The Supreme Court of California has stumbled badly, even if in so doing it has stumbled into what amounts to a good conclusion. With the thinnest of legal reasoning, they have opted to make social policy rather than adjudicate the law. Simply asserting that marriage is a constitutional right does not make it so, and the fact remains that their ruling about this so-called right, does not extent to all those who want to be in a marriage -- their ruling clearly rejects extending their new definition of equal protection to either polygamous marriages or those between close relatives.

In other words, the court stepped in to “resolve” an issue which deeply divides both our nation and the voters of California (49% of whom oppose gay marriage and 45% of whom favor it). In fact, they have trumped the rights of individuals to make this decision and done so in a way that will only deepen the cultural divides and fan the flames of an already dangerous culture war around this issue.

Continue »

It’s easy to say that Gordon Gekko, the character played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, was wrong when he declared that “greed is good” – too easy by far. If we simply define greed as the desire for more of something than is needed, than of course it is easy to sit back and declare others’ desires for those things which we don’t want, or in quantities beyond our desire, as sinful expressions of greed. But that is simply the use of moral language to tell others that because we don’t want those things, they shouldn’t either, and that seems just a little arrogant to me. Not to mention that religious and moral arrogance are every bit as deadly, especially in today’s world, as greed is.

But if we understand that greed is the desire for that which suits our needs but comes at a cost so high, whether to ourselves, others, or the world, that we fear we may be “overpaying,” then the answer is that it may be not only justifiable, but genuinely sacred. And that dilemma has been with us since the time of God, the original “greedy” character. Yes, greedy.

Continue »

Racial prejudice reflects wonderfully on your religious beliefs....if you are a religious racist! The fact is that one can, and many have, articulated powerful religious systems that posited a divine preference for one race of human being over others. In fact, like many views which we now find repugnant, it was the norm for most of human history. The same can be said for other institutions, such as slavery, which were considered entirely consistent with "good faith" until relatively recently.

Continue »

There are no limits to that which can be forgiven, but there are limits as to who can forgive any given thing. The issue is our relationship to the thing which needs forgiving, not the severity of the act, which might render it beyond forgiveness. We are always free to forgive anything, but we can only forgive that which has been done to us.

Continue »

If someone plays in the traffic, are we obligated to risk our own lives to pursue them into the road and drag them to safety? And if we are, who should pay for the rescue operation? Those are not abstract questions today. They are real issues as Lehman Brothers declares bankruptcy and the federal government loans billions of our dollars to ailing insurance giant, AIG. Is there a spiritual response to the melt down in the credit market? And I mean something more than, "Dear God, let this all pass me by". Is there a spiritual perspective that does more than either assign blame i.e. "it's God's will", or avoid God altogether?

I think there is, but locating that approach demands that we confront some tough questions before we discover any answers. Play with fire and you will get burned. Isn't that the essence of justice? Isn't it our ability to rely on that rule which keeps us cognizant of risk and makes us think twice before doing something foolish? And if we decide to take that risk and go for the big payday, or ride out the storm, why should others have to pay?

Continue »

If John McCain and Sarah Palin believe that human life begins at conception, then they should not only support overturning Roe, but contrary to their stated position, should oppose individual states having the right to permit abortion as well. Do they believe that states should have the right to permit citizens to execute defenseless children or old people at will? Given their stated beliefs, that would be no worse than abortion. In fact, it might be less objectionable because the unborn fetus is utterly without sin or guilt of any kind. Consistency demands they admit that as soon as Roe is overturned, they will look for legal means to assure that no abortion is ever permitted in this country for any reason. That's pretty scary to me. But having said that, I loathe the legal logic behind Roe and think it has done a great deal of harm.

Continue »