The Art of Selfish Obfuscation

I came across this article in the conservative periodical, the Weekly Standard. The article makes the argument that while the inalienable rights as defined in the Constitution as the freedom to worship, free speech, presumption of innocence until proof of guilt and so on are natural and does not require human intervention to create them. On the other hand rights which are pushed by the political Left, such as the right to a job, right to income, right to the best available healthcare, etc are paid for by human blood, sweat and tears, and therefore need to be compensated. The article lauds the Left for having the best intentions, but portrays them as being naive in imagining that any of these provisions could or should be provided free by some of us who pay taxes. It goes on to explore the failings of many welfare states.

I emailed the author with the following note:

This is a good argument. I'm a centrist and hold no political ideology to be above moral absolutes. I have a gripe about this though.

Although the Left packages many goods as rights I don't believe they think these are inalienable rights. Rather, they think these are collective responsibilities. The Jeffersonian ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not have been inherently selfish, because it was drafted by people who wanted these things for their countrymen and not simply for themselves; but it has been understood in a narrow sense of "what is in this for me" by contemporary Americans. We only think of rights as being sacrosanct, and not of responsibilities. Or, some responsibilities. Our successive governments have not hesitated to rush arms and soldiers to foreign countries when there was no threat to the US from those countries- all at the cost of the taxpayers. We regard this as a responsibility. Somehow we do not think of taking care of the elderly and the sick among us as being a collective responsibility. There are other things you mentioned which do not merit such collective pooling of resources. But atrophy, disease, old age and intensive care are among the kindnesses a humane society cannot do without. The pursuit of happiness precisely this- to build such a community of responsible people. Without this we would simply become greedy and selfish, all the while justifying it with ideology and the oft-repeated excuse that there is no free lunch. There isn't, of course, but no responsibility is painless; and a society that cannot bear any pain to do something good is a society that is in decline.

I wonder if the distinction between the Left and the Right is not so much naivete or unkindness on either part as the article seems to imply, but a wrong understanding of our responsibilities and others' rights. Fighting someone else's war even on serious grounds presents moral dilemmas that noone should think of war as being a good choice under any extenuating circumstances. It is wrong, period. As wrong as it is to justify the Holocaust because as a result the Jewish people got a homeland or to justify the horrors of the British Raj because Indians received the benefits of the English language, law and a democratic government. These are excuses to justify our prejudices or selfish interests. I'm not saying that we should never fight wars- simply that even when we have no choice in the matter, we are doing something wrong. And our soldiers whom we pray for are killing people daily, which is wrong. It takes a toll on them for good reason. If it didn't we should be afraid, that somehow we have become numb to the guilt in our consciences that was intended by God to turn to Him.

To withhold care from the aged or infirm because of the financial strain on taxpayers would be irresponsible and simply adding to the me-first mentality that we have come to prize in our super-private society.

The Visitor: Movie Review

I watched the movie 'The Visitor' sometime ago. After this I read some of the review on this movie. They were all glowing tributes. I was impressed but puzzled by some premises in the movie.

My first question on watching it was if there was any political message in reality in the story. It was made in 2007 during the Bush administration, a period in which filmmakers of a liberal political bent created some very good movies. This one, which tells the story of how Tariq, an illegal immigrant from Syria, a political refugee, came to be deported, tugs at our heartstrings for what it means to him, his girlfriend, his mom and his new friend, widower Professor Walter Vale. It tells the story poignantly, but one is left wondering if there really is any strong admonishing for policymakers who tackle immigration, besides the fact that they (and everyone else in the US) need to show kindness to the alien and the refugee among them. Tariq is eventually deported due to existing immigration laws- the movie does signal the need for change in these, but I'm not sure if it is actually arguing for a relook at the policies with regard to political refugees only. Tariq is a political refugee but I think the movie wants to create a case for a relook at all refugees- economic, political and any other kind. I do not think it creates the case. USCIS officials are portrayed as they are in reality, employees who do their job and may not necessarily be aware of the circumstances of every person they deal with. I know this from experience- from trying to get the status updates on petitions for legal immigrants or people awaiting legal immigration status. I have lost money that I paid upfront to this agency and after they acknowledged the receipt of my petitions they simply lost the petitions and dropped the ball. This portrayal is accurate. The bureaucracy is stifling and long overdue for a radical revamp. Beyond this the movie takes no swipe at any administration or laws.

The movie does portray the sad state of those immigrants who are detained. It is almost as if civil liberties do not apply to them. This must engage our attention. Ultimately the thorn is America's side when we talked about our freedoms may be our failure to care for the marginalized, primarily those cannot afford to fight for basic rights. Laws cannot be different for them from those of us who are privileged.

My second question was, who is the 'Visitor' in the movie? Tariq and his girlfriend are illegal squatters in the professor's apartment in the movie. After his initial shock in finding them there (he returns to his New York City apartment after a long gap), he eventually lets them stay on, shows them more than hospitality, becoming their friend and helper, hiring them an attorney to help them in their plight. He too benefits from this relationship, learning how to play the djembe, finding a release from his bereavement from his wife's death. In a scene, the professor takes Tari's mom and girlfriend to Ellis Island. The mom asks him if he's been to the Statue of Liberty before and he says he hasn't. The girlfriend lets him know he and Tariq often went there, and in the boat Tariq liked to jump up and down on seeing the statue, pretending as if he were coming to America for the first time. This begs my question, who is the real visitor. Those who are born into liberty often tend to lose real freedom by keeping themselves from all that is implied by freedom. Tariq and the other refugees though are fully alive to this liberty and through their music, hard work, strong relationships, social intimacy and genuineness, keep its spirit alive. The professor seems to be a newcomer and therefore a visitor to this liberty. He is the one coming into his apartment after a long gap, like a long lost acquaintance. The squatters are about to leave, but the professor shows them kindness.

This may be the movie's lesson. In the end the professor (in a very understated and convincing performance) tries his best but there are limits to his powers of persuasion and influence. Though he fails he has won the hearts of his friends. As a Christian I think the movie encourages us to take a look at what the Bible has to say about this topic. Here are some verses:

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 24:17-18 – “Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt...”

Matthew 25:31-46 – “...I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Ephesians 2:11-22 – “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”

There are reminders in both OT and NT that not only are we to show kindness to aliens, but we ourselves are aliens in this world or have been aliens in another country. There is a sense in which we need to seek liberty by being like aliens, because true liberty does not come from this world.

Waterboarding- Why are Christians Silent?

I'm apalled to hear that Dick Cheney is continuing to justify the practice of waterboarding. It is more painful to witness the silence and the absence of outrage on the part of Christians on this subject. Our leaders have become wary of the Left when making any statement that distances ourselves from the Right. Isn't this sad?

In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.

An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:

As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine's "melancholy soldier" knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. In a very real sense, that soldier cannot privilege his desire to be free from the sin of killing another human being to supersede his responsibility to save the lives of innocents. As philosopher Michael Walzer argues, this is the perennial problem of "dirty hands." The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.

Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:

First, the use of torture should be prohibited as a matter of state policy – period. No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.

Then he goes on to give a little room:

At the same time, rare exceptions under extreme circumstances can be considered under those circumstances by legitimate state agents, knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.

Second, a thorough and legitimate review must be conducted subsequent to the use of any such techniques, with the agents who authorized or conducted such use of torture fully accountable, even to the point of maximum legal prosecution if their use of extreme coercion is seen to have been unjustified (not simply because the interrogation did not produce the desired information, but because the grounds of justification were invalid).

I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?

Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!

If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!

The Hour and the Man

I lay awake last night, restless and thinking of why our wealth makes us dull to the gospel and soulless. Yes, we hear about Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopting infants from impoverished nations, and Bono spearheading efforts in Africa to combat HIV and AIDS. We anticipate- skeptic and believer alike- the fulfilment of the promises our President-Elect made on his unique and inspiring campaign. These are stories from the wealth of America. But these are remarkable because they are doing something counter-intuitive- and that is, sharing of their time, wealth and indeed of themselves.

I thought of Gandhi, wondering how a man could influence so many and transform the moral direction of a nation. My dad, born in 1941, tells me that when he was 5, before India's independence, people referred to Gandhi as "Gandhi Appooppan" (Grandpa Gandhi). In a remote village in Southern India, which was still a princely state and would continue to remain so until the fifties, they looked with respect to a man from faraway Gujarat and were arguably guided by his principles. Today's India has very little of those principles. Politically India's policies prior to the 90s were socialist im principle. The welfare state it created faces a crisis of epic proportions in the early 90s when policies were dramatically reversed and now has created a consumeristic nation characterized by greed and selfishness. In the turnaround which was necessary and laudable, something else happened which happens all too often- a trading away of values that called for simple living, even austerity, to make way for trumpery and shallow living. India's leadership today bears no resemblance to the one in the 40s. Martin Luther King once remarked on his trip to India, "To other countries I go as a visitor. To India I come as a pilgrim." To King, Gandhi's land held a moral clarity and courage that was unparalleled inthe world then. Gnadhi rose up in the context of an unjust and predatory governance system. Besides him so many Indian leaders then crafted a policy that was exemplary and powerful to oppose the British government with peace and civil disobedience. The hour produced the men.

