Spiritual wickedness in high places

Bill Curry had a curious letter to the editor published June 10^th edition of the paper that sponsors this blog. It was in response to a letter from someone who objected to the paper publishing a Phyliss Schlafly column supporting Ben Stein’s movie Expelled about creationism.  I read the Bible every day too and believe that God created everything, just not in the literal fashion that creationists like Mrs. Schlafly and Mr. Curry claim.

Mr. Curry took off on a revisionist history trip in an effort to connect science and Christianity.  He wrote that Bible-based Christianity is responsible for modern science because many of the scientists during the Scientific Revolution (16^th century) were Christians. Credible historians do see a connection, but not the one that Mr Curry asserts. The connection is that the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Revolution, the discovery of the new world, the fall of Constantinople, and the rediscovery of Aristotle undermined the status quo. It was finally politically acceptable (no more inquisitions) to challenge established thought and a new age of scientific discovery began.

Stranger yet, he claimed that the scientific method was inspired by a Bible quote. This is curious on two counts. First, historians attribute the scientific method to al-Haytham, a first millenium Muslim Arab widely regarded as the first scientist. Second, this same method is the foundation for the theory of evolution and the reason why the vast majority of the scientific world rejects creationism.

I do agree with Mr. Curry that science is revealing many wonderful insights every day that strongly suggest God’s presence, but scientific discovery is something we all share as humans.  It is part of our wiring.  Though it may be the result of individual inspiration, it is generally not attribued to prayer or spiritual belief.  It dates back to the discovery of fire - well before the invention of writing.  As a result, it is shared by all cultures and religions.

Finally in an effort to establish his position that good science is based on a belief in God, Mr. Curry took a swipe at Buddhism saying that the reason there aren’t any well known Buddhist scientists is because Buddhism is an atheist religion.  This is just wrong on so many points that I don’t know where to start.  It may be better to just leave you with a quote from one of our greatest modern scientists,

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” Albert Einstien

A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure to attend a lecture by the Dali Lama in Ann Arbor.

One of the more interesting aspects of the lecture was the Dali Lama’s suggestion that Tibetan Buddhism was not for everyone. He said that our beliefs are the product of our traditions. So, in his opinion, if you aren’t Tibetan it’s going to be difficult to completely understand everything about Tibetan Buddhism. Most non-Tibetans simply don’t have the cultural context.

In the same vein, he went on to say that he doesn’t mean to imply that Tibetans or Tibetan Buddhism is beyond the grasp of non-Tibetans. He suggested that it would likely be just as difficult for most Tibetans to understand and fully grasp everything about western Christianity.

Why I found this interesting is because right outside the Crisler Arena, there were about 100 Chinese quietly protesting the Dali Lama’s speech. They felt that he is responsible for the political unrest in Tibet. I found out later that at least some of the protesters, including one of their spokespeople, are naturalized US citizens. So the passion they felt for this particular subject was, as far as I could tell, genuine and not the result of overt coercion.

Given the Dali Lama’s insight, I started to think more deeply about what might move these Chinese to take the position that they did.

On the surface, there are just a lot of contradictions.

Here they are in a fairly free and open society where they are able to demonstrate and express their opinion. They are using that freedom to protest the fact that Tibetans are trying to do the same thing in an area of the world controlled by the Chinese.

They are supporting a government that prevents open access to the internet and press, but they are protesting what they see as a media bias against the Chinese government.

The Chinese government has spent decades attempting to discredit the Dali Lama as an untrustworthy political troublemaker and these protestors are supporting that line. The Dali Lama, as far as anyone in the west can tell, is doing his best to follow the teachings of Buddha and harm no living thing.

It has to come down to what the Dali Lama said. We simply don’t understand the nationalism that motivates the Chinese people these days. Their cultural context is beyond the grasp of most of us, and so we struggle when we see such bias and pride. The Olympics are a big deal for them and any attempt to move the spotlight away from what they see as their coming out party, is viewed as a overt attempt to discredit their nation AND them. They aren’t ready to look at themselves honestly because they have been changing so quickly and want credit for where they are going rather than where they current are.

