Dissing the Pledge Shows True Stripes

Many conservatives point to liberals like Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, accusing their ilk of wreaking havoc on traditional pillars of American society.

"Look at their political track records," conservatives sputter in frustration, "for all the proof anybody needs as to how they're misguiding our country."

Yet, while the Obama's and Pelosi's of the Beltway do indeed wreak havoc on social policy in our country, are they the only ones leading our country astray? Are they the ones charting the course, or are they giving voice to the warped sensibilities of significant segments of American society? Oftentimes, instead of symbols, aren't they symptoms of what's taking place within the general populace of the United States, and how ordinary voters are thinking and acting? Might liberal politicians on the national stage be not so much the cause of what conservatives identify as America's problems as they are expressions of those problems?

Take, for example, our liberal brethren's increasingly provocative animosity towards the Pledge of Allegiance. A couple of weeks ago, NBC staged a crafty little publicity ploy by omitting the words "under God" from a video montage shown at the start of their US Open golf coverage. I say publicity ploy because NBC's feeble "we forgot" excuse doesn't withstand muster, especially on a pre-produced video package which undoubtedly was scrutinized by editors paid to catch obvious mistakes like that.

Personally, I suspect NBC figured they needed something to juice up interest in their golf coverage, even if, on balance, it was negative interest. Particularly when it comes to televising a mercurial sport like golf. You know no network would pull a stunt like that before a major football game.

Is this City Named for Left-Wing Eugenics?

Then there's the majority of city council members in Eugene, Oregon, who decided the Pledge of Allegiance is divisive.

Well, maybe they've proved the Pledge can be divisive, but not in their favor, when considering how less liberal Americans have reacted to their lack of patriotism.

Councilmember Mike Clark had proposed starting each council meeting with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. He considered it an innocent nod to Eugene's few conservatives who feel as though the liberal mantra of "tolerance" ceases to apply outside Democratic party headquarters. Plus, how many other civic organizations across America already start their meetings in a similar fashion? What could be the harm?

According to six of the eight councilmembers, however, there's plenty of harm in the Pledge. One councilmember, George Brown, told Fox News that it "does not unite us," and another, Betty Taylor, compared reciting the Pledge to reading a portion of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto before council meetings.

(The next time you get frustrated with your local representatives, think about the outlandish hyperbole and vitriol you'd have to endure in Eugene, Oregon.)

Eventually, a compromise of sorts was hashed out by the council so that the Pledge could be recited before meetings close to major patriotic holidays. But the media had already gotten wind of the story, and damage to Eugene's civic reputation was about to be unleashed.

Or was it?

What are the chances any of this will hurt these local incumbents the next time they run for office? Like anyplace else in the United States, Eugene's councilmembers have been elected into office by a majority of voters. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the Council represents the mindsets and worldviews of its constituents.

Ever since 1776, this type of local, grass-roots advocacy has spread like weeds in the summer rain, affecting the voting patterns of all sorts of people on all sorts of issues. Some of it is good, and some of it isn't. Even low voter turnout influences who gets elected to offices from city halls to governorships to the presidency. Some voters become enamored by politicians who sound a lot like Rush Limbaugh, and some voters hear what they want to hear from, well, the type of people who sit on Eugene's city council.

In a way, it's rather difficult to envision how Eugene's electorate could vote for politicians they probably consider moderately liberal, like Obama and Pelosi. Neither of these two Democrats have made any extraordinary efforts to veil at least a tacit belief in God. Does it gall the left-wing people of Eugene to hear Obama end his speeches with "God bless the United States of America?"

Regular readers to this blog know that I'm no fan of Rush Limbaugh. But neither am I a fan of any farcical fanaticism which, by denying the Judeo-Christian virtues of the United States, denigrates the very values which give us our civic freedoms.

What What You Do in Freedom Says About You

Some people compare the controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance to Constitutional protections for burning the American flag. Yes, you legally have the right to refuse to recite the Pledge. And yes, you legally have the right to burn our national flag. But the performance of either of those rights doesn't mean you're not proving yourself to be ignorant of their symbolism.

To those who do it, burning the American flag may symbolize contempt for governmental policy, fury at social attitudes, or some other disagreement with a facet of American life. But the flag represents our country as a whole, not necessarily individual people in it. So if you're burning the flag, you're not just demonstrating disrespect against a group of people who may have crafted a law you dislike, but against the very people who've died so you have the right to burn it in the first place. Which kinda proves that your desire to burn the American flag says more negative things about you than the country you think you're desecrating. After all, our soldiers may have died so you could burn the flag, but does doing so respect their memory?

By the same token, the Pledge of Allegiance is a personal affirmation of the totality of America's reality, warts and all. Not wanting to recite it demonstrates a surprising lack of historical knowledge, considering how enlightened most people who disown the Pledge like to consider themselves. Read up on the Second Continental Congress and the drafting of our Constitution to learn about how America's early leaders had to put aside some closely-held opinions and compromise for the sake of the country as a whole.

That's what the United States used to represent. In a republic, it should be normal for nobody to be completely happy with everything taking place in the body politic. That's because working together in government requires compromise. Deliberately extricating yourself from the processes and challenges of unity, therefore, says more negative things about you than the country that's trying to hammer together some sort of consensus that we can all live with.

Of course, if the main reason you don't want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance has to do with its reference to God, then you're only further making a mockery of the very tolerance you claim to espouse. If you don't believe in God, then yes, you're in the minority in this country, and the rest of us will allow you to not utter those two words during your recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. And for that you should be thankful.

If, still, you disagree with the entire Pledge, then although it sounds like a trite cop-out by right-wing fringe groups, perhaps you should consider whether you might fit better in some other country than the United States of America.

And, oh yeah: like the joke says, forgo the use of any currency with "Under God" printed or stamped on it, too.

After all, you wouldn't want to contaminate your wallet.
_____

Two Bridges to Nowhere

Opportunity.

In a nutshell, it's what beckoned pioneers to America's great frontier.

In particular, Alaska and California have each come to enjoy a fabled niche in western lore. Yet as they cap our country's romance with the unexplored and untamed - the wild, unpretentious Pacific Coast a bookend to the starchy, colonial Atlantic Coast - they also share a tale far more timely.

It's a tale of how two different bridges can illustrate the fallacies of political subterfuge and economic shortsightedness; two problems increasingly plaguing our nation, and dimming hopes for future opportunity in the United States.

A Bridge to Nowhere, Literally, Plus More Pork

I'm not a big fan of risk. But neither am I a big fan of Sarah Palin. So maybe it's worth the risk of contributing to her notoriety on one of the few days her name isn't splashed across the tabloids.

Well, in bold face, anyway.

Unfortunately, these days it's become difficult to talk about Alaska without mentioning Palin. Which in a way may be fitting, since they're both the stuff of myth and legend. Take Palin's unabashed love of her adopted state, and the quality of life that makes Alaska so easy for her to enjoy.  A quality of life propped up by the very thing Tea Partiers revile most.

Ahh, yes... subsidies.

How shall we count the many subsidies Alaskans have been paid on the backs of taxpayers in the Lower 48? We could start by counting to one, since Alaska happens to be America's most heavily-subsidized state, by far. And has been for about 30 years.

Commenting today on what he perceives as a state of denial by many Americans regarding our economic predicament, Justin Webb of the BBC claims that since the rugged individualism of Alaskans comes at a steep price to the country's taxpayers, "Alaska is an organised hypocrisy."

Examples of the waste have become legendary, such as the "Bridge to Nowhere" replacing a small ferry between Ketchikan and the Island of Gravina.

You'll probably remember the "Bridge to Nowhere," Alaska's $320 million national embarrassment intended to connect Ketchikan's 8,900 inhabitants to an airport on the Island of Gravina, where 50 people live. Although the Gravina Island Bridge has not yet been built, incredibly, money remains appropriated for the project in this year's federal budget.  It could still happen.