Ah, but then America had Dr. King himself, a man known for his similar resistance in the face of injustice. The greatest humans in history are known for moral courage, rather than for the power they wielded, the skill they had, the money they made or the feats they accomplished. Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, Nelson Mandela, Diertrich Bonhoeffer- are all known for this. Others have had a moral dimension to them that fuelled their specia well-known activities, despite any failing they may have had elsewhere- Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churcill, President Roosevelt. Poets and authors are known much more for their profound thoughts on moral dilemmas and their resolutions- Dostoevsky, Tagore, Tolstoy. Those whose wealth and skills make the world a better place are often known because they make the world a better place, not because of themselves. Thus Alfred Nobel is known more for the prize he instituted than for his fortune in armaments. Bill Gates for now is known for Microsoft, but if he persists at his charity, he may be known much more for it in the future. This brings us to the celebrities who too are known for charitable activities than for their achievements in show business.

Why do we admire moral courage. Why is it so empirically verifiable that true greatness always comes in the face of adversity? In America we face an economic crisis, accompanied by unprecedented loss of jobs, wars in other countries and other worries. RZIM writer Margaret Manning asks in today's 'Slice of Infinity' if it is possible today to sing 'Joy to the World' when there is no apparent joy to be found. Can those of us who are not yet affected by the crisis be legitimately joyful when there are others who are so affected?

The fact is, these conditions are not new to many among the have-nots of this world. For them the crisis has been an ongoing affair. For the rest of us this is a new reality that is scary. Margaret tells us that Christmas means precisely this, that the promised Messiah came to a world that was truly dark- this made all the difference to a people that were on the verge of losing hope. The long-awaited Messiah was just so- he came into a sinful, evil world. To know the reality of this is to have known the reality of evil in our world, and indeed in ourselves.

In yesterday's 'Slice', writer Jill Carattini writes that John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord, actually exhorts us even today to make his paths straight, in our own hearts. To receive the Messiah, I need to feel my evil and repent from the bottom of my heart.

I mentioned that the hour produces the man- it did so 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. But that was God's gift to us and not the will of man. But isn't it true that every man who is so produced comes out of God's will? Jesus is God's Son, but the prophets were his messengers. My prayer is that we who need a prohet more than ever would get one- even if he calls us to turn away from our most familiar, beloved and sinful ways.

Deafening Silence in Mumbai

In the aftermath of last week's carnage in Mumbai, the global media are exhibiting their usual callousness in reporting on the issue. There are some improvements: most (with some glaring exceptions) of the major newspapers are referring to the event as an act of terror and the perpetrators as terrorists. Except some who still keep the flag flying, they have given up on the term 'militants' in referring to those who kill civilians and destroy societies in India. This was not the case 5 years ago when a ragtag bunch of terrorists drove into the campus of the Parliament House in New Delhi, their car laden with explosives.

CNN covered the event consistently- which was another exception for the media and especially for CNN. Besides these there is barely anything that I can view without revulsion in Western media reportage on this event.

The headlines are quick to judge, condemn and at the least 'tut, tut'. This article in 'The Week' magazine talks about some of them. They are urging India to let the "new" Pakistani government cooperate with Indians, asking India and Pakistan to do some "non-reacting", noting that India as usual is accusing Pakistan prematurely and without evidence, rebuking India for fomenting religious tensions and creating "disenfranchised" Muslim youth, showing puzzlement why India would continue to gnaw at Pakistan's heels when the Pakistani government clearly said they were not involved in the event and showed their cooperative side by sending their spy chief to India to talk to the government. Others are talking of how this will affect the way foreign investors look at India's business climate, thereby inflicting a heavy wound on the economy. Some others are deriding (sic) India's handling of the situation. Others are claiming that this was an event perpetrated by Hindu extremists, notwithstanding the growing mountain of evidence as to the orchestrators of the act. All of them are asking India to begin dialogue on the Kashmir issue, to open it up to the US and other nations to solve multilaterally and to ensure that the Muslim community which is by and large economically and societally backward and undereducated, is given focus and care in being able to redeem itself. Some of the more honest ones speculate that this will divert Pakistan's attention to engaging India's anger when it should be focused on the Afghanistan border. After all that is more important than subcontinental tragedies that will inevitably be forgotten in a few weeks.

It is events like this that open one's eyes to the agenda, prejudices and stubbornness that characterize Western political minds when it comes to India. As Samuel Huntington observed in 'The Clash of Civilizations', India is the only major country that is isolated, alone and culturally set apart from the world. India has no true friend. The closes of its allies, Israel and the US, are proving to be opportunists as India has always suspected them to be. The most puzzling question is why India has not been as hardnosed and decisive as China has been in pursuing a tough, self-centered, independent foreign policy.

The other remarkable observation one could make (this is no surprise though, having been repeated ad nauseam in the past) is the alactrity with which Pakistan has removed itself from suspecting eyes. The Pakistani government is new, ostensibly helping the US find the last stalwarts of the Al Qaeda hiding in the Afghan border, and has washed its hand off the responsibility. It is a victim of homegrown terror and the media argue therefore that it must be trusted implicitly by India, never mind that the legilative branch of the government has no connection to the Executive, especially the military; and never mind the calls and emails of the terrorists traced back to Pakistan; and certainly not the confessions of the captured terrorist that he had trained in Pakistan with the terrorist group LeT to fight his dirty war. Some Pakistani journalists are making the case they have always attempted to make- that the solution to all of this is for India to clean up its own backyard. Granted that India has many societal problems, but how convenient to suggest that if only India started behaving, perhaps giving away Kashmir among other things, it would all be solved. Almost all these articles call for US intervention to investigate the cause. Clearly they are dissatisfied with the evidence that is coming out of India's cops interrogating the captured terrorist and the email/phone conversations traced to Pakistan from the terrorists' satellite phone, the contact names of LeT leaders on those phones and so on. And they seem to sincerely believe that India should disbelieve its own police force and trust the US to come up with a plausible explanation for the tragedy, which of course, must exonerate Pakistan.

The LeT had of course named former president Musharraf as its honorary head prior to 9/11. This was hastily removed later. Reports of the LeT and the ISI, Pakistan's spy agency being almost interchangable, are also of course old news and therefore to be conveniently forgotten. We must trust the Pakistani claims that the LeT has somehow fallen from grace and is now an enemy to Pakistan. the connections with the ISI and deeply rooted common individual elements in these two organizations must not be relevant any more, for whatever reason.

For any media eyewash in the US, this issue has to take the cake o nbeing the most blatant. Their deafening silence in speaking out what is the obvious truth is telling. The US newspapers claim that India and Pakistan "mistrust" each other. This patronizing psycho-babble clearly muddles American minds. To India and Indians this will remain a deeply personal matter, and will only serve to further convict them of US opportunism. There may be no permanent friends in politics, but it will serve India well to remember that there are no friends at all in politics, only situations that they can manipulate. Machiavelli would be proud then, never mid Gandhi.

Let's Rest Now and Bridle Our Tongues

When I first arrived in the US in 1999, many members of the diverse Asian community let me know that in the US no woman or non-white could ever be the President. I did not form an opinion on this sweeping statement until about 2 years later when I disagreed with them and against prevailing sentiment. Today they have been proved wrong resoundingly. We had a magnificent election in which a black man with an unusual name and a history of international upbringing and education won the elections, competing first against a powerful white woman within his own party and then against a white woman and a white war hero. The naysayers still ominously add that it is the war, the economy and any number of other disasters that led to this- but the fact still remains that the immense margin of victory lays to rest such speculations. It is an historic day for America. And what a fantastic perspective from a pillar of contemporary American Christian Conservatism- Al Mohler. His column, while mourning the setback for pro-life activism, nevertheless declares the moment's glory unabashedly. Quote:

That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.