If you put this in the context of history, I’m sure that Europeans have had the same reaction to Americans for at least the last 100 years.

Keep that in mind the next time a politician suggests that the rest of world really wants to be like us. Just as we don’t really understand them, it is very difficult for them to really understand us. Yet, we wage wars, overthrow sovereign governments, and pick sides in conflicts based on our view of the world. Just like the Dali Lama, we must seek understanding first before we can make statements like, “They hate our freedom”. If we really seek to love our neighbor as ourselves, isn’t that the least we can do?

 I think it is always dangerous ground to attempt to speak for God.

Those of us who are Christians have the Bible as a sufficient guide to our salvation, but even here there are many paths. Jesus, the most perfect man to ever walk the earth, encountered devout people in his own town that he couldn’t heal of their bigotry and hardheartedness.

There are those in our community today who seem to have succumbed to the same temptation to turn Jesus message of love, humility, and tolerance into narrow-minded self-righteousness. The paper that sponsors this blog published a letter from one on April 26^th.

The author, Mr. Abraham, felt that Reverend Timothy McDonald, founder of the First Iconium Baptist Church in east Atlanta, was in error when he claimed that Jesus was crucified for political reasons. Mr. Abraham went on to quote scripture extensively to prove his point that Jesus death had a much more profound spiritual purpose. On that point, it is likely that he and Rev McDonald would agree. But in Rev. McDonald’s defense, those who killed Jesus did so because they viewed him as a political threat, not a spiritual one. In fact, it took Jesus resurrection and the Holy Spirit to open his own disciples eyes to him as more than a political Messiah.

This minor theological spat, however, was just the thin veneer that Mr. Abraham chose to dress up an ugly screed directed at African Americans, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witness, and any minister in Monroe who disagreed with him.

The author appears to have forgotten the example of another Abraham who became the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, “And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.” Gen 13:8

Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection was for all mankind through all time. It was for African Americans, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christians, Mr. Abraham and me. We are all brothers.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt 5:21-24

This is a story about the conflicts between private life and public life.

The story starts with a Boston area bankruptcy judge taking a walk on the wild side in New Hampshire while his wife was away for the weekend. In this case that involved cross dressing and visiting a popular gay bar. His only crime was that he had too much to drink and then got behind the wheel. The next thing he knew, there was a parked pickup truck on the hood of his Mercedes. The police said that they knew he was drunk because he passed out a couple of times and, “had a difficult time locating his license in his purse.”

He pleaded ‘no contest’ to a misdemeanor DUI charge and agreed to pay roughly $600 in penalties. He also agreed to a 12-month suspension of his judicial license and resigned the post President Bush appointed him to in 2004.

Here’s what’s sad to me about the whole thing.

From all accounts, he was a good judge in an area of law where we need good judges.

So, other than embarrassment, why did he have to resign?

My sense is if it had been a simple DUI, he probably wouldn’t have had to resign. Heck there are plenty of congressmen and senators over the past several years convicted of driving while under the influence who have continued to hold office. Recently defeated Senator Tommy Robertson just had his second DUI conviction. The judge had to resign because of the revelation that he was a transvestite. As a Republican, I submit that this is a far greater transgression than driving after having too much to drink.

If this person had chosen to show up for the job in fishnet stockings and an evening dress, you could make a strong case for him being unfit. The fact that this occurred on his own time at a place where he would not be recognized suggests that he is capable of discretion and shouldn’t be punished for anything more than just having too much to drink.

If J. Edgar Hoover could run the FBI for 48 years and occasionally wear women’s clothes, why not this guy?

I read an excellent post from Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. You can read it for yourself at the First Amendment Center site.

The post talked about what Mr. Haynes saw as the two biggest threats to religious freedom in this country in the coming year.

The first was the conflation of religion and politics. The second was Islamophobia.

For Christians, they both come down to a simple discussion.