When she was governor, Palin went ahead and authorized a $25 million road to be constructed on the island in anticipation of the bridge's eventual existence, which has become the world's most expensive cul-de-sac.  Governor Palin also ended up flip-flopping on whether a bridge was necessary and who should pay for it.  Tired of not getting straight answers from her on the subject, the media has pretty much let the issue die.

It would be unfair of me to attribute the sordid Gravina Island Bridge story to Palin alone. Actually, compared to her state's senior senator, hers was a bit part. Indeed, according to a 2008 article by Jacob Sullum for Reason.com, the notorious Senator Ted Stevens has been credited with dragging $3.2 billion in 891 earmarks from the US Treasury to Alaska between 2004 to 2008, during part of Palin's tenure as governor.

"That works out to about $4,800 per Alaskan, 18 times the national average. And earmarks represent just a fraction of federal spending in Alaska, which totaled $9 billion in 2006 alone," sputters Sullum. Earmarks which helped people like Palin enjoy an artificially high quality of life in their remote corner of the globe.

This despite the state's refusal to levy sales taxes or state income taxes to help cover their bills. In other words, taxes paid by folks in the Lower 48 were OK if directed towards Alaska, but Alaskans shouldn't be responsible for their own needs.

With this porkbarrel legacy for Alaska, you'd think people like Palin wouldn't be able to hold their head up in public, let alone pontificate on how entitlements and subsidies are wreaking havoc on our country. But apparently, Palin's good looks charm the logic out of Tea Partiers, so she gets away with it.

Meanwhile, if you think lavishing billions of dollars in entitlements on an ungrateful state like Alaska is bad, you haven't heard what's going on in San Francisco Bay.

A Bridge to Nowhere, Figuratively

Today's New York Times has a troubling account of the brand-new, $7.2 billion Bay Bridge linking San Francisco to Oakland, California. This replacement for the current Bay Bridge features what engineers say will be an iconic design, but it isn't actually being constructed in California. Or even the United States.

No, California's newest super-bridge is being built piecemeal in China by a steelworks owned by the Chinese government. Completed sections are shipped from Shanghai to San Francisco Bay, where they're being assembled by employees of Fluor Corporation, in partnership with American Bridge Corporation as the contractor of record for this project.

And how much money is American Bridge/Fluor (ABF) saving California by outsourcing the 2.2-mile span to a non-OSHA shop over 6,000 miles and one ocean away?

$400 million, or roughly 6% of the total cost.

ABF executives and California bureaucrats claim the savings will come from the experience Chinese contractors have building super-bridges, even though, um, the specific manufacturer on this project, Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company, has no bridge-building experience.

More money will be saved in labor, since Zhenhua is paying 3,000 steelworkers roughly $1 an hour.

I'm not kidding.

Something tells me that while ABF may be saving the state of California $400,000 on this multi-billion-dollar project, some people are making a pretty penny with exorbitant profits earned on the backs of skilled laborers working 12 hours a day for $12. Not that I'm against anybody earning an honest profit; however, this case, albeit described by the liberal Times, screams unmitigated greed.

I'm no union sympathizer, but ABF's corporate officials and shareholders have literally sold American labor up the river on this contract. I'm not sure ABF even entertained a bidding war with American steel unions, but there's no way any American contractor could compete with $1 hourly wages in China.

Does a $1-an-hour steelworker in China produce the same quality work as a $40-an-hour union steelworker under OSHA regulations? I guess the people who'll drive the new span in earthquake country will find out soon enough.

Meanwhile, ABF's corporate spindoctors claimed to the Times that no American company has the expertise to construct 2.2 miles of steel bridge, that the financial resources of the Chinese government overrode baser capitalistic and democratic considerations, and that increasing the participation of union labor stateside would have been more trouble than it's worth. After all, ABF already has to pay union concrete workers to pour the decking once the steel pieces get conjoined on the San Francisco job site. One American official even chuckled that the sprawling manufacturing plant in China sits on what used to be a lush orange grove. Isn't that special?

At least California didn't bother seeking federal funds for their new Bay Bridge, so you and I aren't directly paying for this travesty. The reason no federal funds were used is because they were trying to avoid the Made in America clauses restricting where they could get their material, and the state, along with ABF, already knew they were going to outsource their prefabricated bridge pieces from China.

Of course, if you own shares in either American Bridge or Fluor, then you probably don't care what I think. If you're a capitalist purist, then you probably have no problem farming projects like this offshore to countries famous for their human rights abuses and shoddy labor standards. It's all about making money, money, and more money. It's about seizing on opportunities to cut costs, exploiting people with less power and influence, and letting any negative consequences be incurred by people to whom you assume you owe nothing.

To say that our political and business leaders in America are rapidly selling away our future to China has become a trite assumption, something we can trace intellectually, but not adequately visualize. Yet San Francisco's new Bay Bridge is becoming, piece by imported piece, the literal proof of that previously invisible reality.

Pairing the two ludicrous examples of greed, shortsightedness, and civic carelessness from Alaska and California doesn't simply represent an exercise is boiling one's blood. Why can't we Americans use history to our advantage, learn from past mistakes, and make better choices to keep opportunities for the future from being squandered today?

We can neither dither away half-a-billion-dollar chunks of taxpayer-funded subsidies or float our future across the Pacific Ocean from China. For Tea Partiers, this will mean developing a realistic assessment of the integrity of our political candidates. And for corporate America, it will mean weening themselves from shareholder-centric practices and investing in strategies which sustain America's viability in the long run.

Not that America needs to develop a severely isolationist posture when it comes to globalization. We all know that wouldn't be feasible. But shouldn't we guard our assets with greater integrity, spend our tax dollars prudently, and create wealth from our own human capital?

After all, bridges are usually meant to go over something.

Not take us to the edge of a cliff and leave us there.
_____

How Do We Solve a Problem Like Vargas?

It won't go away.

The debate over illegal immigration.

This past Sunday, Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas outed himself as an illegal immigrant in a compelling autobiographical article he wrote for the New York Times Magazine.

Coming to America

Here's his basic story, in his own words:

"One August morning nearly two decades ago, my mother woke me and put me in a cab... When I arrived at the Philippines’ Ninoy Aquino International Airport with her, my aunt and a family friend, I was introduced to a man I’d never seen. They told me he was my uncle. He held my hand as I boarded an airplane for the first time. It was 1993, and I was 12.

"My mother wanted to give me a better life, so she sent me thousands of miles away to live with her parents in America — my grandfather (Lolo in Tagalog) and grandmother (Lola). After I arrived in Mountain View, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay Area, I entered sixth grade and quickly grew to love my new home, family and culture...

"One day when I was 16, I rode my bike to the nearby D.M.V. office to get my driver’s permit. Some of my friends already had their licenses, so I figured it was time. But when I handed the clerk my green card as proof of U.S. residency, she flipped it around, examining it. 'This is fake,' she whispered. 'Don’t come back here again.'

"Confused and scared, I pedaled home and confronted Lolo. I remember him sitting in the garage, cutting coupons. I dropped my bike and ran over to him, showing him the green card. 'Peke ba ito?' I asked in Tagalog. ('Is this fake?') My grandparents were naturalized American citizens — he worked as a security guard, she as a food server — and they had begun supporting my mother and me financially when I was 3, after my father’s wandering eye and inability to properly provide for us led to my parents’ separation. Lolo was a proud man, and I saw the shame on his face as he told me he purchased the card, along with other fake documents, for me. 'Don’t show it to other people,' he warned."

Vargas' grandfather had initially tried to get his son, daughter, and grandson into the United States legally by petitioning the government on their behalf as family members.  But he dropped the case when he suspected that while researching his petition, the government would find out that his daughter, Vargas' mother, was married, which was against the rules.

So Vargas' family paid a coyote, or a human smuggler, to get him here using forged documentation.  And the rest, as they say, is history.  History that probably gets written all the time these days.  We just rarely get such a poignant first-person account of the deed.

Anatomy of a Crime

And yes, while it is an emotional story, it was still a dirty deed.  On several levels.