This is glorious. I was talking to my friend about how President Obama's victory will change the quality of discourse among lawmakers. He has demonstrated his gracious speech and consensus building approach. It is safe to say that most lawmakers will treat him with more respect than they showed President Bush if only for the reason that he is a minority. This is all good, regardless of that twisted motivation. Al Mohler's article reflects Christian grace, but outside of such bright lights, the quality of the current discourse on both sides of the centre is terrible. This Wall Street Journal article talks about how ungracious Americans have been in their treatment of Mr. Bush. Regardless of the fact that his presidency has been followed by a trail of problems, some created by the presidency and some not, this shabby behaviour reveals more about ourselves than about Mr. Bush. Quote:

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in
support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

Last Thursday's Presidential Bash on SNL showed Mr. Bush's daughters talking about the fact that "everybody's calling Dad dumb"- although this was supposed to be funny, it proves how irresponsible we have become in our public discourse. The incredible lies that have been circulated in emails about Mr. Obama belong in this same category. I'm reminded also of George Clooney's comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's, when he refused to apologize for a joke he made about it with "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him." I've written elsewhere in this blog about the declining quality of conservative bickering about liberalism, from religious leaders.

All these statements are intended to hurt, not build up; it is full of malice and spite; it reaches families; it alienates and divides us as a people. Yes, some Americans for all their progress against racism have become a crass, crude bunch of people- and I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama's term will lessen that. In that sense we look to him not only for leadership but an example. The Messianic fervour not withstanding, I think it is right for us to expect that level of class from every lawmaker. I'm glad that so far Mr. Obama has indeed given us the right signals.

And thankfully, Mr. Obama has the media on his side. I hope that a few months of economic and social upheavals do not turn the media against him. When that happens it will time to run for the hills.

Our Private Faith- Why It Remains Private

In our most recent church newsletter, called Fellowship Journal, one of our associate pastors, Jay Thomas, writes about the concept of the changing church that has always been the idea of church. He cites the example of Redeemer Prebyterian Church in Manhattan that is comfortable in its multicultural, sophisticated setting and is thriving even as it holds to its orthodox Christianity. Jay also talks about the fact that the Wheaton area, long a Christian bubble, as our new senior pastor- Josh Moody- described it, is now experiencing a rapid change, with new ethnicities and nationalities coming in. He emphasizes the fact that the church that does not adapt itself to reach out to these people in its own backyard is the church that actually is changing, and in a negative sense- it is actually clinging to a tradition than to its mission.

Pastor Josh Moody half-jokingly talked about having breakfast with 5 honest pagans each week just to retain his edge in this Christian bubble. He was raised in secular England where you'd have 5 Christians among 700 non-Christians, and later went to Cambridge University and New York City, where conditions are not dissimilar. Jay is half-Indian and on-eighth Native American, while I'm fully Indian. Just to set things straight, I feel- and I'm sure he does as well- right at home in Wheaton. It is densely populated with Christians, but our church has been a sending church, reaching out to many peoples around the world with the gospel, medical and counseling care, Bible translation and other missional work. I have also felt at home in that while the churchmembers are warm and kindhearted they do not go overboard in welcoming us into the congregation on the pretext that we are Indian. I have often been on the receiving end of well-meaning but a little embarrassing outpouring of special attention in other churches, where they'd express amazement that we are Christians and Indians. After these pourparlers are done, we broach the familiar topics- do Indians still have "arranged marriages" (not that again!)? and "Isn't there more freedom in America?" and the now familiar "Just last week I talked to someone named Chris (but actually Krishna) in Bangalore about my credit card payments! If you're Indian, you are smiling wryly, having been there before. I haven't seen too much of that among College Church members, but I have seen seriousness of purpose in the Bible studies and other meetings, especially Sunday services.

Reverting to our theme, I recently went to the website of Dallas Theological Seminary and downloaded some lectures given by Dr. Mark Young, whose sermons and teachings I have been truly privileged to listen to in my short stay (8 months) in Dallas. Mark is a gifted teacher, besides being a Bible scholar and a Pauline figure by example and by his zeal, and it's a treat to listen to him. In these lectures, Mark too talks about the Latin phrase Missio Dei, meaning the sending or sentness of God. In these he passionately argues that mission is not only Biblicaly based, but the Bible itself is a missional book and that our God is a missionary God. The Bible demonstrates first God's missionary focus from Genesis through Revelation, God's purpose for his people- first the Patriarchs, then Israel, and now the church- to be missional so as to demonstrate his glory to all peoples and to draw all nations to Him. The Bible also says that we are created in God's image. Mark tells us that this can be also translated "as God's image", in that we somehow are God's agents to reveal his glory to all creation. The Bible also demonstrates Jesus' authority on Earth over sin and death, and everything there is, and how he shares his authority with us to revere Him and reveal Him to all humanity.

Mark's third lecture in this series insists that contemporary Evangelical ecclesiology is derived from the Reformation and may be incompatible for today's churches. He says that the Reformation saw an ecclesiology that sought to distinguish Biblical truth from certain errors that were practised, not with a pagan land, but within the context of Christendom. But this ecclesiology has changed little today. Our context is different. Christendom is no more, and we face vastly different environments in which to live and reveal God's truth.

We have a Hindu neighbour whose 13-year old daughter has been facing difficult issues at school and they have been looking for Christian schools to enroll her in. The two Wheaton are schools she contacted let her know that they take in only Christian students. She related to us later her puzzlement that this should be so. Her interpretation was that this was unjust discrimination, just as a Hindu school in India that exludes students of other faiths would be perceived as discrimnatory. Having studied at a Catholic school in India, she had good things to say about Christian education and institutions, but this experience left her bewildered. In a culture like India's such criteria for admission would not be even allowed.

In America, it's not tough to understand why this happened. This was no instance of a "holy huddle", but the fact that public schools sometimes have students with value systems that are different or even contradictory to what Christian kids are raised to live by, as well as sometimes real and sometimes perceived agenda in US public education to turn kids into socially liberal causes such as being pro-gay rights, non-theistic evolution, refusing private prayers or religious societies within the school system being formed by students. Sometimes these may include rampant drug use, bringing guns to school, violence, sex, dirty language, loose morals, dress code and so on, besides a lower quality of education. Christian schools try to create a morally strong environment within their sphere of influence and would seek to keep out kids of other faiths based on these desires.

I was still sad to hear that there aren't schools which are Christian in character and mission that are open to everyone- like Madras Christian College was, and is. In secular (or Hindu, whichever way you look at it) India, this institution was created 175 years ago for the purpose of evangelization, and today, though that focus is no longer the driving force, the college still witnesses strongly about Christ to new students. It was there that the Lord found me, and how thankful I am for it!

In his third lecture (out of the series of 4), which deals with how the Missio Dei relates to the Populus Dei, Dr. Mark Young ends on a suddenly somber and divergent note. I can imagine him doing this, on a whim, after his theologically powerful and passionate lecture is through. He says" Frankly this idea (of the missional church) gives me nightmares. Somehow I think that at the end of my life, I will still be standing at a pulpit, saying these same things to a church full of people who just don't care."

We lament the privatization of faith in the US. Has it occured to us that we ourselves may be partly to blame?

On W the Movie

On Oliver Stone's movie on George Bush, "W", to bre released October 17th, the responses are mixed, according to this link.

Bush biographers mixed on script for Oliver Stone's 'W'

April 07, 2008

President George W. Bush is a foul-mouthed, reformed drunk obsessed with baseball, Saddam Hussein and a conflicted relationship with his dad. Naturally, what a director does with a script is how a movie is ultimately judged, but because this screenplay depicts a sitting president and the run-up to the war in Iraq, its authenticity is becoming a hotly debated subject -- not to mention the fact that any historical material Stone has touched has become controversial. Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run.

In fairness though, if this movie were released after the elections were over, then it would not find an audience. This is the only time, if any at all. But of course, the timing is no accident. It is meant to be political and a sharp arrow in Mr. Obama's quiver. Even if I find the description of this movie as an unserious look at the presidency of Mr. Bush, I will see it, if only to understand the new lows of American political discourse, this time paraded on the big screen instead of the small. Who can deny that the media, conservative and liberal alike, are clanging cymbals, full of strife, clamour and confusion, especially at a time when intelligent discourse would have changed the face of the election?

Thoughts on Order and Space

A country's physical infrastruture tells us a few things about the country. One, of course, is if the country was relatively wealthy. Although this is generally true, it may not remain true for much longer. Large nations like China (and probably India though the desire to do the same is not in evidence) can build shining cities with the collective wealth of a large population while the per capita income remains small compared to that of an advanced nation. The other piece of information we get is if the culture is used to thinking about space and architecture in way to benefit the daily demands of the society. Eastern nations have built great temples, as have Western nations built imposing cathedrals, but the architecture of the past 100 years- call it modern, postmodern, prairie-style, whatever- has by and large sought to understand how humanity could live, work and play optimally within the walls of a building- and hence we have skyscrapers, Ikea furniture, wall-beds, studio apartments, and so on.