Is it ever appropriate for Christians to impose our particular moral or theological views on others?

In my mind this brings up the whole discussion of free will.

We Christians have a particular view of the how a life should be lived. Though we may differ in degree, what we all agree on is the Jesus embodied the Christ spirit which made him the most perfect man ever to walk the earth. Jesus Christ brought a message from God to man that everyone has an unending spiritual life and if you would like to experience that life it’s fullest, you have to accept the same Christ spirit. The embrace of that message and spirit, however, has to be voluntary to be meaningful.

So we have these things as basic common understandings, yet we also seem to have a very difficult time when people practice free will and reject those things that we feel are sacred. Some of us start to insist that what had been a set of beliefs must now become a set of laws. In the minds of some, sinful behavior (not to be confused with criminal behavior) should be illegal, even though it is the practice of free will. Some Christians feel it is their duty to protect people from themselves as if free will is dangerous if actually practiced.

In a similar vein, some Christians view the current cultural conflict between fundamentalist Muslims and western societies as a religious conflict. Just one example of that are the e-mail attacks directed at Barak Obama. Rather portray him as somehow inferior because of his racial background, the Internet whisper campaign suggests something much frightening. They accuse him of being a closet Muslim.

If he is the right person for the office, it shouldn’t matter what his religion is (he happens to be a Christian). Even the constitution says that. And if we Christians really believe in free will, why would we care if someone chooses to worship in a non-Christian way?

So at the end of the day, it turns out that the greatest threat to religious freedom in this country is us Christians. That’s because we are unwilling to give others the same key to salvation that our Creator gave us – the ability to choose our own path.

The paper hosting this blog recently published a letter objecting to Toledo offering some modest legal protections for gays, seniors, and others living together but not married.  The stated concern of the author was that this threatened the institution of marriage.  Rather than reject this as thinly veiled self-righteous bigotry, I thought I would do a little research and share it with you. 

As of 2004, the state with the lowest divorce rate was, that’s right, Massachusetts!  Massachusetts also is the only state where gay marriage is legal. 

The Southern Bible belt states with the largest populations of fundamentalist Christians also have the highest divorce rates - 50% higher than the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.    

The northeast has the lowest divorce rate.  That region includes Massachusetts and five other states that have domestic partnership laws (New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine).   

In the years since Michigan and Ohio adopted constitutional amendments to “protect” marriage the divorce rate in the country has gone down by about 3%.  The divorce rate in Ohio is 1.3 times the national average and is trending up.  In Michigan, it has held steady at 1.6 times the national average. 

So contrary to the writer’s claim, the facts suggest marriage doesn’t benefit from prejudicial statutes or judgementalism.  Marriage (and by implication families) seems to do best in states embracing diversity and practicing tolerance and inclusion.  That shouldn’t be all that surprising since this was Jesus’ advice too, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?  And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.”
Matt 12:25-27

Jesus ability to heal others really bothered the religious establishment because it went against their understanding of how the world worked and what the Bible meant.  The Pharisees were obsessed with condemning sinners.  They felt that those who were disabled were being made public examples by God for their sins.  They also felt that only God could forgive sins. So when Jesus healed a blind and dumb man, the only explanation they could come up with is that Jesus must be in league with Beelzebub, because only God can heal sin, and obviously this man was a sinner. 

As he always did, Jesus had something for the Pharisees and something for us.  He challenged the Pharisees logic by pointing out that Satan would have no reason to want to forgive sin or heal anyone. 

What he had for us was the promise that he wouldn’t be the only one who would heal.  Our children will be healers too and as such they will also be our judges because they will heal the problems we create. 

Our children today are telling us that they have problems with Christian Churches in the United States.

In a recent survey published by the Bama Group, only 60 percent of 16-29 year olds consider themselves Christian.  That is a dramatic shift from the 77% of 60+ year olds who answered the same question.

