It’s been a few weeks now since SB1070 has been signed into law. Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past few weeks, you know all the fallout that’s happened from around the state and across the nation. It hasn’t been pretty. There have been calls to boycott Arizona, and some state and city legislatures have introduced measures to boycott Arizona.
In all the madness, I’ve been trying to figure out what SB1070 means for me, my community, and greater Arizona. I believe that SB1070 is misguided and does nothing to solve the true issue at hand, immigration reform. I firmly believe that SB1070 was passed because we’ve let fear drive the conversation instead of reasoned, rational debate. As Emerson said, “Fear always springs from ignorance.”
It’s been hard putting words to how I feel. I understand the frustration on the parts of those who support this law. The Federal government has definitely let us all down in passing any sort of immigration reform. I hope that Arizona’s passing of this misguided law is a wake-up call to the Federal government to start a new dialog on immigration. Unfortunately, seeing how this is an election year, I’m not holding my breath that a humane, sensible, and comprehensive immigration policy will be passed as candidates will pander to their ever-increasingly polarized sides.
I know that it’s all too easy to say that the law will only impact those who aren’t legally in this country. I believe that this will impact everyone. It has only raised the already-heightened sense of fear in the community. Those who support the law have publicly squirmed when they try to come up with criteria besides skin color of what an “illegal immigrant” might look like. We have a sheriff that goes on media blitzes to brag about how many undocumented immigrants he and his office have apprehended. Laws like SB1070 will only further enable him to do that.
I’m not writing this to downplay the issue of undocumented immigration in Arizona. It is a big deal. For too long, it seems like we’ve let this issue slide because there was enough resources to help immigrants and because we recognized the positive effects they’ve had on the economy. Only now are we realizing that operatives of drug cartels are operating in the local schools. Now that Arizona’s economy is in a nosedive, the state legislature and a somewhat silent citizenry are scapegoating the immigrant community for these problems. It’s their fault that Arizona is losing money. It’s their fault that crime is on the rise. It’s not our fault, it’s their fault.
It seems like an excuse to pass this law is the increased border violence, drug transportation, and its localized crime. If this is the case, why was there not an element in the law deploying the Arizona Army National Guard to the border area to defend against this criminal element? Why are we focusing on people who are here already instead of stopping the real threat to our safety and security? The framers of this bill have said that we want safer communities and that this will help mitigate the criminal element inherent in immigration. So why, then, are we focusing on those who have innocently set up their lives here to escape the violence and bloodshed in their homeland instead of those committing the violence and bloodshed?
One has to understand that it is a small percentage of the total immigrant population that is giving everyone a bad name. The media and its unchecked commentators are quick to highlight on a few stories that prove their points. We were spoon-fed stories about a southern Arizona rancher allegedly being murdered by an immigrant yet evidence is now emerging that an American citizen is the alleged suspect. We hear of a rise in crime, but that crime is usually localized and insider crime that is tied to smuggling. It’s not random. As Dean Nicholas Knisely+ of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral wrote in an essay on this very topic, “There are some very bad people coming across the border. There are also many people desperate to find work coming across as well, because the crushing poverty in their home communities makes [it] impossible to feed and care for their families.”
There have been many parallels drawn that connect Arizona to Nazi Germany. As an Arizonan, I’m offended. Nobody likes their home state compared to a brutal régime that systematically killed millions of Jews. Yet that does not mean that I’m oblivious to these parallels. Those who support this law say that those who are here with the appropriate paperwork have nothing to hide. But this now means that entire groups of people will now have to carry with them the appropriate papers to show that they are either citizens or immigrants in the country legally.
I’ve been convinced that SB1070 will never actually go into effect because there are a multitude of legal challenges and injunctions that will be filed against it. I hope this is the case. I’m a proud Arizonan and I don’t like that my home state, the state in which I was born, is the butt end of jokes. The Arizona in which I live is open, welcoming, and tolerant of other peoples. The Arizona that is unfortunately being portrayed to the media is a xenophobic, old, and rancorous state.
For those who care about this state, we’ve been let down. We’ve been let down by a state legislature that passes policies blaming one group of citizens for the state’s troubles. We’ve been let down by politicians that put their careers before their constituents. We’ve been let down by a federal government that has neglected to address immigration reform thus enabling states to pass draconian laws such as these. We’ve been let down by the media that is using opinions as the basis for facts and not vice versa.