Besides, the layout of the physical infrastructure tells us how a society can harness its leadership, creativity and resources to create a sense of order. Asian countries like Singapore have created order that is clinical and driven from the top down, no questions asked by anyone below the food chain. As film-maker Ang Lee once said about his experience in making Sense and Sensibility, in Taiwan the director is king- the underlings learn from him without a word, but in the West, the actors want to discuss things, give suggestions; and this made him feel he came across as a bad director. China is a recent example of building great order out of pre-'80s chaos.

In India the chaos is pervasive, the only places where this doesn't exist are the homes where concepts like Vaastu have taken hold. Private space is most respected, and public space is not. Therefore you have high sidewalks which are difficult to mount, full of trees that obstruct your path, billboards, hawkers and what have you. Homes in contrast are clean. Last year I was on the campus of a large IT service provider where the lawns were beautifully manicured and buildings wonderful. Just outside the gate, in Electronic City, Bangalore, was a potholed road, in disrepair for several years. That gives one the idea.

By and large in Western societies the sense of order is not drive top down, but understood by the society as a whole to be the norm. But the kind of order than you have in Chicago can be understood to be less orderly than that you find in Shanghai. O'Hare airport is the busiest airport in the US, but also a very crowded one, the highways connecting it clogged during peak hours, and longstanding demands for upgrade have been so far unfulfilled. However this is not unfulfilled in the sense that one gets in India. This is not as much to do with inertia or corruption (although they exist) as with egalitarian priorities.

Virtual infrastructure though is becoming a panacea for many of India's headaches. A colleague who has been in IT services sales for many years recently described to me the horrors of getting an RFP from a government institution in India. This was many years ago. The announcement that an RFP was to be released would hit the news. On the morning of the day of release the sales managers would crowd outside the door or window where RFP hard copies would be handed out. There are always limited copies, so the most burly or aggressive of the lot would fight and get their copies, and those who couldn't get in first would go home emptyhanded. Today though, RFPs are released electronically, and the number of recipients has increased. This is not to say that all problems in India have been similarly solved. Standardized tests and group discussions for B-school admissions are still chaos.

One would imagine that the Internet and electronic sourcing, commerce and other tools have made order out of chaos. The fact is that these tools have simply achieved what the police or infrastructure could not achieve - to keep the people disciplined and orderly. The concept of standing in a line is today made irrelevant, and hence the clutter is cut down. But the rules of web applications and the protocols of the Internet, email and other electronic tools are defined by people who sought to create order from chaos.

Could an Asian country have defined these rules originally? Perhaps an Indian pioneer who was disgruntled with the state of things could have brought this about. Or a Chinese government employee, wanting to be conscientious or earn brownie points or earn a higher rank, could have done it. I think these highly improbable situations. I do not imply that Indians or Chinese lack creativity or motivation. For nothing good comes without these. India has seen volunteer projects like Exnora. China has seen cracked the rice genome.

I just mean that a society that can conceive of physical infrastructure in ways to benefit humanity is the society that can define rules for virtual infrastructure as well. Creativity in orderliness is the same underpinning for both these infrastructures. The mechanics of these may be replicated in other societies- some more successfully than others. But order is something felt internally, and the more it is true of the people, the more we see it outside of them.

Is it the Economy, Stupid?

This article in British paper 'The Independent' spins on so many levels. First it says Obama and McCain have differing stances on the economy and their approaches to solve the current crisis. Then it says nothing that a president does actually affects the economy- it says President Bush's policies had little to do with the current crisis and that President Clinton's deficit reduction had less to do with the boom than the dot com euphoria did. It then goes on to say that the suprising 3.3 percent second quarter GDP growth (which is good by US standards) was the result of the $140 billion economic stimulus package that President Bush initiated.

Clearly what a President does has an effect on the economy. President Bush made serious mistakes in his deep tax cuts although these took time to show up in the stagnant growth we are seeing today. After all, spending, individual debt, public debt, unrealistic and unsustainable housing prices were all clearly brewing all this while, coming now to a head where the prices crashed, the bad debts swelled, bankruptcies and bailouts hiked, investors are poorer, jobs got (and are getting) axed and industrial spending low.

Mr. McCain's continuation of the tax cuts of President Bush's administration compared with Mr. Obama's focus on taxing the wealthy do stand out in stark contrast. Under both systems tax revenue will increase, and under the circumstances the ones that drive the economy are people who will go out and spend money- viz. the less wealthy, not the ones who will invest the money in China (where they actually produce something and thereby provide returns that are not based on speculation but hard goods or services) or in their retirement plans; but the people who need the money to spend on things they need to have- clothes, food, cars, gas, education, mortgages and so on. This article blames Mr. Greenspan for the ills we now face, but taking the blame of the Republican administration is clearly not cricket. The later tax cuts have stimulated the economy, but the earlier tax cuts simply made it grow faster than it should have. There is a time for deficit spending and a time for deficit reduction. This is not the time to continue deficit spending. This is also not the time to seek to continue a war indefinitely. Despite the fact that the US must do right by our knell in Iraq, it is important to have a plan to exit. Mr. McCain's plan to bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq is troublesome.

So how will the presidential policies not make an impact? The article ends by saying that the economic positions of the candidates will make an impact on the electoral results, that it's back to "It's the economy, stupid". What is scary is that the economy should matter in this election, but it may not matter enough to the voters. Some effects of recession such as job losses in predominantly blue collar states are only beginning to take place. The closure of banks and government bailouts of many financial institutions may not make sense until it hits one's own pocketbook.

Palin, Obama, Divisive Issues and Christian Challenges- Random Thoughts

There are so many articles on Sarah Palin now, almost all having to do with lipstick (pigs, pitbull and other animals associates with it), hockey, moose, bridge to nowhere, private jet, pro-life, 5 kids, Sarah Barracuda, guns and to a small extend some ripping comments she has made about Obama. Her coming into national spotlight has also given John Mccain a lead over Obama that had been eluding him for ages. Reaction to this has been mostly knee-jerk, nervous, condemning and shifty. Theories abound in the Democratic and liberal circles which recall to mind the worst strategies of John Kerry's ill-fated run last election. The latest in the barrage of such responses is in Time magazine, titled Sarah Palin's Myth of America. This article tries to explain away this phenomenon by blaming the American public for swallowing a mixture of nostalgia for the better days and the myth of an American valhalla where racial heterogeneity, abortion, single parent families, same-sex partners and so on were not imaginable. The article says Sarah Palin is an iteration of this myth which is apparently what the Republican party has been feeding the people from Reagan on. In contrast, the writer says, Obama is the candidate people can most identify with because they agree with his stance on most issues. The writer lays out these issues:

The Bush Administration has been a disaster on many fronts. The McCain campaign has provided only the sketchiest policy proposals; it has spent most of its time trying to divert the national conversation away from matters of substance. But Americans like stories more than issues. Policy proposals are useful in the theater of presidential politics only inasmuch as they illuminate character: far more people are aware of the fact that Palin put the state jet on eBay than know that she imposed a windfall-profits tax on oil companies as governor and was a porkaholic as mayor of Wasilla.

Does it strike you odd that Americans who are by far one of the most advanced civilizations on earth are falling, if this article is to be believed, for a vision of the past, while there are serious problems to be fixed? It hurts their wallets that the gas prices are high. They know they will be taxed more, whichever candidate wins, the catch being that Mccain will let the rich be taxed less and Obama the other way around. Middle class America stands to pay more if Mccain were to come to power. Obama envisions a healthcare system which by 2012 will be so robust that it will guarantee universal coverage. We do not yet know the efficacy of his methods and he has not given us a guarantee of this timeframe, but the vision and the desire are there.

I do not think the Huck Finn fantasia that Palin apparently conjures up for some people is what is doing the trick. Clearly she is a divisive factor in US politics, because unlike Mccain she has a record that does not allow her to oscillate in some critical issues such as taxes, guns, abortion, education and so on. There is clearly a vote bank for that. Second, she has at least some of what Hillary had- a figure that working middle class women can identify with. Before we begin trashing this by comparing Hillary's 'fabulous' record with Sarah's miniscule one, let us remember that there was a lot of talk of many women being more willing to vote for Mccain than Obama when Hillary lost the Democratic nomination. Rightly or wrongly this crowd is one that can be swayed much more by identification with their gender than the issues. The liberal press is full of dismay that women could conceive voting for someone who "is against their interests", meaning her pro-life stance. Perhaps this is where they need to understand that not all women understand pro-choice as a good thing for women. Many vote for Democrats because of other issues as well. Noone is fooled that Palin is pro-choice. Americn women are overwhelmingly literate and they have read ad nauseam that Palin is pro-life and has demonstrated this in her own life by having a baby with Downs syndrome.

