Presbyterians Issue Statement on AZ Immigration Law
Strangely, the immigration issue has floated off my radar after my move to Grand Forks. Whereas I used to encounter immigrants often in my aspects of my daily life, I don’t anymore (well, not counting the 3rd & 4th generation Scandinavian immigrants that makeup 80% of our congregation). Fargo has a growing new immigrant community, and is making a name for itself as a welcoming place for immigrants, especially those (often refugees) from Africa. And even on our side of Kittson County, I am not aware of too many immigrant issues — I think things may be a bit different on the east side of the county, though I confess I don’t know enough on this yet.
Anyways, I thought I’d post the recent statement from PC(USA) leaders in response to the AZ immigration law, SB 1070. I’ll post the text here, though there’s some good discussion (so far, at least) going on at Bruce’s blog here. As always, statements such as these beg two questions: (1) what of the folks in the PC(USA) who disagree with our denominational position statements on immigration and (2) who really cares about a statement from the PC(USA) these days? I’ll be addressing more of these types of questions this summer when I’ll be blogging our General Assembly for The Presbyterian Outlook, but if folks would like to get the discussion going now I’m game. Without further ado, here it is:
April 29, 2010
Dear Members of Congress,
We write to express our conviction that you must enact comprehensive immigration reform this year. As people of faith and the leaders of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), we are keenly aware of the devastating effects our broken immigration system has on the lives of individuals, immigrant and non-immigrant families, and our communities. The bigotry, trauma, and fear that will result from the recent new law enacted in Arizona, SB 1070, which criminalizes those who are found “with” undocumented persons and requires law enforcement officers to identify and detain such persons, serves to underscore the necessity of action at the federal level.
Churches are on the front lines of caring for families being ripped apart by our broken immigration system. Traumatized citizen children left behind when parents are deported are but one example of the ways the current system destroys the fabric of community life, the integrity of healthy families, and the safety of individual persons. Church workers are also at the forefront of offering relief and services to immigrants, regardless of documentation status. Arizona’s new law will put at risk those workers and others who are called simply to offer the most basic of humanitarian assistance. As Christians, we cannot stand by idly while our brothers and sisters die on our borders from exposure and thirst or languish in poorly equipped detention facilities, nor should we be required to do so by any law.
The new Arizona law also puts in jeopardy the public safety of immigrant communities, already wary of law enforcement for fear of deportation. Instead of new laws that induce fear and distrust, immigrants should be encouraged to participate with law enforcement, reporting crimes when they are victims and offering testimony when they are witnesses. Such trust and participation is impossible if local law enforcement is tasked with enforcement of federal immigration laws. SB 1070 will only foster more fear among immigrant communities, regardless of documentation status. Comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level is essential to override and counteract the damage done in Arizona by this new law.
In the Scriptures of Christians and Jews, we are commanded, “When an immigrant resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the immigrant. The immigrant who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the immigrant as yourself for you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:33-34). The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) therefore supports congressional action in 2010 on comprehensive immigration reform that creates a process for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. to earn their legal status; reduces waiting periods and upholds family unity; protects workers from exploitation; and provides efficient channels of entry for new migrant workers.
Sincerely,
Bruce Reyes-Chow
Moderator, 218th General Assembly (2008)Gradye Parsons
Stated Clerk of the General AssemblyLinda Bryant Valentine
Executive Director, General Assembly Mission Council
I've Been More Trustworthy for Months And Didn’t Even Know It
According to a recent study in the Journal of Marketing Communications, men with beards look more credible than those without (story here). The study wasn’t exactly extensive, but it showed some models endorsing products while clean shaven, and then the same guys doing the same with beards. The bearded version were deemed more trustworthy — at least when it was well-trimmed.
I’ve been sporting a short beard for a few months now. Now I get why everyone keeps asking my opinion all the time, responds more positively to my sermons, and is pushing me to become a notary. Not really. Actually, I’ve enjoyed more of the slightly counter-culture aspect of the beard (ok, small steps, I still tuck in my shirt at work).
My hunch is that societal opinions of beards wax and wane with the times. I read an article a while back that analyzed the goatees of the “new evangelical” leaders, and concluded they signified, in part, their individualistic stands if I remember right (I lost the link, sorry).
To be honest, by the time my fashion sense has caught up to the cool thing, the thing usually changes. I was a slow adoptee of cargo shorts in high school — never thought they’d catch on. I thought grey and khaki was a fashion faux pas for years after it was styling. And don’t even get me started on flat front pants.
I find studies like this beard one very intriguing, as they point to our stereotypes. Often, the results are more distressing — when the studies look at our perceptions of race, or weight, or gender. We are a culture that judges, quickly, by sight. And then our actions reflect our snap judgements.
But, at the end of the day, this study is playful and, as it benefits me, is brilliant. So, hopefully, this beard thing will be cool for a while. Heck, I say it will be. Trust me.