I’ve publicly debated on this blog whether or not I’ll stay in Arizona once I’ve finished my Master’s degree. I think that now is the time that I should stay here and fight to change Arizona to be the Arizona in which I want to live. The quotation by Mohandas Gandhi is increasingly pertinent: “We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.”
We need change. Desperately. But that change has to be relevant, humane, sensible, and comprehensive.
[source: Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Center for the Arts] The season of Lent is a particularly important time in the life of the church. Lent gives each of us pause in our yearly pause in our yearly cycle for a period of reflection and meditation within the Christian community. The arts, and music in particular, have frequently been used to enable and enhance these two disciplines. This season, Trinity Cathedral in Downtown Phoenix offers a special Lenten series of musical events to mark this important season of the church year.
Friday 5 March 12.15pm: James Gerber (director of music and worship at St Francis Xavier Catholic Church, Phoenix)
Friday 12 March 12.15pm: Ilona Kubizczyk-Adler (music director, Episcopal Church of the Nativity, Scottsdale)
Friday 19 March 12.15pm: Skye Hart (director of music and liturgy, St Maria Goretti Church, Scottsdale)
Friday 26 March 12.15pm: Erik Goldstrom (Canon Musician, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Phoenix)
Sunday 14 March 4.00pm: Choral Evensong for Mothering Sunday
Trinity Cathedral is at 100 W. Roosevelt St., in Downtown Phoenix. It is readily accessible from the Roosevelt/Central Ave light rail station and the Downtown Phoenix DASH. All these concerts are free of charge. For more information, visit azcathedral.org or call 602.254.7126.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, emphasis added]
Thus begin the Amendments to the United States Constitution. As anyone who’s taken a civics course knows, the US Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” (cf. Article VI par. 2; also see the 14th Amendment).
Consider also the late developments happening with Crossroads United Methodist Church. As preface, they had a homeless ministry at their church, Central Avenue and Northern in the quasi-upscale North Central neighborhood. Then the neighborhood didn’t like seeing homeless people in their posh neighborhood, complained, got the city involved, and the city made a decision that Crossroads had to stop this ministry. After an appeal made by Crossroads, the city still stood by its decision.
Depending on your angle, it’s NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) at its finest or its worst.
Granted, when one thinks of the neighborhood around Central and Northern, one doesn’t really think about homeless ministries. Most of the homeless reside in and near Downtown Phoenix. I would think that if Crossroads wanted to do this in a more effective (whatever this means) fashion, then doing outreach and meal service would be more effective there. There’s a fantastic human services campus at 12th Ave and Jefferson–maybe a partnership there should be in the works.
But that’s irrelevant to my argument. I am, however, reminded of something from Scripture:
“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” [excerpted from "The Judgment of the Nations," Matthew 25:31-46 NRSV]
As The Rev. John Petty (All Saints’ Lutheran Church, Aurora, Colorado) noted in his blog Progressive Involvement,
In liberation theology circles, this is called the “preferential option for the poor,” which is supposed to be controversial, but, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why. All four gospels state very clearly, one way or another, that Christ is a friend of the poor, identifies with them, is found with them. It’s not for nothing that Jesus was born to a poverty-stricken Jewish family from a hick little town. [source]
Jesus was a friend of the poor. Christians – followers of Christ – should be friends of the poor as well.
This brings me back to the original crux of this entry, taken from the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Let’s make a few assumptions here. First, that the Gospel of St Matthew is accepted canon in Christianity. Second, Christianity is accepted as a religion. In essence, the city is redefining Christianity. Christianity by city policy.
If a church wants to reach out to “the least of these” in a homeless ministries program, then it has its Constitutional rights to do so. NIMBY-ists can complain until they’re blue in the face, but it should be a Constitutional right. Wait: it is.
Since November 2008, I’ve been going to church services at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, located at Central & Roosevelt just north of Downtown Phoenix. It is a great congregation featuring an incredible music program.
Easter Sunday took away any doubt of the Trinity Cathedral’s music program. Aside from three spectacular Easter hymns (EASTER HYMN, TRURO, and ELLACOMBE), the Cathedral Choir sang Russell Nagy’s “He Is Not Here!”, which was absolutely spectacular (so much so that I saw Canon Licia Affer, at the 9am service, go ‘wow!’ afterward).
If you’ve been remotely listening to news lately, you probably have heard that there is a bit of controversy over President-elect Obama’s selection to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation at the inauguration.