First, we have the failure of a father in the Philippines to provide for his family and remain faithful to his wife.  It's incredibly likely that had Vargas' father been an honorable man, no immigration fraud would have been committed here at all.

Second, we have a mother willing to send her son out of the country for "a better life." What does that mean, exactly?  She's given birth to two more children who live with her in the Philippines, but are they starving or politically oppressed?  While the Philippines isn't exactly a First World country, it's not Sudan, either.

Third, we have grandparents legally residing in the United States who were willing to break the law so their grandson could grow up here instead of the Philippines.  Did they think the culture they enjoy here, and from which they draw benefits, survives on ambivalence towards sovereign laws?  Vargas describes how his grandfather would run off copies of his forged paperwork at Kinko's like they were party invitations.  Did they see the United States as being big enough to absorb their own private shenanigans?

None of this early deception was Vargas' fault. And it's to his credit that the agony over his deceit finally pushed him to confess. He's facing the real possibility of deportation, and perhaps having to adjust to a country and culture with which he's barely familiar.

He's also walked away from a promising career in journalism, but then, his grandparents didn't want him to aspire to much anyway. They knew Vargas wouldn't be able to sustain the lie if he pursued higher education, worked at prestigious media companies, and won global awards like the Pulitzer. Had he stuck to menial labor and blended into the landscape, he could have made an adequate life for himself and his wife - hopefully an American. At least, if Vargas hadn't also determined he is gay, a revelation which shot the whole marriage thing out of the water, much to his grandfather's frustration.

Love and Equity in the Balance

Does any of this sound fair?

Of course it doesn't. There's usually nothing fair about illegal immigration. Multiply Vargas' story by all the untold numbers of kids brought here illegally by their illegal parents, and you don't know whether to be furious or anguished.

But at what point are we going to decide whether illegal immigration is really a crime? I've been carrying on an e-mail conversation with a good friend who supports a traditionally Christian view of liberal absolution in these cases, much like Baptist theologian Russell Moore advocates.  On the one hand, I feel guilty for sounding like a ruthless ogre by taking a hard line against illegal immigrants.  But I also feel angry for feeling guilty - not angry at my friend, but angry at the illegals whose selfishness makes me wonder if my stance is one of selfishness as well.  But is it?  Why should I feel sorry for Vargas, when all sorts of crimes are committed every day which send their perpetrators to prison?  Does love truly overrule law in cases like this?  Should Christians, even more than anybody else, expect our government to exercise extraordinary compassion and grace over this particular crime?

To me, that sounds like amnesty.  Am I wrong?  And if Christians take the amnesty route with illegal immigration, with what other laws should we let love overrule?

And does love always overrule law anyway?  What about when parents teach morals to their kids?  When I was a toddler, I petulantly stole a toy car from some family friends we were visiting who lived half an hour away.  When we got home, my mother saw me playing with that car, and she asked me where I'd gotten it.  After learning that I had acquired the toy without the owner's permission, she put me back in her van and drove for an hour round-trip to return the car and apologize.  What would have happened if she had "let love overrule law" in this instance?

Getting Real About Immigration Laws

I guess I simply don't understand what's unBiblical about resolving the debate over illegal immigration by enforcing immigration laws.  Otherwise, don't we risk letting our country hemorrhage money and default into poverty by letting anybody who can get here avail themselves of our publicly-funded subsidies like education and healthcare?  I understand that "to whom much is given, much is required," but aren't we also supposed to be prudent with money?  Don't we have immigration laws and quotas to help manage our economy in a responsible way so we can efficiently plan for what we need and develop our social infrastructure so we can remain a vibrant country?  How can we maintain the high profitability of our economy - that makes America an attractive destination for illegal immigrants in the first place - if we can't safeguard our country's fundamental residency parameters?

Let me be clear:  I have never supported, nor can I ever imagine myself supporting, a cessation of legal immigration to the United States.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  our country needs to offer compassionate respite to people suffering persecution around the world.  We need to welcome new people to our country who will enrich our society and, reciprocally, broaden America's global social, economic, and political opportunities.  America is a nation of immigrants, and immigration has helped to make America Earth's lone superpower.

Yet even as the Statue of Liberty lifts her lamp "beside the golden doors," it would be unrealistic and irresponsible of us to tear down the drawbridge, fill the moat with concrete, and let some sort of sociopolitical migrational osmosis determine the future of our country.  Even Christ's Kingdom doesn't welcome just anybody.  Heaven isn't a come-and-go reception for a celestial bride and Groom.  National borders serve a purpose, and how is it loving to decide that purpose is irrelevant in the face of grievous human stories crafted in the pages of fraudulent immigration documents?

In This Case

Which brings us back to Jose Antonio Vargas, whose predicament has been affixed to our sordid illegal immigration narrative in real time.

If I were deciding his case, what would I do?

Since his grandfather, the mastermind of this scheme that's landed Vargas in such hot water, has passed away, and it's pointless to prosecute his aged grandmother, who likely had little part in it, there's nobody in his family here in the States to take the blame.

Since Vargas hadn't a clue about his immigration status until he became a teenager, and even then was only 16 and still not a legal adult, I wonder if the courts have any leeway in his case? Perhaps some probation equivalent to the time between when he was 16 until this year would suffice, which according to Vargas' testimonial is about twenty years?

Since the Philippines has high-speed wireless Internet and virtually all of the technology we enjoy here in the United States, would it be that punitive to his career if he were repatriated to his home country?  He could still work for a major international media company like the Washington Post or Huffington Post, just with a Manila office instead of a stateside one.  At least until he is able to procure proper authorization to live and work in the United States.  Or even become a legal citizen.

Fortunately for Vargas, he has options that shouldn't irreparably penalize his career or even his lifestyle. Even trickier solutions will be needed for the untold numbers of kids whose parents have brought them into the United States illegally, and who possess far fewer opportunities. Indeed, for these kids, whose plight only further burdens the dilemma of illegal immigration, the question of how seriously America will treat the crime their parents have committed needs to be answered sooner rather than later.

Wouldn't that be a form of compassion? Not to say that we don't love the people whose lives have been wrenched into a legal vacuum because America needs to protect our sovereignty.

But that, when we're forced, we discipline those we love?
_____

Veneer or Virtue to Illegals?

Ordinarily, I agree with Dr. Moore.

Russell Moore, Dean of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, writes a blog exploring our North American culture from a relatively reformed Baptist perspective. Last year, I was delighted to discover that Moore and I share the same alarmed conviction about conservative blowhard Glenn Beck. Moore took a lot of heat for that blog entry from many in the evangelical community infatuated with Beck, but he was right-on.

Last week, however, not so much.

This past Friday, Moore blogged about our need as evangelicals to stand down from the political contention over illegal immigration. He believes the Gospel and our rigidity towards observing sovereign immigration laws are incompatible. He characterized the infant Christ as an illegal immigrant when Joseph and Mary fled Herod's wrath to Egypt. And through it all, particularly for an academic, he commits surprising lapses in logic by floating between immigrants here legally and illegally, and how they should both be treated the same way.

If you peruse the reader feedback on his blog, you'll find some astute rebuttals to the most obvious flaws in Moore's argument. For example, could the Holy Family have been illegal immigrants when Egypt had no immigration laws or quotas? Can we pick and choose which laws we're going to support when they don't explicitly contravene God's holy laws? And who in the evangelical community has officially expressed an interest in deporting legal immigrants?

Yes, we are to show compassion to the "sojourner and stranger." But at the same time, most of the "sojourners and strangers" coming to the United States are not fleeing political or religious persecution. They are not simply passing through our country, on their way to a farther destination. Nor are they really even strangers any more, since they are being aided and abetted by political liberals, slave labor employers, and even human traffickers in the United States.

To be fair, Moore does not actually come out and advocate for granting blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants. And he acknowledges that evangelicals have varying - and deeply-held - political viewpoints on this subject. In addition, he legitimately criticizes a racism that persists in mostly-white evangelical congregations from Seattle to Miami which likely contributes to the attitude of intolerance he, albeit inaccurately, attributes to the immigration debate. I have to agree with Moore's suspicion that a lack of love motivates much of the closed-border rhetoric.