The writer goes on to lament that Obama cannot tell a story like Palin can. It says:

He has no personal anecdotes to match Palin's mooseburgers. His story of a boy whose father came from Kenya and mother from Kansas takes place in an America not yet mythologized, a country that is struggling to be born — a multiracial country whose greatest cultural and economic strength is its diversity. It is the country where our children already live and that our parents will never really know, a country with a much greater potential for justice and creativity — and perhaps even prosperity — than the sepia-tinted version of Main Street America. But that vision is not sellable right now to a critical mass of Americans. They live in a place, not unlike C. Vann Woodward's South, where myths are more potent than the hope of getting past the dour realities they face each day.

How poignant, but how ridiculous. Obama does have stories that will resonate with people despite his Kenyan half-ancestry. We heard some of these when he gave his speech after Jeremiah Wright's first round of divisive statements from the pulpit. We heard of how Obama could no more think of Wright as a racist as he could of his white grandmother as one, despite her many characterizations of blacks in everyday life that may be perceievd by outsiders as such. Obama did something we are not used to seeing politicians do- he made us think and he did this by giving us a glimpse into his life. Perhaps he simply isn't telling us more stories because he is all about issues. He is sincere in his intent to change American politics, society, economy and foreign policy. Americans like him, but they want to relate to him as well.

Besides all this, this article makes some disingenuous statements. These are nothing new, of course. Racial heterogeneity, abortion, divorce, same-sex couples. These are what the writer says make up the present and the revolutions that spawned them was what brought forth Obama. Christians like me like Obama for some things: his apparent sincerity, his desire to understand evangelicals (although it falls short), his inclusion of healthcare as a cause for our compassion to be engaged in, his sheer merit in propelling himself from a disadvantaged racial position and working class background to centerstage in American politics and his career, his ability to engage us in meaningful and thoughtful dialogue, his economic vision that is a change from President Bush's policies that have at best been shortsighted and at worst disastrous. They do not include his pro-gay marriage, pro-choice and a patronizing attitude towards evangelicals that has been a hallmark of the American left. I'm yet to see a presidential candidate on the Right or Left that has truly engaged conservatives intellectually, to explore issues they care about with the best of their scientific, theological and political minds. Instead, all we see are debates which engage in the cheap characterization of American evangelicals as loud, uneducated and bigoted people who need to be mollified with sops for the purpose of electioneering.

It is tough to disengage the touchy issues when campaigning to the evangelicals, but Obama doesn't gloss over them. He reaches out to us on other issues. By painting them all the same colour as the other issues, this writer shows us his own prejudices. He also belittles the concerns of the social conservatives that Obama has been working hard to reach through his debate in Rick Warren's church and other venues. His America, the one that is divided along a few issues, is what the present generation should avoid.

After all, issues like abortion and gay marriages which tilted the previous elections in President Bush's favour are simply leverages for political grandstanding. Has any pro-life administration seriously challenged Roe v Wade? At best the Republican stance has been to make abortion a state decision. On the gay marriage, we see the Democratic flip-flop. They want to make this a state decision. What makes these issues a Federal or State legislation? I can understand speed limits, agricultural subsidies, school curricula, local government initiatives like pollution control, preservation of parks and so on being state legislation. But issues like these? On what basis do administrators believe they could be best left to states? If convervative politicians had the guts to take on Roe v Wade systematically and with a plan, I would support the politician whole-heartedly in that endeavour. If they can stand against gay marriage nationally, I would support them in that endeavour. Statewide legislations simply make it easier for people to achieve in one state what has been denied in another, besides helping the political parties to divide states into red and blue.

In any case, since California legalized gay marriages, it is safe to say that the rest of the nation is headed in the same direction. These are issues that have lost support nationally. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, but has said he personally believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman. This to me is a ridiculous stance, in that he voted against his own beliefs about a social system that is now facing a challenge.

Christians must understand that their society has changed. Whether the 'Christian' America of the past was true or not, it must be acknowledged that unlike in the past, Christians are now at odds with the trend of culture, which is the way it has always been in most other countries and in the best times of the Christian faith. Christians in that sense are truly counter cultural. Some time ago, in Michael Card's podcast, he mentioned that Chinese Christians who meet in housegroups are persecuted, but they respond to their persecutors with a grace that we in America do not fully understand. While there is no comparison between the treatment they get and what we are used to, we in America lack the grace and forgiving spirit that makes the Chinese Christians a shining example of the light we acknowledge is that which the darkness cannot comprehend. We cannot fundamentally change a society by legislation. In tough times, God is asking us to be examples of Christian morality. It is a challenge but as it has always happened in Christian history, the worst times bring out the best and remove the dross from the church.

It would be foolishness not to take apart the conservative press for its own hyperbole about the Palin phenomenon. Here is Wall Street Journal's embarrasing pronouncements about the liberal dislike for Palin. Quote:

Her rising popularity across America has rudely confirmed that not all Americans care about the preferred presidential pick of the international left-liberal community. Barack Obama is their anti-American dream candidate, a man who is part of their project to bring America, the great Satan, to heel. After all, he never spoke about the possibility of victory in Iraq. Only American withdrawal and defeat. And thus America's humiliation........

All along, this international strain of anti-Americanism evident in Australia and beyond has been driven by a determined refusal to comprehend that peculiarly American curiosity: those who wear their God-fearing, love-of-America conservative values on their sleeves. In other words, people such as Sarah Palin who mean it when they say "God Bless America."

Does US withdrawal or even defeat in a war mean defeat for US values? Or is a withdrawal from Iraq actually a defeat? Will America collapse in such an eventuality? The last time around- in Vietnam- we saw nothing of the sort, and this is nothing close. The war effected a regime change in the country and they are doing well economically with a trade surplus of over $60 billion, while we are hemorrhaging tax funds to prop up this country. Second, while Palin may well mean it when she says 'God Bless America', it does not necessarily mean that all conservatives love America in the way the writer portrays. Questions about pork barrel, wasteful wars, healthcare, tax credits for oil companies and policies benefitting the wealthy will still remain to be answered by people who represent us, whose faith declares that the poor in spirit are indeed blessed. A little humility would go a long way.

The Other Extreme

My last post clearly pointed out China's Olympic ambitions to be driven top down and not bottom up or at a grassroots level. Yet the Western media that intends to rain on China's parade goes to such an extreme it is embarrassing to agree with them on any point they make about this. The Telegraph carries this report on Liu Xiang, about the apparently brutal treatment he has received from the Chinese government in his training; and that the whole thing is pretense by the Chinese to establish national supremacy in sports. It goes on to say that "he was sent to his Olympic death by a regime that knew his injuries were terminal. " The readers' comments also betray this feeling.

It's time to ask a simple question: granted, the Chinese government hothouses its athletes. The West doesn't; rather Western athletes do well out of their initiative and then the Olympic committee gives them additional facilities to improve their skill. This is more humane.

However the media would have us believe that the Chinese athletes are running at the barrel of a gun. Is it possible for a sportsperson to achieve a medal in such a way? The Chinese gymnasts, underage or not, clearly loved their craft. Noone can force talent with intimidation. And any joy of sports will disappear with intimidation.

The other complaint that most people have is: the Chinese athletes are handpicked from kindergarten, and the rest of China is sports-unaware. It is true that the rest of China does not practise Western gymnastics or artistic diving which are truly Western sports. But every culture has its own games- India has kabbaddi and kho-kho, China has its own. These are not Olympic sports; so China, in its desire to dominate an event accepted rightly or wrongly as the showpiece of global athleticism, focuses on a few people to excel in these sports.

The critics ask how this benefits the rest of China. We do not know yet but we can guess. In the US, there are now more people out running or riding a bike because they are inspired by the Olympics. The ad on NBC urges them that it is time to at least 'begin'. Similarly China (and of course India though we haven't realized it) needs sporting heroes. Especially local heroes that people can look up to and feel inspired to exercise. The West does this more democractically. China does this by central planning.

How successful will this be? We do not know. Going by the experience of the erstwhile USSR, not much. After the communist government collapsed, Russian sports, especially Olympic sports, shrank to become a shadow of its former self. The medals had not inspired people enough to excel. Still they are a major sporting nation. And China seems to be the boldest of them all- they are treading grounds which the USSR or the old Eastern bloc never did. Hopefully this will spread inspiration among the people and the Chinese government will then find it easier to pick athletes who have come up from among the ranks of the common people.

