alleviate THAT). Also, while community service or what you term "social justice" may be beneficial to the community and to the individual, it is not "morally" beneficial to either. Your contention that 1) it is IMMORAL to not do it is way off base, but the contention that 2) it is MORAL to do it is also incorrect; a moral person may do it, but that's not what makes the moral person moral; in fact, as I said, sometimes it's covering up other 'moral' deficiencies. I don't see anything moral or immoral about community service, just like I don't see anything moral or immoral about donating an organ or something--it's a good thing to do as you point out, but many times good things are done for immoral reasons. I refuse to see those who do or do not participate in community service in a different light, morally. It's a non-factor. Of course, since you say "almost definitely", that doesn't mean absolutely definitely, or anything like it, so I don't know what that indicates, and it sort of blurs your assertion that a lack of instituting social justice is immoral, on the individual level.

Kevin J. Maguire

Jan 3 2005

Hey John, Since I responded to Kevin's comment, I figured I'd go ahead and reply to your column. I actually--despite being a militant atheist and all that--agree with what your column says to a large extent, because as you know, despite now being a atheist, I know my liberation theology and radical biblical interpretation. Even though I agree with what your column says, I have a few problems with it because of what it doesn't say--which I'll get to in a minute. First off, what I agree with. The Bible on the whole quite clearly requires "social justice"--defending the weak, strengthening the poor, and all that. There are all sorts of arguments against that, but none much stronger than Mister Macquire's. It's hard to miss that whole bit about the rich man and the camel, and then the sheep and the goats. Considering that, two very important questions come to mind: 1) Why have the various Christian churches 90% of the time given very little time, energy and money to that goal? 2) Why is the world's most Christian industrial nation the one that has the worst divison of wealth and the worst violations of social justice (such as, Iraq)? There isn't an easy answer to either of those questions, but one can learn a whole lot from thinking about them. And for hopefully implicitly raising those questions in readers, I commend you John. But I think that morals and ethics are not enough--one must understand society, how it works, and what can develop out of what it is. We can take the moral of social justice from the Bible--but what's our program of action to achieve it? Is it simply encouraging believers to work for social justice--for churches to donate money? Doing so is something I support generally, as it exposes the hypocrisy of the institutional church and might create some good, but it's short of accomplishing a social revolution--which is what casting down the mighty from their thrones and putting the last first is. And I think a social revolution is stronger when it's based on class grounds rather than religious grounds--as the former is far more inclusive and objective. Further, I think a class analysis of society is more accurate and helpful than a simple moral analysis. For instance, strikes and revolts have achieved far more concrete gains for the workers than handouts from the well-off. This isn't as apparent right now because of the low level of class struggle nationally though that will hopefully and probably be changing soon (in the next several years). Further, strikes and other class-based actions empower the workers and increase their consciousness, whereas a handout may help them but it doesn't empower them as much if at all and doesn't make them aware of their ability to run society collectively. The other important note about religion is that when it comes right down to it, almost all of the time religioius leaders cast their lot with the oppressive status quo--no matter how many progressive scriptures they've quoted and no matter how much time they've spent at the soup kitchen (the same goes for progressive secular institutional leaders as well by the by). Just as I noted above, Luther's teachings inspired some peasant revolts and then he suppotered their slaughter. That's all for now, Jason