Big Grand Forks News: Fighting Sioux nickname, logo is retired
Big news in Grand Forks today: the UND “Fighting Sioux” nickname and logo is being retired. After decades of discussions, it’s done. The ND board of higher education voted yesterday, and President Kelley now begins the process of deciding on a new logo and nickname.
As you might imagine, this decision is just a wee bit controversial. A new Facebook group has already announced a protest and picture to occur today at 2:30 p.m. at the Ralph Engelstad Arena (that’d be the hockey palace in town).
I really don’t want to debate the merits of the decision in this post, as I’ll be away from my computer this weekend, and it’s not like I’d actually shed any new light on things. This wikipedia article covers the issue in general.
My outsider’s point of view over the last few years is that, eventually this was bound to happen. Different sides will call it different things: progress, political correctness, scoffing at history, racist or overly sensitive, and any number of other things. But since a NCAA ruling a few years ago, the Fighting Sioux logo became a liability both financially and in terms of UND’s national reputation.
Growing up in Tallahassee — home of the Florida State Seminoles — I’m not exactly a stranger to similar debates. Yes, the Seminole tribe of Florida supports the use of the nickname, symbol, and other “Seminole inspired” images. Yes, there is a unique and supportive relationship between the Seminole tribe in Florida and FSU. But there’s plenty of dissenting voices around FSU as well, whether from the Oklahoma Seminole tribe, or the protesters outside every home FSU football game. Such debates will always occur.
What strikes me now that the decision to retire has been made, is that beginning today the true character of UND alumni, Grand Forks residents, and fans will show. How many racist comments will appear on news articles and Facebook pages (I just checked, there’s some already)? Will frustration lead to dialog and healthy grieving, or will protests turn wholly negative? Will those who disagree with the decision do so with both their individual feelings,and the university’s and community’s best interest in mind?
To be honest, my thoughts immediately turn to my experiences in the local and national Presbyterian church. Sometimes our reaction to change is impulsive, drastic, and damaging. Sometimes, though, with solid leadership and clear heads we seize the opportunity to mourn for what was, and begin to imagine a new future. After big change, we need opportunities for dialog and expressing our profound disagreement. The spirit of those exchanges often determines how stakeholders react down the line — to fight or fold.
I hope that President Kelley, leaders from the Sioux tribes, and members of the board of higher ed will now lead in ways that allow for showings of public grief and tolerate continued disagreement, even as they move to choose a new mascot and logo of which we might be proud.
Virtual Choir, Real Art, What Next?
Ok, this is pretty darn cool. The YouTube video below is a virtual choir singing Eric Whitacre’s Lux Aurumque. “Wait, what’s a ‘Virtual Choir’?” you ask? Don’t feel bad if you haven’t heard of it before since, with this piece, Whitacre is breaking new ground.
You have to watch the video to really get it, but here’s what happened as I understand things. Whitacre posted a YouTube video with him talking-through and then conducting the piece, and thousands of singers recorded their individual parts on their computers, responding to Eric’s conducting (more here). Then, Eric (or his helper, actually), spliced the piece together so it looks like the individual singers are arranged as a traditional choir, even though their videos were recorded by themselves in otherwise silent rooms all over the world.
I don’t want to overanalyze, but one could really get going on this. I sang this marvelous piece with the St. Olaf Choir in 2005, and took it on tour to Norway (buy the CD here if you like). I sang in a choir of 75 friends whom I knew well. We held hands when we sang, responding to the conductor feet away from us differently every night as he conducted each concert slightly — or very — differently depending on the space, audience, atmosphere, etc.
This choir had little of that in-person personal touch, but they perhaps had something more as well. Though they will never meet each other and hold hands in a concert, though they will never speak to Whitacre in the flesh, through technology they have shared music together. The video is a melding of voices, spirits, sounds, and offerings and becomes an artistic experience beyond what any of the singers could do alone. Put simply: it sings.
The text of the poem is simple Latin, though it was actually originally written in English and translated into Latin for the choral setting. I’ve always thought of the prologue to John’s gospel when singing it, but that’s maybe just me. Jesus, the Word, as the light of the world has always been an image that really moved me. The piece, as well as any art, moves me to that place where I can meditate on God. I’m grateful Whitacre has taken his art to a new place that helps me ponder all God’s children all around the world, as well.
On Saturday Delivery and Daily Navel Gazing
The US Post Office is considering dropping Saturday delivery. Postmaster General John Potter recently released consultant reports Tuesday that project the U.S. Postal Service will lose $7 billion this year. Elected representatives are in a tricky position because they have been touting cutting the deficit, but also don’t want to close post offices in rural districts. In addition to dropping Saturday delivery, Potter suggests moving more post offices into other businesses such as supermarkets and drug stores. Oh, and of course, many of the budget issues are connected to the enormous decline in mail volume due to internet communications.