Yet the overall language of his blog entry describes a mindset which pooh-pooh's the how's and why's of illegal immigration. His perspective, at least as he's conveyed it, lumps all immigrants together regardless of their legal status. And ironically, he strikes an accusatory tone against those of us in the evangelical community who have become frustrated with our society's continued mish-mashing of this issue, exemplified by Moore himself.

Racism With a Twist

While Moore correctly diagnoses a strain of racism in America's border debate, it's not just white bigotry that's in play.  Consider, for example, that most of the illegal immigrants in the United States today are Hispanic, having traversed the natural land bridge connecting South and North America.  Although they've risked robbery, rape, and murder along the way, they've had a relatively simple commute to America, at least compared to people who might want to emigrate here from Africa or Asia.  El Salvadorans, Brazilians, and Mexicans don't have an ocean to cross to get here.  Which means letting our southern border act as a damaged sieve is akin to, as our liberal brethren would otherwise accuse, racial profiling. 

Sound far-fetched?  Think about it.  By failing to enforce our land borders, we're creating an unfair advantage for illegal immigrants from Central and South America at the expense of Africans and Asians who might come to America illegally.  Most people traveling to the United States from Rwanda or Bangladesh arrive through a seaport or airport, where their identification and travel authorization will be checked.  Yet how many more immigrants from war-torn countries in Africa, or from nations like Indonesia known for religious persecution, could more accurately be described as political refugees instead of ordinary immigrants?  And therefore, probably more worthy of sanctuary in the United States, despite what our quotas say?

Meanwhile, millions of Hispanics have crossed into our country not as political refugees or dying of hunger, but simply looking for better work. Speaking as one of the chronically under-employed, I can understand the desire to improve one's economic lot in life.  But from both a sociopolitical and a Biblical standard, breaking sovereign laws to find a better job doesn't stack up against religious persecution, genital mutilation, and other crimes against humanity that we know are being endured by people in other parts of the world.

Even hinting at amnesty - however granted or "earned" - for illegal immigrants is a slap in the face of those who might desperately need to be resettled in the United States not for just a better livelihood, but for a better life, period.  How many openings in our legal immigration quotas are being denied people in real need so that we can accommodate the illegals who've, in effect, butted into the head of the line?

As it stands, winking at illegal immigration from our southern neighbors could be considered a form of fraudulent humanitarianism.

Repatriation as an Economic Development Tool

Consider, too, that amnesty is not a responsible, proactive social or political policy.  It does not improve employment conditions for illegals already working in the United States, because as long as the border is open, fresh supplies of undocumented workers will continue to displace documented workers.  After all, even though a lot of business owners claim they can't get legal Americans to do the work they can get illegals to do, the reason isn't so much because Americans are lazy, but that American workers know they are due at least a minimum wage and OSHA protections.  If an employer knows he can pay $5 cash per hour and not have to worry about illegal workers reporting him to OSHA, who do you think he's going to hire?

If America repatriated the illegal immigrants already in this country, couldn't we actually be helping to expand economies in the poorer countries south of our border? After all, those governments have been reaping the rewards for years of not investing in their nations, while receiving receipts their citizens working illegally in the United States have been sending home. Isn't it about time we started forcing these corrupt governments and officials to take responsibility for the economies, educational systems, and social services of their countries? By sending home millions of people who've seen how effective a functioning democracy can be - despite our problems - isn't is possible that real change could begin to sweep through their perennially defunct homelands?

Of course, this is exactly what many of those governments don't want: real change. They're happy with the status quo; of having disillusioned citizens - people for whom they can't provide basic services anyway - leaving for greener pastures. Who cares if they go into America illegally? If they're so unhappy at home, chances are they could be troublemakers, agitating for economic and political change that would upset their autocratic applecarts.

How is this scenario humanitarian? How does this help to solve the nagging problems plaguing most countries in Central and South America? If millions of prime working-age people are leaving their families behind in impoverished countries, who's going to be taking care of their parents as they age? How does glossing over the problems illegal immigration creates in the United States help solve the problems we don't see in the countries these illegals have left behind?

Taking Christ to the Nations

And if we're talking about evangelizing illegals - one of the strategies Moore advocates, and against which I can't argue - couldn't repatriation help here, too?

After all, spreading the Gospel by sending believers back to their homelands could send a powerful message of trusting in God instead of jobs. In terms of practicality, it could also help keep Anglo missionaries out of harm's way, as believers returning to their native countries might be able to elude the unwanted attention white Americans might attract during the brutal drug wars ravaging that part of the world.

Shouldn't we be teaching that breaking the law is not a virtue? If and when God redeems to Himself people who are illegal immigrants, wouldn't it be appropriate for them to recognize that their presence in the United States hasn't been secured legally? How would the whole pattern of conviction, repentance, and restoration work in this situation?

And doesn't granting amnesty based on economics also throw a kink into the whole "love of money is the root of evil" thing? In other words, don't we perpetuate our society's over-reliance on money, jobs, and affluence by saying illegal immigration can be justified just because someone wants a better job? Upon Whom, or what, are we teaching illegals to trust?

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin?

To the extent that evangelicals need to treat all individuals as people created in the image of God, yes, we need to heed Moore's exhortation to exhibit God's grace to illegal aliens in the United States. But is grace a license to sin? That's not what we teach our kids, is it? What about criminals behind bars in our country, some of whose crimes were less heinous that violating sovereign boundary laws? What message does writing off the crimes of people who aren't even citizens of this country send to people who suffer proper penalties in our judicial system?

We all benefit from the fact that God's love doesn't always look like ours. I confess that I have not been consistent in my benevolence, particularly when it comes to people I think may be illegally living in this country. And to my shame, I'm not exactly a model of graciousness. So I've got things to work on in this situation, too.

But I can't help but rely on the testimony of a former co-worker of mine from Costa Rica who, for twenty years, jumped through all of the immigration hoops to live, study and work in the United States legally.

Finally, an immigration officer told him unofficially that his chances of securing citizenship were not bright, because he had mastered English and obtained a PhD in engineering. He wasn't a manual laborer our government could easily ignore; he was an educated, driven person who could take away jobs from Americans.

Our immigration system is rife with inequities. Maybe I'm a bad Christian, but I fail to understand how blithely dismissing illegal immigration under the guise of compassion rectifies any of them.
_____

And Now, for Something Completely Different

Anthony Weiner.

The Dallas Mavericks.

Casey Anthony.

A hockey riot in Vancouver.

The late Aaron Spelling's $150 million mansion in Los Angeles.

Bono's $70 million Spiderman opens on Broadway.

Meanwhile, the killings in Africa of both ethnic and evangelical Christians continued this week, as Muslim fanatics pursue their religious cleansing of northern Nigeria and Sudan.

At least one house church in Beijing, China, was raided this past weekend by government authorities and several of its members reportedly remain in jail.  In China's capital city alone, up to 300 Christians have been jailed between this past Easter and this last weekend.

And news came to light this week that a blind Christian lawyer and his wife in Linyi, China, were severely beaten earlier this spring in apparent retaliation for the family's attempt to inform the outside world of their treatment by Communist authorities.

Like most Americans during most any week, we evangelicals have been lapping up the piffle and drivel of our pop culture, consumed by a crush of television, Internet, and newspaper coverage on a wide range of compelling social, political, and economic dramas.  But I suspect that if you're anything like me, you've been unaware of the persecution some of our fellow believers have been suffering in other parts of our world.

Even this week.

Having so much news from our Western society available at our fingertips and eyeballs isn't necessarily a bad thing, and to a certain degree, we need to be informed about events taking place around us so we can effectively navigate our spheres of influence, however broad or narrow those may be.  And oftentimes, we're unwitting victims of media overload, as in the perversions of the now former representative from New York.