While putting this in perspective, that the West hasn't done too badly, given its democracy and the level of health among its people, the media should quit whining about Chinese success and just urge its readers to get out there and play.

Rediscovering Our Souls

'America discovers its soul again', said the headline. It was interesting. I saw the headline on Google news and I was skeptical, coming as it did from the website of Variety. I decided to check it out and sure enough, it disappointed. It was about Isaac Hayes, the controversial musician whose 'soul' hits in the seventies helped define the genre. Hayes passed away two days ago. Clearly the death of a well-known artist is something to write about, the fans and the curious rightly express their sorrow on the comment forms. But something about that title piqued my interest and let me down as well.

What is the soul of a nation and when does it discover it? In India I have sat through lectures in schools, speeches and meetings in public fora that talked about India's soul- invariably it was connected with the legacy of India's past, when great sages wrote glorious epics, ethical treatises; mathematicians, kings and warriors were also saints. During these discussions it was implied that in our struggle for independence from Britain this soul was rediscovered to an extend and through the sacrifices made by a few, it was bared to the public to view and wonder and admire. In the wars we fought against Pakistan and China too, some of this soul was rediscovered. It is true that adversity brings about heroism and we relate the heroism to our ideals, especially those found in our past.

How about the United States? Here is a nation that strives to preserve its short history as a nation in public memory. In incredible contrast to India which does not record its culture, accomplishments or history adequately, the Americans have built monuments and museums in every major city to document and present well their history-prehistoric, colonial, national, anthropological, social, technological, political, religious and other history. The US has the most widespread, biggest and well-maintained public library system I have seen. Everywhere you go you see reminders of how Americans defined the concept of America by sheer individual grit, enterprise, discipline and romance. The moon shot, the wars, the music, the sports...

China- a nation that drives the agenda of defining its soul from top down. In contradistinction to the US, this is a nation that does not necessarily have its people defining the concept of China for themselves; but the Chinese government actively promotes this- and from what we see it has achieved much more success than other such experiments elsewhere, like the erstwhile USSR or Eastern Europe. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Olympics. At the time of this writing, China leads the medals table with 9 golds versus 3 US golds and 4 South Korean ones. The documentaries aired about the 16-year old gymnasts who perform incredible feats on the uneven bars reveal China's astonishing desire to excel and outcompete other nations in sports. The athletes trained in human hothouses from kindergarten for the sole purpose of winning Olympic gold medals turn out to be world-beaters, even as 98 percent (as a recent Guardian report suggested) of the population remains indifferent to actually participating sports, compared to academic achievement.

Wherein lies the soul? What makes Americans and America? What makes me an Indian? Or the Chinese? We each struggle to define ourselves in the light of our circumstances and our dreams. Who can deny that it is our dreams that frame our lives? Human desire and passion are stronger than that of nations. The more we are true to ourselves and God the more we are free to be what He wants us to be. As Solzhenitsyn said, a single word of truth can outweigh the whole world.

Postscript on Aug 12: By now it is commonly known that the little girl who sang 'Ode to the Motherland' in the Olympic opening ceremony was lipsynching to another girl who remained in the background because she was considered 'not cute enough'. Another example of driving the agenda from top down. And sure enough, the Western press has pounced on it, and rightly so. So often I feel that China has enough power economically, culturally and politically to create a unique position for itself in the world. All too often it seems they are desperately trying to look good in Western eyes. They are playing the game the way of the West. China's own game should have been good enough. The arguments the Chinese leaders gave in defense of the Olympic lipsynching event are eye-opening, as found here in the New York Times

Political Half-Truths and Patronizing Comments

News item from ABC's website on that Clinton finance committee member, Geraldine Ferraro's patronizing comments on Barack Obama. She says:

"the black community came out with ... pride in [Obama's] candidacy. You would think he would say 'thank you' for doing that, instead, I'm charged with being a racist."

In short her argument should sound like this (I'm paraphrasing for her): "Of course Obama got where he is because he is black and he has the support of the African American community. Hillary is being discrimnated against because she is a woman. But of course we being high-minded and playfully indulgent of the African Americans' little pipedream to get one among them into a presidential race can tolerate it to an extend- and they should just accept it with gratitude instead of going about as if they actually believed they are a community on the ascend."

What did Obama say about her? That Ferraro's comments are divisive. That he would leave it to the Clinton campaign to decide whether to fire her or not (in response to a question on this topic).

America can pat itself on its back till the cows come home about having a woman and a black presidential candidate competing for Democratic nomination, but the test will remain this: Are the American people deadly serious about this? If so it is not very convincing to hear Ms Ferraro's pompous comments about Obama's skin colour and Hillary's sexist problem. After all it really looks like she is the one who is playing the victim card for Hillary being a woman and trying to garner votes on that basis. Not Obama. When has Obama capitalized on his ethnicity overtly? If he actually did that would he have got close to getting the kind of support he is getting from so many Americans?

It's so sad to hear these comments.

On another note the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Republicans are slowly strengthening in their support for John McCain, upto 77 percent of them being united in their support, while Democrats are divided over their support for either Obama or Clinton, many saying they would rather stay home on the election day than vote for the "other" Democratic candidate if he/she were chosen.

Washington Post reported yesterday just the opposite. Their 'nationwide' poll stated that McCain didn't have any support from the Republicans while 80 percent of the Democrats would vote for either Clinton or Obama and either nomination would not affect their decision.

Who is telling the truth? Perhaps their polls were targeted at their readers. In the case of WSJ they were likely Republican loyalists; and of course the Washington Post attracts primarily the Democratic loyalists. But this is as clear an indication s you would want to see that the media isn't and could never be the measure of truth in our society as they often purport themselves to be.

Audacity of Being Vulnerable

Telling the truth, having a conviction and revealing onself to the point of being vulnerable. Are these the qualities of a politician? If they are not qualities of a politician we may know currently, are these traits a politician should have? If he/she should have them, what purpose do they serve? Do they serve to keep themselves in power (which as Machiavelli says is what every politician should make his/her number one goal), or do they serve to help the politician administer well?

Today political pundits will do lipservice to these traits and tout them at elections. Actions being more than words the measure of our intentions, their work behind the scenes would contradict their platitudes. In the US, we are at a point where people are looking for authenticity and are still confused as to whether what they are getting is the real thing. They look at Obama and want to propel him forward to the Democratic nomination for the presidency; their perceptions about the Clintons as being duplicitous and power-driven contributing as much to this as their liking for Obama's 'audacity of hope'. They want to look inside and discover an American ideal, the ideal that sometimes shows up in reality but more often remains something to be grasped at by straws. As Obama described it in his keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention:

"I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance
that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the
health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about
something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire
singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores;
the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the
hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid
with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of
hope."

The Clintons' strategy to counter this has been to point out that experience matters and the idealism of youth can only take us thus far. I believe though that people want convictions before experience. As Jesus said, "if the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" Whether true or not, the perception is that Hillary lacks conviction. Peggy Noonan keeps writing that her primary purpose is Machiavelli's classical line about the number one goal in politics- to stay in power. Much as that hope for gaining power, for toppling the Republican administration in the last election was the momentum for the Kerry-Edwards nomination (they seemed sure that the public dislike of the Bush administration would be enough to get them there), this time around the Democrats are searching their souls for genuine desire.

John McCain- the allegations of being a maverick, the most liberal among the Republicans and now a story of marital infidelity gnaw at his heels. While most Republicans want a change to the failures of the Bush administration, it seems surprising on the surface that they came up with someone whose objectives are to continue some of the policies that made the current presidency rate low in public approval in the first place. Mitt Romney sought to take a different stance, and so did Giuliani. McCain also has been a mixed bag for the social conservatives- prolife but pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control and distanced from the evangelical base of the party (so much so that James Dobson, long a king-maker, has refused to endorse him). Still they put him ahead of the others, and he has as much support among the evangelicals as does Mike Huckabee. It strikes me that his history and his sticking by his stated positions over the years has made him a preferable alternative to the others more than anything else. At heart the Republicans want conviction over everything else- even if it means making mistakes.

There is still more time to find out if Obama would actually win his party's nomination. If anything can be said for Hillary, it is that she is not a quitter. Be that as it may, this election is sure to bring genuine debate into public awareness. We are seeing convictions battle each other, not propaganda- I hope.

