Back On Line and Some Updates

Back at my parents' house for the holidays and thus (re)connected.

What have I missed in my time away? Let's see... there's a lot, so today I'll give a quick rundown/update on three issues I've been concerned with over the past few months.

* the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill: Last I wrote, as I recall, I reported that Rick Warren had finally relented and released a pastoral encyclical urging Ugandan Christians to resist this bill. Warren Throckmorton's website (one of the best go-to sources of info on this) reported on a letter written by Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa (co-signed by a number of other Ugandan Christian groups) ardently defending this bill. Versions of the letter appear here (from Christianity Today) and here (on Ssempa's website). Seempa protests that the main concern involves--well, the letter claims a number of claims: the abuse of minors by homosexual predators, the spread of AIDS/HIV, the creeping influence of homosexual lobbies internationally and in Uganda specifically.

Throckmorton notes that the letter completely ignores Warren's (and others') theological arguments against the bill. He also takes apart much of the evidence the letter links to in order to support its reasoning--not that his arguments (or those of the commentators to his blog posting) seem to matter much. If anything, the pastors' letter suggests to me a level of leave-us-alone intransigence on the part of the pro-bill Ugandan Christians. The relationship of Ugandan evangelicals to their western counterparts is in many ways growing more strained, and this situation is evidence of it. For a detailed overview of the relationship between Ugandan Christianity and US Christianity, see this article by Kapya Kaoma, which itself may deserve a post from me.

* The War on Christmas. Basically, the only new info here is more arguments pro- and anti- War. For example, Matt Barber, pundit-attorney for the Liberty Council, warns us that "the next time you hear someone say 'Happy Holidays,' remember that what they're actually saying – perhaps innocently enough – is 'Happy Holidays, Comrade.' They're playing right into the secularist agenda that seeks to replace the God of the universe with the god of government." His proof? Apparently the Soviet Union at one time discouraged recognition of Christmas. So obviously people's saying "happy holidays" in 2009 US and the USSR's anti-Christmas actions from the past only seem utterly incomparable.

Other Christian writers express impatience at the idea of a Christmas War (declared, it seems, by those who ostensibly want to defend Christmas). See Edward Grinnan's guest stint on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog. See also this guest post on Michael Spencer's Internet Monk site. Both point out that fighting a Christmas War defeats the ethos of the season. Christmas Warriors are keen on making dire predictions about the awful world that will doubtless come should Christians lose the war. But what exactly would "winning" this War on Christmas look like? What or who would be defeated? Would Christians be happier if the government were to ban other holidays that occur around the end of the year?

* Health Care. This whole subject gets covered so extensively on other areas of the interwebs that I leave it up to you to investigate. Suffice it to say that it looks like a version of the health care plan will indeed be passed in the Senate before Christmas. I am personally for many of the provisions in the bill (i.e., eradicating lifetime caps on coverage, extending coverage to the uninsured, removing pre-existing conditions as a bar to coverage, etc.) though I would have been more pleased with some form of public option.

I continue to be depressed by the widespread resistance to this bill--well, not just this bill but to any health care reform whatsoever. Republican intransigence (there's that word again) to seemingly any kind of legislation whatsoever puts the lie to their insistence that they have the best interests of people at heart.

More distressing, however, is the fact that this resistance has come to be a signal issue for many on the religious right. I find utterly lacking any recognition that, in fact, many people are suffering due to lack of health care in this country, and that fixing this problem is worth the investment of some tax dollars. I get frustrated that the debate thus far seems primarily about money: support the bill to reduce deficits and cut costs or resist the bill because it will increase taxes. Both of these broad arguments pass over the deeper question of what the right thing to do is. Is it right for people to suffer and die because they can't afford adequate care? Is health care a right or a privilege?

I would think that the Christian answer to these questions is obvious. But religious right arguments against health care reform either ignore the questions altogether or--worse--suggest that the poor and/or underprivileged deserve their fate and that the better-off have to watch out for their own stuff.

Anyway--that's all for now. More tomorrow,

JF