But let's not forget the people of faith who are living life along with us, but in different parts of the world, who don't enjoy our freedoms and luxuries; who claim the cross of Christ under assurance of not only God's grace, but the attacks of their neighbors and government officials.

Why has God placed those people in those countries to suffer those dreadful conditions?  And why has He given us lives of relative affluence and ease?  Because He's God, and we're not, and He will provide the same love and spiritual fruit to His suffering servants as He will those of us far removed from persecution's reach.  Not that our own troubles and trials don't matter to God.  But they may matter less to us, no matter what we're going through right now, if we put them into perspective.

God's promises are the same to all of His children, no matter where we live, or what trials we do or don't face.

Which means you and I are just as much responsible for living our lives to God's glory as our brothers and sisters in China, Africa, and elsewhere, who are suffering for their faith even as you read these words.

Arise, LORD! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless. Why does the wicked man revile God? Why does he say to himself, "He won't call me to account"? But you, O God, do see trouble and grief; you consider it to take it in hand... You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry..." - Psalm 10:12-14a, 17a

Thanks be to God! Amen.
_____

Of Race and Riots

I'm gonna be frank.

If the riots in Vancouver last night have taught us anything, it's probably that whites can be just as destructive and violent as blacks during these senseless urban tirades. It just takes the right sport to juice up the crowd.

Yesterday, it was hockey, which pretty much remains a white boy's game.

Watching your favorite hockey team, with 70,000 to 100,000 of your closest friends, lose the final championship game obviously would be fairly disappointing, whether you were white, black, or purple-polka-dotted. And since our North American society, including evangelicals, has pretty much embraced an alcohol culture, having a bunch of drunken young adults refusing to accept responsibility for their actions and emotions is not terribly surprising, either. But it's still disappointing, as Vancouver residents have been lamenting all over the Internet today.

In the United States, regardless of it being wrong to do, many whites almost expect blacks to riot after major sporting events in places like Detroit. But last night's mayhem didn't take place in a gritty minority-majority neighborhood, or a rust-belt downtown district. Vancouver is a glassy, ultra-modern, and urbane Canadian metropolis with political correctness oozing out of its pores. Socially tilted towards the liberal side of life, the last host city for the Winter Olympics boasts multiple modes of mass transit, bike lanes, aggressive environmental initiatives, and audible traffic signals for blind pedestrians.

It's not a hotbed of racial tension or a poverty-stricken shell of economic malaise. It's the polar opposite of Detroit in almost every way.

Yet there they were last night, white folk jumping up and down on cars they'd tipped upside-down. Smashing windows, cheering each other on, taunting police officers, and looting. Look - there are some others, posing in front of burning vehicles, displaying a bravado as though they'd conquered some hostile invader. With lots of other white folk standing by, laughing, taking photos and videos with their smartphones.

In Vancouver, Canada.

We're reminded that back in 1994, Vancouver had a similar disturbance that injured about 200 and caused over $1 million in damage, mostly in broken store windows.  Then as now, it was over losing the Stanley Cup. In addition to the two hockey riots Vancouver has hosted, some quick research reveals that a handful of other riots have taken place because of a hockey game.  There were two after each University of Minnesota hockey championships in 2002 and 2003, and 6 in Montreal and other Canadian cities dating all the way back to 1955. Czechoslovakia experienced some hockey riots in 1969, but some of that violence was rumored to have been incited by the Communist secret police.

Perhaps it's racist of me to admit that when I first looked at the photos and videos coming out of Vancouver, what struck me more than anything was all the white skin.  Some of Vancouver's civic defenders have tried to blame some of the violence on the city's minorities, but from the media I've seen, there hasn't been a black person anywhere.  Maybe some guys of Asian heritage, but no, this was a 95% white crime spree.  And it wasn't all white guys, either.  Don't you think the parents of this participant are really proud of their little baby girl now?


You know she'll want to include this photo on her resume. (photo credit: Associated Press)

Of course, this has been among the first hockey riots which have been extensively documented by the participants.  Which means the future looks very, um, bright for amateur journalism.  Since Vancouver is on the west coast, and the game was being played in Boston, it was still light enough in Vancouver when the game ended - and the rioting commenced - for the world to get crystal-clear images.  And since some photos show the darkness of the night, these hoodlums didn't just run down the block once or twice and go home; they where there for quite a while, smashing and burning to their hearts' delight.

Vancouver's police chief, desperate to save face after some have complained that his department should have anticipated trouble after 1994's riot, says that yesterday's violence was perpetrated by anarchists intent on roiling Canadian society.  But if pictures tell 1,000 words, instead of professional rioters, I see a bunch of petulant white folk not making a political statement, but letting their inhibitions run wild in a profoundly anti-social manner.

Normally I don't look at world events through a lens of racism, yet this time, isn't the lesson hard to ignore?  In the white community, it's all too easy to watch some people of color rioting and sneer at their lawlessness in a prejudicial manner.  But to the extent that human nature is bathed in sin, we need to learn that whites can be just as vile, destructive, illogical, and uncivilized as people we think are different from us.

What separates races isn't as great as we think it is.  That's the good news.  Unfortunately, it sometimes takes repugnant episodes like Vancouver's to help prove the point.
_____

Theology of Fun

So I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany him in his work all the days of the life God has given him under the sun.  - Ecclesiastes 8:15


"Come on, Daniel! It'll be FUN!"

Over the back fence, I could hear Charlotte, my three-year-old neighbor, trying to coax her older brother into playing with a new water toy their mother had bought them. And with temperatures yesterday in the 90's by mid-morning, it shouldn't have even taken that much cajoling to get Daniel playing in the cool water.

But fun is what Charlotte wanted, and she thought two kids splashing around would be twice as much, well, fun. And after a bit more prodding, their mother was soon asking the two of them not to splash her so much!

Fun. How many times have you talked somebody into doing something with the same logic? Or consoled somebody who let one bad experience mar an otherwise enjoyable time with, "well, at least you had fun the rest of the time."

Fun.

"Did you have fun?"

"We had so much fun!"

"It was a fun thing"

Fun, fun, fun.

It's become ubiquitous in our post-modern lexicon, so much so that most of the time, we're probably unaware of the amount of times we use the term in everyday conversation. In our church bulletin this past Sunday, "fun" was used to describe two different events being promoted.

Generally, we consider "fun" to be a positive thing, and use the term as an affirmation of something worthwhile and, sometimes, even something we deserve. We seek it, we revel in it, we want it for others, we'll even pay more for it that it's really worth. "Fun" is even like money - we're usually never quite satisfied with the amount of "fun" we manage to have.

Are We Having Fun Yet?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word "fun" dates from the 1680's, when it was a verb meaning to trick, or create a hoax.  You may have heard country folk with a rural dialect use this definition when saying "he's just funning you," meaning he's simply pulling a practical joke for amusement.

Most of us, however, use the term "fun" to describe something that's a pleasurable diversion, or an enjoyable activity. It's become as much a part of our life as anything else we do, even if we don't have as much of it as we'd like. We're taught that "fun" is even good for us, because all work and no play can lead to heart disease. Which puts people who find hard work "fun" in particular danger.

But has "fun" become excessively important in our entertainment-driven, narcissistic culture?

After all, Westerners probably enjoy the most "fun"-saturated society the world has ever known. Amusements, pleasures, and frivolities have been part of most civilizations since the Garden of Eden, and "fun" itself is not sinful. Yet even as we like to think our 21st-Century life is getting more burdensome and complex, we also expect our "fun" to be even more sophisticated, and as abundant as possible. We're told that we deserve to have "fun" because of how hard it is to earn an income and afford everything we're supposed to afford.  "Fun" is payback for all of the menial, conventional, responsible, unexciting chores that we wish we didn't have to do.

Wasn't That Fun?

It's not that God doesn't want His people to have "fun," even though the word isn't in the Bible.  God's Word includes numerous references to religious feast days, weddings, shared meals, and even sex, which were designed to be what we today would call "fun." God made a planet for us filled with natural beauty, and He's gifted people with creativity to express His craftsmanship and artistry for us to enjoy.