The Lost Art of Courteous Conversation

I was at dinner with relatives the day after Thanksgiving, and the topic of the 2008 Presidential elections came up. We discussed the pros and cons of the potential candidates on both sides, when out of the blue someone remarked, 'Even a chimp could do a better job than George Bush.' This statement was followed up by some similarly flippant remarks on his ability to articulate, his education and so on. Regardless of the fact that doing a better than George Bush cannot be a factor in the next elections (since Bush is not a possible candidate ayway), I didn't continue the discussion although a good critical look at many flawed Bush policies would have made good conversation at the dinner.

This brought me back to a column by Peggy Noonan about the courtesy to be observed in the give and take of political discourse, the gist being that we have lost the ability to dissect, disagree or criticize without being coarse. In it Noonan highlights Ann Coulter and Bill Maher in two separate incidents which made her wince- Coulter suggesting John Edwards was gay, and Maher mentioning a lot of lives could have been saved if Dick Cheney were dead.

Funny enough, when someone makes such a strong negative statement about a candidate, it makes me sympathize with the candidate a little. When Noonan herself sometimes goes overboard in her criticism of Mrs. Clinton it makes me want to understand her better, to believe that all this mud cannot be completely true of her.

Besides all this Ms. Noonan's column makes another interesting point. I quote it here:

Conservatives said they were chilled by Mr. Maher's comments, but I don't
think they were. They were delighted he revealed what they believe is at the
heart of modern liberalism, which is hate.

Liberals amused themselves making believe they were chilled by Ms.
Coulter's remarks, but they were not. They were delighted she has revealed what
they believe is at the heart of modern conservatism, which is hate.

The truth is many liberals were dismayed by Mr. Maher because he made
them look bad, and many conservatives were mad at Ms. Coulter for the same
reason.

I realized as I watched it all play out that there's a kind of simple
way to know whether something you just heard is something that should not have
been said. It is: Did it make you wince? When the Winceometer is triggered, it's
an excellent indication that what you just heard is unfortunate and ought not to
be repeated.

In both cases, Mr. Maher and Ms. Coulter, when I heard them, I winced.
Did you? I thought so. In modern life we wince a lot. It's not the worst thing,
but it's better when something makes you smile.

Good point, I think. We always feel chagrined when someone who claims to share our point of view misrepreents it by making a remark that you would always distance yourself from. It's good to remember that if you want people to listen you had better have something to give them than verbal abuse.

Twist of Karma- the Hindu American Foundation's Two Faces

Amazing enough that the Hindu American Foundation which has often complained about Protestant missions in India now lobbying hard against the Bush Administration restricting some religious visas.

The link is here. Some of HAF's members in the past have complained about missionaries coming in to India on visitors' visas and preaching in a church. India, of course, doesn't grant religious visas to missionaries.

It's pretty typical that the HAF would like to enjoy the liberties for adherents of the Hindu faith in the US that they would not grant those of other faiths in India. Thus they would fight against having Christian artifacts, paintings, the Ten Commandements and so on placed in American public buildings, ignoring the fact that it is commnplace in India to have Hindu artifacts in Indian public buildings. The same goes for other minority faiths in the US. The Islamic community would lobby hard for privileges that would never be allowed other faiths in countries that have accepted Islam as state religion.

It certainly speaks highly of the US as being a truly open, clear-thinking community; and the HAF should do well to think hard about the value of these liberties which they would deny their non-Hindu brethren in India.

Winds of Change in Burma

Burma's military dictatorship has so far reacted with less ferocity than expected at the massive pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks and nuns. While the world has pretty unanimously voiced its indignation at whatever violence the government has inflicted on the protesters, and puppet master China has called for restraint, one gets the feeling that the worst is yet to come. Daw Ang San Suu Kyi who has been a prisoner of conscience for a long time, said many years ago that it is fear, not power, that corrupts. When you fear losing power, you become corrupt. As of now the Burmese government is repressive because it fears its people.

What is interesting in the question of Burma is the attitudes of other countries. China has long supported the military rulers in Burma. Having unleashed violence on its own people in 1989, China knows well that civil uprisings are tough and has always encouraged Burma with military and economic aid. Besides China has always counted Burma as a hedge against India. A democratic Burma has no value as a hedge.

India has always been supportive of the pro-democracy movement in Burma. Recently though the thinking in New Delhi has shifted considerably. It is as though India has grown tired of playing the pacifist and renounced its moral high horse position. Today Indian policy toward Burme is one of realpolitik, of curbing the influx of narcotics and arms from Burma into India's volatile North East, rife as it is with Chinese propaganda. India, though supportive of democracy, has been developing economic relationships with Burma, and engaging them in dialogue, thereby winning the government over to crackdown on the narcotics and arms trade. And to make it clear from the outset, to me this is the best bet from both a practical and humane angle. I will explain why shortly.

The ASEAN has also been engaging Burma in trade, admitting the country into its association in 1997. The Philippines recently decried the violence in Burma, surprisingly and unprecedently upping the ante against the military rule. But in general these nations have not imposed sanctions on Burma like the West has.

The West has imposed sanctions on Burma and has reached out to Burma's neighbours to do the same. The sanctions have had no effect as China has supported Burma mightily through thick and thin. Besides, India, realizing late that its interests in the region are compromised by the sanctions, and knowing that a foothold in the energy-rich nation is essential to meet its exploding demand for energy, is involved in a race with China to secure its place in Burma. The South East nations have siezed the opportunity to trade with Burma in the face of Western sanctions. At the same time, the West has not done anything in Burma other than the ineffective sanctions. Their focus has been on the Middle East and Latin America.

Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' theory posits that the Western world acts in its own interests- a fact borne out by numerous incidents. Individuals within the Western world are independent agents and hold their own opinions, but their governments always act in their own interests. Thus they may turn a deaf ear to massacres in Srebrenica, but act quickly in Cuba or Nicaragua. They may support military rulership in Pakistan and decry the same thing in Burma.

The West also tried to influence other nations and cultures with its line of thinking. Take Russia, for instance. Pressured to alienate Iran, Russia does not want to create an unfriendly neighbour. There is no toeing the Western line there. Unlike the West, these Asian/Eurasian nations do not usually cry themselves hoarse about repressive nations that the West supports, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, because they are not united in their opinions and/or they do not want to compromise their own relationship with these nations. Thus the US states freely that India and Pakistan are both allies, but the fact remains that Pakistan is ruled by a dictator who initiaited a war with India and whose nation is clearly in the wrong as far as exporting terrorism to India is concerned. The recent revelations of nuclear technology transfer from Pakistan to North Korea have rattled the West enough to censure Pakistan, but this bears out the fact that democracy outside of the West interests the West only when it is beneficial to the West. If a dictatorship is similarly beneficial then the West usually supports it. In China's case there has been recently a turn of events- some call it political maturity, others call it the result of affluence or economic integration with the world. China could and did ignore world opinion on a lot of matters in the past. The massacre at Tianenmen square was an example. Its actions today are markedly more benign. Could this be India's nuclear capability? Could it be that world opinions matter now for attracting investment in China, especially now that India and other nations have become as hungry and ready for it? Could it be that Beijing is accomplishing a facelift, of which its newly gleaming cities and the Olympics next year are examples? For whatever reason, one finds that China reacts considerably differently to events such as the Maoist threat in Nepal and North Korean nuclear ambitions. So it is with the protests in Burma. This represents an opportunity for the West to push their agenda (at least a little) in some of these nations.

What about Burma? Or specifically what can India and the US do (separately) about Burma? India cannot march in and crush the junta as the consequences of a sustained war and a proxy-war with China are unthinkable. Already the lessons from Sri Lanka are fresh in Indian minds. India cannot impose sanctions as they are not only ineffective but counter-productive to the confidence building measures and economic relationship fostered painstakingly over the last decade. India cannot as its policy arm militants as it has been itself a victim of such export of terror. India can incentivize a return to democracy and freedom by establishing economic cooperation. Besides the shabby treatment of Daw Ang San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement by the junta has always worsened when it felt threatened. Democracy imposed from the outside is never a true democracy, as Solzhenitsyn recently remarked about the US remaking of the Iraqi government.

The US is the most serious player in this equation. In its war against terror the US has a moral responsibility to oppose regimes such as Pakistan and Burma, but experience with other Asian countries must have taught the US that democracy imposed from without is of no use. The US too must begin constructive dialogue with Burma. It must help Burma move on from being an international pariah to economic powerhouse that it is entitled to be, given its rich resources and people. A nation like Singapore is a US ally without being a true democracy- why not Burma? What prevents this is (1) US fear over Chinese influence on Burma; and (2) the prevailing mistrust in Burma towards the US. These are tough to overcome, but absolutely necessary to create a peaceful Burma. The US must take the lead in bringing both the junta and the pro-democracy leaders to the negotiating table. As all dictatorships do, Burma's will fall one day. To prevent the spillage of blood in the meantime, there needs to be a give and take as Burma becomes stronger and integrated with the world.