jason

Jan 3 2005

Jason First, where yah from, what is your backgrond, etc? This will help us dialogue better! Let me respond in part, then on the whole: "Considering that, two very important questions come to mind: 1) Why have the various Christian churches 90% of the time given very little time, energy and money to that goal? 2) Why is the world's most Christian industrial nation the one that has the worst divison of wealth and the worst violations of social justice (such as, Iraq)?" 1) I do not - by any stretch of the imagination - mean to exaggerate this, but the largest Christian denomination, that is the Catholic Church, is recognized as the biggest and best purveyor of restorative justice. More specifically, if you combine all of the "Protestant denomination's efforts" they do not come even close to the efforts put forth by local dioceses, Religious Orders (such as the Jesuits), Catholic Schools, Colleges, and Hospitals. This has been admitted widely by most in the social justice field. Moreover, Samuel Huntington - the noted Political Scientist who invented Conflict Theory - stated that the Catholic Church (besides prevailing Economic circumstances) was the driving force behind democratization in the Third World, especially Latin America. So, I think that it is unfair to purport that Christians are not doing their job. Rather, as my column suggested, a large portion of the ultra-Conservative Protestant denominations do not see "social justice" as their responsibility. Therefore, my column attacked not their churches or their faith, but rather their abrogation of God's commandment - to which they claim to adhere. 2) Again, America was developed under the Protestant notion (that Kevin alluded to in his reply) of individualism that seems to forget the communalism to which the Bible compels us. Ultra-Conservative Protestants - with all of their faith and all of their money - must begin to put it to use in the way of restorative justice for the worse off. When they do that, America will reclaim the Christian mission of "loving thy neighbor." I appreciate so much your call to understand psychology and sociology in light of restorative/social justice. If you are familiar with Paolo Friere's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, then you know what I mean. If not, the important thing for Americans to understand is that the "poor" are not poor or disenfranchised, but rather oppressed by an unfair system that rewards the rich and painstakenly destroys the poors climb to decent living and a fair wage. BUT, and this is a big BUT. Americans will not adhere to social revolutionary theories. This is to reminiscent of Karl Marx. Rather, we must call Americans to their roots of Christianity and ask - why are you not living out your faith? When that is done, my friend Jason, Christians will begin to reassess their political views and start to understand that the traditional governing and economic systems must be readjusted or their souls will be truly in danger. And a final note, you say that the religious leaders cast their lot with the oppressive status quo. I must draw your attention to the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, Mother Theresa's order, Archbishop Oscar Romero (who was killed in light of his fight for justice), and the many men and women who are religious leaders that do not support the status quo of oppression. Maybe we can go to Mass sometime and you can find these people and God! Thanks so much for your eloquent words and support.

John Sawyer

Jan 3 2005

Kevin, You say it "is a contention my rejoinder to John shows to be wrong." How? I responded to every argument in your comment that I noticed at least and offered what I will consider until presented with further evidence to be sound counterarguments. Your rejoinder to John didn't show anything to be wrong--it just gave sophistical arguments to confuse people into thinking John's point was wrong. You quote me saying "The flip-side is: if one isn't engaged in fighting for social justice, one is almost definitely immoral" and then you say in response, "This is the exact kind of correlation I wanted to point out as being faulty--that participation is NOT a moral requirement." I know that was your point in your comment--you did say that but you offered no good evidence for it! Your proof in this comment starts with this statement: "The less-than-conscious acceptance of it as a moral requirement...is what I find wrong, and I think deceptive, for use by otherwise immoral individuals who wish to..."score some points", apart from their otherwise sinful lives" Good things of all sorts can be used to "score points" but that doesn't make those things not good. It would be idiotic to say that just because someone did one thing good that they're a good person, but it would also be idiotic to say that because saying that a person did one thing good is idiotic one cannot call said thing good. Your next argument is "just like I don't see anything moral or immoral about donating an organ or something--it's a good thing to do as you point out, but many times good things are done for immoral reasons." This is the first argument you made that isn't transparently philsophically vacuous: drawing a difference between doing a good thing and doing a moral thing. But you still employ it in a way that deludes readers. There are those philosophers that claim that the intention in an act is the sole source of its morality--I think such philosophies are wrong, but they do have at least some evidence and arguments behind them. But even those systems would have to admit that it is morally incumbent upon people to do "all the good they can"--to help, as in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan, the stranger hurt on the road. Helping the hurt stranger may be an immoral act if one does it for selfish reasons, but excepting ignorance or inability, not helping the stranger is immoral. And helping the hurt stranger is just a particular, individual example of working for "social justice." Now, I said "almost definitely" because it does depend on one's chosen moral and religious stances whether doing social justice is incumbent upon one and I think that honest and clear readings of the bible and most other religious texts reveal obligations to seek justice--but there are philosophical and religious systems that don't--hence the almost. You say, "I refuse to see those who do or do not participate in community service in a different light, morally. It's a non-factor." Let he who has ears to hear hear. There was a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, who fell among thieves...