Isn't it hard to repress a smile upon hearing the delighted pleasure of a child? Isn't it hard to frown at good, clean humor? Isn't it hard to ignore the peaks of the Rocky Mountains or marvel at the incessant tides? Hasn't God designed us to appreciate "fun?"

But like everything else He created, we tend to overdo it, don't we?

We love money, even though money in and of itself is neither good nor bad. We fornicate, even though sex is a divine gift. And we let ourselves be driven by "fun," even though it's not really guaranteed anybody.

After all, how much "fun" do you think the underground Church is experiencing in China, the Middle East, and Indonesia these days? How about cancer patients down at your local hospital? Or forgotten senior citizens at your local nursing home?

"Fun" is not a reward for working hard, because plenty of people work hard in desperate conditions for little else but the misery of a similar tomorrow. Hundreds of children in China, for example, are being poisoned by unregulated lead pollution, and their parents who work in the factories contaminating their villages weep in agony over the fate of their sickened offspring.

Many Americans have been trained in how to hear words of sorrow about the unfortunates around the world coping with tragedy and dismal living conditions. We listen, we react with an appropriately grim shaking of our heads, and then we bounce back to whatever we're pursuing that will lead us to "fun."

Part of this, of course, is acknowledging the sovereignty of God, and that He is in control of all of these situations. Many of us who contribute financially, or even go on short-term mission trips, actually make a demonstrable commitment to help alleviate these stories of suffering. And to a considerable extent, to become wrapped up with all that's wrong in this would would make all of us blithering idiots, unable to process all of the good around us, and unable to appreciate God's provision for us.

Take the Fun Out of It

Yet I can't help but wonder how some of our fellow believers in other parts of the world would react when they hear we North American evangelicals gush so much about "fun." Is God disproportionately blessing us with "fun," while unfairly forcing His other children in China, Egypt, and elsewhere to endure torture and death on a daily basis?

Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest otherwise, doesn't it, as you hear the same stories I have about how the underground Church in persecuted countries is flourishing. While the North American Church stagnates and festers.

Might it be that we're not appropriating the blessings God has for us in the freedoms and comforts we enjoy here as much as the persecuted Church is appropriating God's blessings despite their circumstances? How much are we taking for granted, or think we deserve? How spoiled have we become?

Just as the writer of Ecclesiastes commends to us the enjoyment of life, let us not forget the parable Jesus told of the rich farmer:

And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'

"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." '

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'"

"This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." - Luke 12:16-21

How can we reconcile these two descriptions of "fun" in the Bible? I think it's in the concept of joy, which as you'll notice, is actually absent in the story of the rich farmer. He was self-assured, enjoyed pleasure, and reveled in abundance, but he was not content. He hoarded without giving to others, two characteristics of people who lack the joy of contentment and service.

The man in Ecclesiastes may have been poor, or he may have been rich, but in this case, it doesn't matter, because he was GLAD. He was content in the Lord's goodness, whatever that looked like.

Nowhere in the scriptures are we directly told to have "fun." But we are told to be glad.  Of course, depending on your personality, being glad and having "fun" may or may not be mutually exclusive.  But I'd rather be able to be glad in circumstances that aren't otherwise "fun," rather than needing to have "fun" in order to be glad.

Splitting hairs? I don't think so. Daniel, while in the lion's den and the fiery furnace, probably wasn't having much "fun," but he was joyful in the Lord.

Those of us who can have both "fun" and joy at the same time are truly privileged. Yet isn't that privilege just one of God's many graces and mercies? How can we take that for granted?
_____

Harmony or Texas Turkey? Part 2

For Part 1, click here

Still under construction after supposedly opening in January, this Harmony campus in far southwest Dallas enjoys a prime hilltop site.


So, who exactly is Fethullah Gulen?

Is he the sickly billionaire living in self-imposed exile among Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains, or is he the mastermind of massive immigration and construction fraud involving cultish followers from Turkey?

Depending on whose blog you read, he's either a fanatical brainwasher, or the world's best hope for reconciling all religions in tolerance and respect.

He's been linked with Microsoft founder and education mega-philanthropist Bill Gates, but how much can be made of that relationship, since Gates' foundation gives millions to all sorts of educational endeavors, not just Gulen's?

When he was both governor of Texas and president of the United States, George W. Bush was believed to have been a close friend of Gulen's, and a primary figure in the push to broaden charter school options in Texas and across the country.  Influential Texas State Senator Jane Nelson is one of several Texas legislators whose trips to Turkey Gulen has funded.  And Bush's close friend, confidant, and political adviser, Karen Hughes, is now directing a public relations campaign to secure further financial and political support for Gulen's Harmony schools in Texas.

But true to his claims of being a person of peace and tranquility, Gulen has spread his wealth among politicians of both Democratic and Republican persuasions, claiming, among other liberal luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton as personal friends. Which, along with his relationship with Clinton's successor, pretty much solidifies Gulen's span of the political spectrum in terms of his influence in the United States.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

It doesn't take much searching on the Internet to find a host of government watchdogs, public education advocates, and thinly-veiled Islamophobes who are appalled at the relatively easy and surreptitious way in which Gulen and his followers have ingratiated themselves among America's political elite. I suppose almost anybody able to throw money around like Gulen can attract a crowd of politicians eager to do their bidding. Nevertheless, in our post-9/11 world, Gulen appears to have a remarkable ability to either capitalize on political correctness or convince budget-stressed legislators that he's harmless.

Judging by the opening and closing paragraphs on a page on one of Gulen's own websites, I think his critics have some valid concerns.  Perhaps we Americans haven't been suspicious and vigilant enough when it comes to who we're letting educate our kids:

"Focusing on the acquisition of knowledge considered to be essential to future careers, schools rarely consider ethics and values as part of the curriculum. This lack, coupled with a materialistic perspective toward educational outcomes, has contributed to the sense of a moral crisis in the U.S. and in its schools. In response to this crisis, a character education movement has attempted to instill virtue into U.S. students. Similarly, another education movement has arisen, that of Fethullah Gülen. This movement has founded hundreds of schools around the world, seeking to integrate science and spirituality in an attempt to raise a "Golden Generation" of individuals who will usher in a world of peace and harmony...

"...Many have been inspired by Fethullah Gülen to spend their time and wealth to establish schools of excellence. Why?...In part, it is due to Fethullah Gülen himself. His stories, his moral example, and his teachings inspire others to take action, to sacrifice, and to serve humanity rather than themselves. From Gülen (2000), we read:

'...Preferring the sacred cause over all worldly and animal desires; being steadfast in truth, once it has been discovered, to the degree that you sacrifice all mundane attachments for its sake; enduring all hardships so that future generations will be happy; seeking happiness, not in material or even spiritual pleasures, but in the happiness and well-being of others; never seeking to obtain any posts or positions; and preferring oneself to others in taking on work but preferring others to oneself in receiving wages-these are the essentials of this sacred way of serving the truth.' (p. 84)  - Charles Nelson (one of Gulen's admirers)

Oh, my!

Nelson writes that "Fethullah Gülen...seek[s] to integrate science and spirituality in an attempt to raise a 'Golden Generation' of individuals who will usher in a world of peace and harmony."

If that doesn't sound like some sort of New Age mumbo-jumbo tantra of peace, love, and happiness, I don't know what does. The Bible warns us that in the last days, "while people are saying, 'peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (1 Thessalonians 5:3). So right away, I'm suspicious of Gulen.

Nelson also relishes some of Gulen's revered sayings which envision a world in which people do not work in executive positions or get paid for their work. Now, while some people may view the hierarchical structure of capitalism in a negative light, there's nothing unBiblical about competent people seeking for and working in positions of authority. Nor is there anything unBiblical about being paid for one's work; in fact, God expects both employers and employees to be extraordinarily fair with each other, both in the quality of work produced, and the pay given for that work. From Gulen's own writings, it sounds like his vision of world peace is having everybody sit around all day in some sort of Sharia stupor.