One can hope for the pro-democracy movement to succeed in Burma, and if it does, it is good news indeed. Hopefully it will result in a good plan and action towards democracy and join India as the only true grassroots democracies in Asia. If it doesn't, the best other nations can do is to help integrate that nation with the rest of the world.

Decoding the Numbers on Poverty

Business Columnist Steve Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post on the latest statistics on US poverty. This is an insightful column in summing up the perspectives from the right and the left.

He acknowledges that both sides have valid arguments but they are carried too far. Yes, the less wealthy have historical reasons as to why they remain that way (slavery) and present reasons (lack of opportunity or resources). And yes, it's also due to Government doing things the wrong way (welfare) and lack of discipline. While one places the emphasis on the responsibility of the society to uplift the poorer sections of itself, the other exhorts the individuals to rise above themselves. Pearlstein also talks about the fact that a very poor individual may find herself givig up any idea of economic or social resurgence because it seems beyond her reach. A $100 bill found on the street, for instance, will not pay for college, so she may blow it up on various intoxicants. The logic outrages most people, but this is true. I've seen this among the slum-dwellers in India and I see it here in the US. The individual is responsible primarily for his upliftment. At the same time, the society cannot sit by and let these people decline. Welfare as we know it may have alleviated some misery but it isn't going to solve the problem effectively. There is merit to the individual emphasis argument.

Interestingly the only non-argument that Pearlstein comes up with is that in order to motivate people to work or learn or pull themselves together into social behaviours that will keep them out of poverty, they need to get into a financial sweetspot between $24,000 and $96,000 median income. Beyond this maxima or minima, he concludes, complacence may set in.

Christianity has of course always focused on the individual. Even the society's role in encouraging the weaker brethren is primarily a role of the individuals within the society, not the role of legislation or force. As a democratic society though, the US legislates (in theory) what the majority of individual citizens want. And hence, it is an indication of the individual inclination to improve the lot of people around the individual. Here lies the rub (as far as I'm concerned): the American dream, the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness", the motivation to succeed, achieve, earn and spend is often contrary to the ideal to giving money away to someone else. On the one hand we want individuals to behave well, have social, economic and civic goals; on the other we encourage them to be selfish. That dilemma cannot be solved through economic legislation. The human heart needs to be changed. All Christians know that.

What can we do to make sure the Government does the right things to improve the capability or propensity of the people to achieve, succees, learn and be productive? Surely more by providing tools rather than the finished product. The finished products will leave us (as is happening now) with net consumers, not producers. Education is compulsory but sub-par in several poor neighbourhoods, the investment into teaching far less than needed. Opportunities for business reserved for minorities and historically under-utilized businesses, but no pro-active measures to impart business training to them or anyone else. There are no targeted programs for the poorer sections for these issues. No proper counseling for their emotional and mental trauma. A society that cares should count all of this as it legitimate cost in enabling all of us to succeed. Above all, as with 'reservations' in India, affirmative action in the US is more politicized than it is scientifically administered. Is there propoer measurement for how well it is succeeding? Is there a specific timeline for achieving metrics that are defined to eradicate the effect of past injustices? Is there a timeline to phase out affirmative action in the future? If it goes on indefinitely, it will only serve to create a pampered, net-consumer class of people who uneduc ated, un-motivated, uncultured wastrels (no offence meant, here- I'm a minority myself). Such a directionless program will also eventually create reverse discrimination and foster a new inequality.

The same goes for India. The issue of reservations is so shabbily discussed by both ends of the argument, and the rea concerns seldom addressed. And to make it worse, it is purely political. There is no other motivation to it and this makes it more dangerous than the US situation.

Hindu Prayer in the Senate

I have not seen too many op-eds from Christian news papers on the three Christian activists who shouted down a Hindu prayer in the Senate recently. On July 12th a Hindu chaplain prayed a Hindu prayer in English, albeit it was worded very generally, to make it acceptable and relatable to all. Three protesters shouted out protests before this began saying, "there is no God but Jesus Christ", and "this is an abomination."Organizations like American Family Association deemed this prayer unconstitutional because the Constitution says we are one nation under God, not "gods". Messages on an online news site were filled with believers protesting this prayer. Similarly sometime ago there were protests about Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison taking oath of office with his hand on the Koran and not the Bible. The Christian community was aghast at this. On WMBI (Moody Radio), anchors that I respect spoke against this.
While I largely agree with the opinions of the Christian conservative community here is my opinion on all this:

1. A Hindu prayer offered on the senate floor is not unconstitutional. The founding fathers may roll in their graves if this news reached them, as one protester put it. But given the spirit of the constitution, which is one of letting the definition for God remain as was known, the prayer is not unconstitutional. Islamic and Jewish prayers have been offered before, so this is not unprecedented. Some Hindus claim Hinduism is monotheistic as well. Perhaps it could be considered monistic, but that is neither here nor there.

2. Protesters compare this event to Biblical Judah and Israel losing their way after the reign of Solomon, when kings offered sacrifices to foreign gods and idols. While as a Christian I believe that Hinduism is not the Truth, I do not see this parallel between ancient Israel and modern day America. Israel was specifically founded as a nation set apart by God for his chosen people. America had its roots in pilgrims crossing the ocean to practice their faith in liberty but the nation itself was not founded for Christians only. There were freemasons and atheists among the founding fathers, but in general the United States was birthed during a period of religious fervour which deepened with the Great Awakening, and many prominent thinkers and leaders were Christian. Some were Mormon. But the US is not a theocratic state.

3. Secularists abuse the concept of the separation of the church and the state. They want to purge all religion from the public arena. Thus they do not want Jesus' name to be mentioned in a Senate prayer because that would mean identifying a particular religion. Going by Ravi Zacharias' definition, secularism is when "religious ideas, expressions and institutions have no right to influence society." In that sense, the US was not formed as a secularist state. The separation of the church and state does not prohibit Christians or any other religious group to practice their faith in the public square or in Government buildings, offices and so on. Claiming that it does goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

4. Protesters claim that allowing the Hindu prayer would ensure the downfall of the US. This is a tricky argument. The converse of this is that if this prayer were not allowed on the Senate floor the US wouldn't fall. This borders on the ridiculous. Whether this prayer is allowed or not, the US will be dealt with according to its faith. As of now I do not believe the US is a Christian nation. This is not due to immigration or foreign missionaries from other faiths being allowed to preach here. This is because Americans have lost their faith as well as their morality. Hedonism, materialism and indifference to the faith of their fathers have made this country (albeit not to the extend to which Europe has fallen) a pagan country. Each person will stand before Christ to give an account and the collective effect of fallen and unredeemed lives will be felt on national life as well. The Hindu prayer in the Senate was simply an expression of the social milieu- that of a pluralistic society. In the past, when the US was mostly Christian (truly or nominally; we won't debate that), such a prayer would be out of the question because the social milieu did not warrant it. Today there are Hindus in the US, and there are also people who don't care whether a prayer is said on the Senate floor or not. In that social milieu such prayers will be said; and nothing in the Constitution argues against it.

5. Respondents in this online blog mentioned that India wouldn't allow Christian prayers in the Lok Sabha, the Caste System is evil, how Hinduism has bred so many social evils, and so on. None of this is germane to the issue. Regardless of how badly some of its adherents behave, the religion as such is practices by around a billion people, 2 million of whom live in the US. Many of them behave quite normally. This is the kind of argument which uninformed opponents usuallu use against Christianity, and I've often reminded them that a religion cannot be judged by its abuse. Even if you point to Hindu writings that point to sanctioning of the said evils, modern Hindus practise a different religion that what was written by obscurantist writers of the past. Some are violent, some are nationalists, some are inclusivists, some exclusivists, some simply peace-loving and interested in being left alone to go on with their lives. Just like us.

6. One respondent mentioned that we need to make sure that people who come to this country are Christians. That's interesting. Besides the fact that such a policy would make this little different from Saudi Arabia, I was wondering how one could ensure that only Christians remained in this country. If someone doesn't accept Jesus as their Lord by, say the age of 20, what happens? Does he/she get cast out? Christianity is about taking the message of salvation to the unreached, not shutting them out!

After all of this is said and done, am I happy that this prayer was recited? It's a tricky question. Let me put it this way. I'm happy the Senate upheld religious freedom by allowing the prayer. But I'm unhappy about the social milieu that led to this being a practice in the US. I'm unhappy about the shift in American culture.