While most of the debate and discourse has centered around Mr. Warren’s viewpoints of same-sex marriage and how some of Obama’s supporters see this as a ‘slap in the face’, I found an interesting letter from The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. While he brings up the same-sex marriage issue, he also talks about the worldview of Mr. Warren and how that is incompatible with basic tenets of Christianity.
I am profoundly disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to offer the invocation at his inauguration. The president-elect has bestowed a great honor on a man whose recent comments suggest he is both homophobic, xenophobic, and willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce his prejudices—even going so far as to support the assassination of foreign leaders.
In his home state of California, Mr. Warren’s campaigned aggressively to deny gay and lesbian couples equal rights under the law, relying on arguments that are both morally offensive and theologically crude. Christian leaders differ passionately with one another over the morality of same-sex relationships, but only the most extreme liken the loving, lifelong partnerships of their fellow citizens to incest and pedophilia, as Mr. Warren has done. The president-elect’s willingness to associate himself with a man who espouses these views as a means of reaching out to religious conservatives suggests a willingness to use the aspirations of gay and lesbian Americans as bargaining chips, and I find this deeply troubling.
Mr. Warren has been rightly praised for his efforts to deepen the engagement of evangelical Christians with impoverished Africans. He has been justifiably lauded for putting the AIDS epidemic and global warming on the political agenda of the Christian right. Yet extravagant compassion toward some of God’s people does not justify the repression of others. Jesus came to save all of humankind, and as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pointed out, “All means all.” But rather than embrace the wisdom of Archbishop Tutu, Mr. Warren has allied himself with men such as Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda who seek to “purify” the Anglican Communion, of which my Church is a member, by driving out gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.
In choosing Mr. Warren, the president-elect has sent a distressing message internationally as well. In a recent television interview, Mr. Warren voiced his support for the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These bizarre and regrettable remarks come at a time when much of the Muslim world already fears a Christian crusade against Islamic countries. Imagine our justifiable outrage if an Iranian cleric who advocated the assassination of President Bush had been selected to offer prayers when Ahmadinejad was sworn in.
I have worked with former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to improve the relationship between our two countries as hawkish members of the Bush administration pushed for another war. He has spoken at the National Cathedral, which will host the president-elect’s inaugural prayer service, and I have visited with him several times in Iran and elsewhere. Iranian clerics are intensely interested in the religious attitudes of America’s leaders. In choosing Mr. Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration, the president-elect has sent the chilling, and, I feel certain, unintended message that he is comfortable with Christians who can justify lethal violence against Muslims.
I understand that in selecting Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama is signaling a willingness to work with both sides in our country’s culture wars. I appreciate that there is political advantage in elevating the relatively moderate Mr. Warren above some of his brethren on the Religious Right. But in honoring Mr. Warren, the president-elect confers legitimacy on attitudes that are deeply contrary to the all-inclusive love of God. He is courting the powerful at the expense of the marginalized, and in doing so, he stands the Gospel on its head.
The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D. Bishop of Washington
Something that’s been bothering me over the course of this election is the way in which the religion card has been played. Essentially, candidates have tried to out-Christian others. There have been those who have accused Obama of being Muslim, and then there are those who still believe that Obama is Muslim.
This raises the question: so what if he was? Why have we become complacent with setting up an unConstitutional system saying that to run for public office, you must be Christian? A survey of the Constitution’s Article VI clearly states otherwise.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis mine]
It is a direct affront to Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians in our country. The more our candidates perpetuate – rather than challenge, rather than change (to use Obama’s word) – the faith-based myopia of national identity, the harder we make it for religious minorities – or for Christians who do not want to play the faith-based game of identity politics – to claim their rightful place in the American democracy. (from “‘Barack Obama is a strong, Christian family man’”, 11 October 2008)
This leads to the next point: on a recent edition of her namesake show, Campbell Brown offers commentary on this unconstitutional setup that has been created but not challenged.
When did it matter? Why does it matter? It shouldn’t, but perhaps this is just being too idealist.
Cheers- Edward Jensen
PS In the coming days, I’ll post a blog entry offering my opinions on why some use the term “liberal” as if it’s one of the Seven Words (homage to the late George Carlin).
NPR is reporting that a NYC-based developer wants to build a Bible-based theme park in Rutherford County, Tennessee. This begs the question: really? No, seriously, really?