But this is just prolegomena to the actual point of my post. Usually, the Grand Forks Herald online discussion questions garner relatively few comments. But a recent question has generated a whopping 57 responses: “Do you agree with the U.S. Post Office proposal to cut home delivery one day a week? Why?” Even questions on the area’s perennial controversy — whether to keep UND’s Fight Sioux Logo — don’t produce as many responses. Intrigued, I read through several pages of comments.
I scrolled down, aghast. Almost every comment is in favor of dropping Saturday delivery — heck, maybe that’s a good idea, they get by in Canada fine without it, I hear — but that’s not what shocked me. Every single comment mentioned only how such a change would affect the commenter. Folks said stuff like, “Everyone I know just uses email now” and “All my paychecks are deposited straight into my account anyways.” And on and on, every comment was only about how the change would affect the individual writing.
Come on, people. The world doesn’t revolve around you. I know the context of a newspaper comment board is very different than my usual work in the church, but isn’t the idea that government is in place to serve us all regardless of our email access or online banking status pretty basic? The Post Office exists not for one’s individual benefit, but for society as a whole. Sure, you might think first of how a change would affect you, but we don’t make decisions as a society just on the basis of one person’s convenience.
Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, but I think that little comment board speaks to a deep seated larger issue for our culture and government these days. All to often, we think first and foremost about ourselves, and rarely about the other — those of us who are employed think not of how hard it’d be to live on unemployment benefits, those of us who have health insurance think “well, I’m fine” rather than thinking of the millions who can’t afford a regular checkup let alone an injury, those of us not fighting in a war forget about the sacrifices made, the sky-rocketing suicide rates of US troops, how it’d be to live with foreign troops in your front yard.
Hey, maybe dropping Saturday deliveries is what we need to do, but let’s make the decision with more in mind than our individual welfare. That’s what makes American so great, after all, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We three rings of Google are, bearing phones news travels a far
Forgive some jumping from topic to topic in this post, but it’s how my mind is working at the moment. It starts with the Google Phone, moves to Nicolas Kristof, and ends with Christmas. Here goes nothing.
Ok, so if you’ve seen the tech blogs, no scratch that, if you’ve seen any news lately you may have seen a story on the new Google phone. The crazy thing about this story is that no phone has been publicly launched. There’s no press releases or pretty pictures. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Google has given a phone to some of its employees to test out, and now there’s leaks all over the internet. The phone apparently has a name “Nexus One” and the hardware is manufactured by HTC. But then there’s all this speculation about whether it will be sold unlocked, and if so how much. And is Google getting into a business other than software. Yadda. Yadda. Who knows? I’ve seen the story on tech blogs, heard it on NPR, and read about it on Slate. I didn’t go looking for it, it just hit me three times in 24 hours. I’ll note again: Google hasn’t paid a dime for this advertising. All speculation.
Cut to NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. I heard a fascinating interview with him on NRP’s “On the Media” show in which Kristof talks about how he, as an advocacy journalist, frames issues. He does so differently than he used to after researching some surprising recent studies. Studies show that people are more moved and more likely to help one person in need than they are to respond to many people in need. In fact, we are much more likely to give money to an organization when we hear a plea to help one specific starving child, than we are to give if we hear this one child has a starving sibling as well. Kristof talks about how this makes his job as an advocacy journalist quite difficult, since he’s both trying to educate people about context and the scope of issues AND get them to do something about it. Kristof’s interview gets me thinking about PR and how bad most of us are at it.
Ok, now to Christmas. I wonder how, if at all, these two stories relate to the Christmas story. Here’s the thing. Christmas is sort of a big deal for Christians, it’s sort of about, um, God taking on flesh and becoming human and showing us the way to live only to die for just that. Without Christ, there’d be no Christians, no Christmas, no Santa.
But, unless I’m missing something, the Google phone is getting a helluva lot more news cycle time this week than Christmas and its celebration. Yeah, I know a google phone is pretty cool — I’d love to snag one — but it’s a phone. God coming in the flesh through the selflessness of a teenage peasant girl is even a bit more spiffy than an unlocked handset with Android software. But we Christians can’t seem to get the word out right. It’s not newsworthy. It’s not catchy. It’s not as revolutionary as a new phone. Or at least, that’s what our lives seem to communicate, and that’s what the press seems to cover (or not).
Sure, you can say it’s not all about news coverage time, the gospel isn’t about getting on TV or twitter. Sure. But all this makes me wonder, what’s going to make a bigger splash in the next few weeks: Google or the Christian church?
This is cool: "Back to the Land"
I’m keeping my blogging to a minimum this Thanksgiving week but I couldn’t help but enjoy the following piece in today’s NY Times. The form is what really struck me, but the content is great too. I don’t know what to call it — a Op-Ed photo journal essay article?
The piece is entitled “Back to the Land – And the Pursuit of Happiness” and is a — I don’t know a “photo essay” — with compelling prose and a fun electronic format. According to Wikipedia, Maria Kalman, the author, is an “an American illustrator, author, artist, and designer.” She’s done children’s books, New Yorker covers, and even Strunk and White.
Check it out!
Connect Online