What Your Definition of "Is" Is

Part of this goes back to what I was discussing the other day about the difference in definitions of words and concepts between cultures. Americans hear "peace" and "harmony" and envision a world without wars because everybody is busy working to provide for their family and contribute to society. Gulen - and many radical Muslims - hear "peace" and "harmony" and they envision a world in which everybody does what they say must be done.

Can you see the difference? Americans generally have a macro, or broad view of peace and harmony, whereas Muslims generally have a micro, or personal view of peace and harmony.

It would be dangerous to assume we're both talking about the same thing.

Don't Panic - Yet

We will all have to conduct much more research before it can be determined if taxpayers are selling away our future by letting Gulen and his Harmony schools pillage our public education funding. If, indeed, they're even doing that.

And I'm not going to reveal - at least right now - what things Saul, of the New York Times, and I discussed which sparked her continued pursuit of this story in Texas. It's her scoop, and if she finds anything more to report, I'll pass it along.  I'm not sure she'd be too crazy about what I've already said on this subject anyway.

I do think, however, that we need to seriously consider some of the ways that we've gotten ourselves into what seems to be the start of a pretty messy patch of pro-Islamic ideology in Texas' public classrooms. In particular, I wonder the extent to which the flourishing homeschooling and private school trends in this state have contributed to evangelical Christian parents dropping out of local public school decisions, thereby paving the way, through their absence, for misguided doctrine to creep in the back door. Because after all, if Gulen's influence in public education gets as bad as it appears it might, Christian homeschoolers might actually uniquely suffer from the cultural changes Gulen-indoctrinated schoolkids perpetrate on our Judeo-Christian society when they become old enough to vote.

Another finger should be pointed at our elected officials in Texas, who for years have kicked the proverbial ball of school funding into somebody else's legislative term. It's no surprise that Texas is facing a worsening education crisis, because experts have been warning for years that this shortfall was coming.

Like most people, Texans hate taxes, but unlike many Americans, Texans don't understand that you can't always cut budgets to avoid raising taxes. Or that - pardon me while I grind this axe - reducing fat in school spending must include reducing the ridiculous amounts of money Texans want their schools to spend on football programs. A lot of Texas voters still assume that even after years of scrimping and cutting, most school district budgets remain bloated, but considering all that we're asking schools to provide for our communities - from breakfasts to instruction in multiple languages - can we still afford to compromise education quality?

Regardless of how we've gotten to this point, it's obvious that school funding relief is so desperately needed that elected leaders don't fully vet the form that relief could take.  Hence the Texas legislature's giddiness over Gulen's Harmony organization.  Funding for Texas schools is one of those issues that Gulen has apparently seized upon as a weak spot to exploit for his own religious ends.

Signed by Republican David Dewhurst and Democrat Royce West, this certificate from the Texas State Senate gushes about Dallas' wonderful new Harmony school that opened this past January... but it still under construction.

OK, I Admit It

Thirdly, I suppose by now it's no secret that I'm not crazy about the Muslim religion, if indeed it can even be called one. I realize mine is not a politically correct position to take, but I think it's a position which has a legitimacy based in fact. We need to be realistic about the likelihood that the patterns of violence and civil rights abuses perpetrated by adherents of Islam across the globe aren't random acts of aggression but indicative of the ugly side of Muslim totalitarianism that defy conventional attempts at moderation.

We need to understand that Islam is not simply a religious faith, but a worldview designed for universal domination. Does because this worldview isn't expressed equally potently in all of its adherents deny its core reality? Some Muslims may be as backslidden or marginally-devout as many backslidden Baptists or marginally-devout Jews. But from what I've read and observed in the worldwide expression of Islam, their backslidden brethren are the impotent minority.

I believe this means that we need to be exceptionally careful when it comes to the extent to which we allow Muslims - particularly Muslims as intentional as Gulen - to perpetrate their beliefs and advance their goals with tax dollars.

This School Lesson is to Not Ignore Our Schools

Could it be that once Gulen dies and his memory fades, his Turkish contractors and teachers will find the welcome mat being rolled up here in Texas and across the United States? Might significant numbers of parents, upon identifying the patterns of anti-American bias in Gulen's schools, start putting their kids back in conventional educational environments? If the facilities these Turkish construction companies are building start falling apart before their time, might public school officials finally realize they're not getting as much of a bargain as they thought?

Considering Gulen's remarkable ability to accomplish so much, so soon, and so quietly, using charter schools in the United States, don't count on the media to keep us updated on his progress. Gulen's obviously either been flying below their radar, or has managed to convince them he'd bore their audience. And don't be suckered into hoping a Muslim will be able to bring your definition of peace and harmony to the world. At least, not through America's public school system.

We like to think our military is good enough to protect us from our enemies. What if, however, our lack of vigilance over our educational standards proved to be America's downfall?

After all, if the Islamic militants can't overthrow America through terrorism, why not try going through the next generation of our school children?
______

Harmony or Texas Turkey? Part 1

Part 1 of 2

I'm not a real investigative journalist, but I play one on the Internet!

Yesterday, I got into an informative e-mail exchange with the author of an investigative article for the New York Times. Staff reporter Stephanie Saul had one of the day's top stories on the Times' website exploring, of all things, a Turkish invasion of the public school system in Texas.

Good grief, I though to myself - what is that all about?

Living in Perfect Harmony?

Seems as though for the past decade, a group called the Cosmos Foundation has been building - literally - a little empire of charter public schools in the Lone Star State. Started by an elite clique of Turkish professors and businessmen, the Cosmos Foundation has been able to impress legislators across Texas with promises of stellar academic achievement at relatively low taxpayer expense. And here in Texas, where many residents take great pride in their conservative, anti-tax mindsets, anything that can be done to kill two birds with one stone, such as paying for a much-reviled public school system on the cheap, sounds like a good deal.

Except in this case, we might be getting what we're paying for. 

As it happens, some prominent leaders of the Cosmos Foundation are devout followers of a moderate yet politically-driven Turkish guru named Fethullah Gulen and his eponymous sect of Sufi Islam. Gulen himself lives in a retirement home in Pennsylvania, having been kicked out of Turkey, but his followers run educational organizations around the world in his name. And their biggest presence in the United States has come in the form of taxpayer-funded charter schools. Which in Texas, are branded with the blithely blissful name of "Harmony."


The panoramic view, from one of the highest hilltops in north Texas, looks out over two lakes, the city of Arlington, and the Fort Worth skyline.

Harmony! I knew I'd heard that name in relation to a school before. There is a Harmony school being constructed in far southwest Dallas, near a recently-developed area of middle-class subdivisions. Some friends of mine live close by, and another friend sells brand-new custom homes in the area. None of my friends, however, know much about the group building this sprawling, multi-story "Harmony" campus straddling a prime hilltop with sweeping views. They know it's a charter school, but it's not like any public school - charter or not - that's been built in north Texas before. 


The entrance rotunda remains incomplete, despite the atypical gold-framed portraits of state officials already hung on the walls.

In addition to its odd site, since the hilltop property must have been extraordinarily expensive for a new school, this building features a three-story design with unusual open porticoes on either end.

For a public facility, it also appears that construction methodologies have been rather slipshod. As I've passed by to visit my friends in the area, I've noticed interior walls being constructed - presumably with drywall - before windows were installed, which didn't make much sense. Builders have also strung an expensive ornamental fence along most - but not all - of the property, which means it's not securing anything. In these days of tight education budgets, it seems too lavish an expense for just another public school.

Jobs for the Boys?

Which brings up one of the main points from Saul's story. The Turks running Harmony schools have made a noticeable habit of hiring Turkish contractors to build many of their campuses, regardless of whether they submitted the lowest bid, or were qualified to do the work. Harmony administrators have also been accused of relying on teachers imported from Turkey, instead of hiring American educators. In a time when American schools are laying off highly-skilled and tenured staff, why does Harmony feel the need to look to Turkey for teachers?