jason

Jan 3 2005

John, Thanks for responding. I'm going to get to the heart of our difference straight away--though if I have time I'll return to some of the side issues at the end. You say, "Americans will not adhere to social revolutionary theories" and I say tom-ah-toe. Two quick points: 1) Esp. from a religious standpoint which views divine perfection as impossible to fully achieve, I would think one wouldn't write off a goal just because it's hard! 2) I think statements like the one you make are more prescriptive (elements of systems that militate against social revolution) rather than descriptive. It's sort of cliche now, but still little known, that the American Revolution started off with a tiny minority of support. The abolition of slavery started off with even less support. The formation of the most powerful union in US history--the Congress of Industrial Organizations--started with very little support, but came to represent at its peak a significant part of the US working class (and if it had tried to organize the South, probably could've won a majority). One cannot predict the evolution of societies by looking to the most backward-in-consciousness elements or looking at it in a vulgarly democratic way (just what the majority want), but one must analyse the dynamic social forces in society, what factors are affecting them, and which are more powerful than others. History has known all kinds of transformations--and most of them have caught the majority of people off guard. In May 1968 in France, the largest general strike in history happened. And I bet if we could recall a conversation like ours in a cafe or in the local press at that time, I would be arguing that the French workers could suprise you and you would be saying they wouldn't go for that sort of thing, that where's my proof they might go on a general strike, why aren't they already striking, etc. On the surface of things, you're right--the US workers and oppressed won't go in for social revolution if you ask them. But underneath and on the surface, there are many elements of social rage, social instability, a hunger for justice and a hunger for change. And if a strong, conscious section of the working class flexs its muslce and leads the way--so a powerful union in New York fights the bosses and wins significant gains for itself and the rest of the NYC working class through a strike and other struggles, other workers will wake up and look to them for leadership. If they put forward a series of demands (such as jobs for all, healthcare for all, a full program of good schools) that unite the US working class over their common interests, put forward a program of action to achieve those demands (through class solidarity and class action), and have the leadership to guide their comrades through struggle, then things could change extremely quickly. It has happened like that before and it will happen again. Most attempts have met with failure in the long term in the past however--so it is our duty not to reject that path, but to prepare for it adequately so we can work to ensure its victory. The consciousness and power of the masses, not the church or its prayers, is the key to salvation. -- "And a final note, you say that the religious leaders cast their lot with the oppressive status quo. I must draw your attention to the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, Mother Theresa's order, Archbishop Oscar Romero (who was killed in light of his fight for justice), and the many men and women who are religious leaders that do not support the status quo of oppression." I'll just take Romero because I'm short on time, but Romero switched sides late in his life--he's the exception that proves the rule! The Vatican silenced Leonardo Boff (and others) for his teachings on liberation theology. Anyway, thanks for the polite and heartfelt nature of your reply. I appreciate your passion, even if I disagree with your (hopefully shortlived) mistrust of the power of the US and international working class. Jason

jason

Jan 4 2005

My goal wasn't specifically to make an argument (with my SECOND message on here, as opposed to the first) but to take one sentence from your message, and clarify that I didn't think it was wrong--I really left it up to the reader to fill in the, what did you call it, "vacuousness"??, with the points of the first message.

Kevin J. Maguire

Jan 5 2005

did think it was wrong, rather...

Kevin J. Maguire

Jan 5 2005

As an active member of one of the above-mentioned churches (yes, the one with the jumbotrons...sigh) and a person who does work in the city of Jackson, there are many of us within that congregation who cannot be pigeon-holed in the "conservative voice." (I hate labels...but that's just me.) I know you said...but a select few, and I by no means can speak on behalf of the staff of the church...but from my personal view, our leadership as a whole has a vision of finding our role outside the church community. In fact, at our most recent "state of the church" meeting, our minister presented a campaign due to kick off in the fall that WILL place those who may not know the face of poverty in the pits of it. We also have several ministries, one that I am actively involved in, that reach the larger community. I am grateful that we have the facilities to hold such a ministry every Sunday night. And I attribute jumbotrons to a church that has grown so rapidly in the last ten or so years that our congregation fills three services already. This by no means indicates we are better than any other, but also does not indicate that we are not thinking outside of ourselves. At the same time, we address our own community issues. (we have them and many of us are honest about them.) I have more to say, but I have to work :P Thank you for bringing poverty to the forefront in this issue. Love the "Prosperity" irony.

emilyb

Jan 5 2005