Granted, some of the growing concern about the Harmony schools might be a result of pro-union sentiment, with construction and teacher unions feeling threatened by Harmony's preference for fellow Turks. But Texas is a right-to-work state, one of the least-union-friendly states in the country, so if the concern over Harmony schools was mostly union-driven, it would have already been considered as little more than a tempest in a teapot down here.

Although, actually, it seems the debate is just beginning.

Doesn't Something Seem Fishy?

Saul's article triggered an avalanche of responses from readers, many of whom blasted her and the Times for publishing what they viewed as a biased piece of junk journalism. Of course, reader responses can never be considered a substitute for legitimate journalism, because corroborating the identity and intent of respondents is almost impossible.

But they can indicate how disconnected people may be from reality.

For example, parents claimed that putting their kids in their neighborhood's new Harmony schools was producing miraculous results in terms of scholastic achievement. But one wonders if their choice had been between Harmony and a poorly-rated public school, might their imagination tell them a big quality difference exists even when in reality, it doesn't?

Parents also insisted that the Harmony curriculum wasn't laced with Gulen theology or propaganda, as if cultish brainwashing always takes place out in the open. They also failed to recognize that the Harmony schools have only existed for a decade - many for less than five years - while sophisticated indoctrination programs take far more time than that to evolve.

But it's not the questionable educational improvements or the opportunistic Gulen propaganda that alarms Harmony's critics across Texas. They question the accounting practices of Harmony's administrative protocols, and whether construction bid-letting is proceeding in a legal, fiscally-responsible manner. Are employment and immigration standards being maintained? And should Texas be, in effect, off-shoring so much public education when some experts aren't even sure if the whole charter school experiment is living up to expectations?

Having the Gulen movement playing a prominent role in this mix of questions and suspicions only exacerbates the situation. Some church/state advocates have grown uneasy that so much taxpayer money has been awarded to adherents of a specific religious organization. After all, Harmony schools not only give preferential treatment to Turkish contractors, but also Turkish companies that furnish food, uniforms, and equipment to the Harmony campuses. Many of these firms are owned by followers of Gulen, which means Texas is, in effect, funding Gulen by virtue of the millions in public funds being diverted to Gulen's adherents.

Now, of course, for years, Texas has paid Baptist, Methodist, and Catholic contractors to build schools, and nobody's ever brought up the religious angle before. But none of these Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics used their profits to directly fund such a secretive group as Fethullah Gulen.

Plus, in lean economic times, is it wise for Texas to farm out expensive contracting work to overseas companies? Several years ago, Governor Rick Perry wanted to give a multi-billion-dollar toll road project to a Spanish contractor, and it practically cost him his job. What's different now?

Reconnaissance Mission

During my e-mail conversation with Saul, she mentioned that she had no record of the contractor building the Dallas campus, but was intrigued with what little I'd told her about the project. Since I had some time in my schedule yesterday, I took it upon myself to visit the Harmony school site in Dallas, which is only 20 minutes away from my home. I took the photos you see in this essay, and poked around the building for a bit to see what I could see.

First, as the campus is called the "Harmony School for Nature and Athletics," I was puzzled to find only a tennis court on the property. Here in Texas, athletics means football, with a running track and baseball diamonds thrown in to create the illusion of sports diversity. But on this hilltop site, all they had room for was the tennis court. Maybe somewhere inside the three-story building they've included an indoor swimming pool, or a gymnasium, but from the layout of the building, it doesn't look like it.

So OK, they got that wrong: it's not suited for athletics. Maybe Turks think athletics is just ping-pong.

Just inside the main doors, there's a framed plaque on the wall in the interior entryway. It's from the Texas State Senate heralding the school's opening this past January. But the building is not finished, nor does it appear to have been in any condition to hold classes.

Beyond the interior entryway, a rotunda area is still an active construction site, despite the gaudy framed portraits of state officials lining the walls, and black vinyl furniture collecting construction dust. A discarded paper chain hangs forlornly from part of the ceiling, and upper floors feature bare metal studs and lots of dangling wires.

Debris of some sort was drifting down from the upper floors, so I decided that I'd be better off outside of the building, since even though I could hear workers talking in Spanish from somewhere down the darkened halls, I couldn't see anybody. Instead, I took a moment in the Texas heat to wander around outside, and came upon an exterior corner where the concrete foundation and the stucco wall didn't quite meet. I noticed that the thin pink tiles stuck onto the exterior walls looked like what you and I would line our bathrooms with. And several windows - yes, they're now installed - were missing flashing, opening up the wall cavity to the elements. But then, I'm not a construction worker, so I don't know if what I saw indicates significant problems, or if they're still on the wrap-up punchlist.

From a small sign at the half-gated entrance I discovered a notice that the contractor is Osman Oskan with EGE Construction. I looked up their website, and it's pretty incomplete; not exactly the hallmark of a conventionally relevant company.

Or at least, one that likes to publicize itself.  Why do you suppose that is?

Next:  Part 2 of 2
_____

Wonder Again

A recent article I wrote for Crosswalk told the story of a doctoral student at Notre Dame who put his degree program on hold for a year to help care for his brother.

Andrew Helms had been studying in Indiana when he learned that his youngest sibling, Peter, had been seriously injured in an automobile accident here in Texas. Andrew flew home as fast as he could and his advisers at Notre Dame eventually offered him a year's deferment so he could help his family develop an intensive rehabilitation regimen for his brother.

The accident rendered Peter minimally-conscious, which meant that while he wasn't technically a quadriplegic, he lacked the ability to communicate between his brain and his limbs. He can't talk or voluntarily move his body, except for his eyes.  And even that's after repetitive instruction and coaxing.

Although his condition may seem hopeless, doctors have actually been encouraged by improvements they've detected in his body since the accident, which happened almost one year ago. Unfortunately, Peter's progress hasn't been significant enough to qualify him for any of the institutional therapy programs covered by insurance, so the family has undertaken the Herculean task of performing daily physical therapy for Peter themselves at home. And Andrew has been one of the principle therapy providers.

I had asked Andrew to describe what it was like to see his brother so helpless, and he provided a stirring picture of how, even in a physically broken state, we're still whole in Christ.  Mortally, Peter may not ever be much more than he is today, a potential reality the family fights hard to ignore.  Eternally, however, through God's grace, he's complete in the finished work of Jesus.  And that should give us all hope.  Not only for Peter and his family, but for ourselves as well. 

The article was posted back on Tuesday, May 17, and quickly racked up a respectable number of readership hits. But then, like all Internet content, it began to age, and newer content began bumping it down the list of articles on Crosswalk's singles channel. That's what happens online.

Surprisingly, however, people still keep discovering it. Several new comments have been added recently, and today, I received some personal feedback from a friend in my Bible study who had just read the article. Several years ago in Georgia, she had been seriously injured in an automobile accident, and had to re-learn how to walk. She commented today that her doctors have described her survival as a miracle. Which probably has been said of Andrew's brother, Peter, too.

My friend from Bible study walks with a subtle limp, which I suppose could be a perpetual reminder to her about what God has done in sparing her life.  Andrew's brother, Peter, faces a future far less certain, as his recovery, if up until now has been any indication, will be agonizingly slow.

Yet every day, don't miracles happen that aren't nearly as dramatic as being plucked from the grip of death?  God is still good in those non-sensational times too, isn't He?  In those miracles we may not even see, or which we take for granted. And in those miracles which to us take forever to unfold.

While I worked on Andrew and Peter's story, obviously, I thought about it a lot. And since then, I've let it slip from my consciousness. Like articles aging on the Internet, that's what happens as life marches on, and new experiences come our way.

I hope we can appreciate, however, the times when we're called to recollect and wonder again at all that God has done for His people.

And thank Him that He's still the same as He was yesterday, as He is right now, and as He will be tomorrow.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow!
Praise Him, all creatures here below!
Praise Him above, ye Heavenly host!
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!
Amen.
_____