Those who don’t consider themselves Christian feel organized religion is hypocritical, judgmental, and too political.  They generally are very favorable to the basic teachings of Christianity (77%), but feel that organized religions no longer represent those teachings and values.  As a result only 16% say that they have a good impression of Christianity.

What is even more eye-opening is that 50% of those in this age group who do go to church share those same views.

One of the key issues separating young people from organized Christianity is the hostile position many churches hold to homosexuality.  80% of those who call themselves Christian and 91% of those who don’t describe organized Christianity as “anti-homosexual”.

Numerous surveys have shown a growing majority of young Americans have a relaxed, tolerant attitude toward homosexuality. A 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 60 percent of Americans ages 17 to 29 support same-sex marriage, yet same-sex marriage is illegal in 49 of the 50 states.    

One pastor familiar with the study said, “How did homosexuality become such a huge issue for us?  As I see it, it’s no different than any other sexual sin.”

I can’t answer him, because I ask myself the same question.

What I can see is that our children have a better grasp on the basic values and teachings of Jesus than many of us do.  Their love of their brother isn’t blinded by hate or fear.  They will be our judges.  Fortunately, they will also be our healers.

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.” Matt 7:22-25

Two thousand years ago Jesus predicted that there would be people who would claim to be acting in His name, but in fact had no idea what He was talking about.

The litmus test of fidelity and understanding is the works. If you hear AND do, then you have built your house on a rock.

What brings this thought to mind is the curious reaction around the world to Prime Minister Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United States. Here in the US we viewed him as a blustering clown. He was nearly hooted off the stage when he claimed that there are no homosexuals in Iran. He questioned the holocaust. He defended his country’s right to develop nuclear weapons.

In the Muslim world, however, he was viewed as hero. He stood up to the West in general and the United States in particular. The harsh treatment he received at the hands of Columbia President Lee Bollinger upset Muslim sensibilities regarding the treatment of guests and only confirmed that we are a boorish and uncultured people.

I suspect that there is a similar dichotomy regarding our own President. There are many in this country who feel that he has done an excellent job in protecting us and promoting our interests abroad. The Muslim world views him, though, in much the same way that we view Ahmadinejad – a dangerous fool.

So which house is built on the rock?

At the moment, I would say neither.

Ahmadinejad’s claims regarding the holocaust have root in the Arab rejection of Israel as a state. Israel was created after WWII by the Allies in reaction to the holocaust. The problem was that this state was created at the expense of the Palestinians. Questioning the holocaust is code for supporting the Palestinians and questioning the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Arabs understand this. American’s don’t.

Ahmadinejad’s claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran is based on his view that Iran is a devout Muslim nation and that Islam prohibits homosexuality. How different is that from Mr. Bush’s view that the US is a Christian nation and that the Bible prohibits homosexuality? Mr. Bush doesn’t claim that there aren’t homosexuals in this country, he just wants to label them as sinners so he can justify restricting their rights to marry, adopt, or serve in the military.

We think that Ahmadinejad is fanatical because he claims Iran has the right to develop a nuclear bomb. What we don’t say is that we have already helped Israel develop a nuclear weapon. Clearly we felt threatened enough when Russia put missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons in Cuba to go the brink of nuclear war with Russia. Why is Iran’s reaction to Israel so hard to understand? Also Iran is looking at the US, who claimed that Iran was part of an axis of evil, building what appear to be permanent military bases on its borders.

We don’t trust that Iran will use it’s nuclear power responsibly, and there is no indication that they will. However, the US is the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons. That’s what the Arab world sees.

Bush holds up violated UN resolutions as legal foundation for invading Iraq. Arabs look at all of the UN resolutions condemning Israel which the US has unilaterally blocked and questions our integrity.

Bush talks about democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. Arabs look at Abu Ghraib and see only the eleven who appeared in the photos being convicted with sentences ranging from community service to 10 years in jail.

Arabs also look at the massacre at Haditha where 24 Iraqi civilians were killed including children shot in the head. They hear of our outrage and shock, but they see charges being dropped against all but one of the marines involved. In this case also charges are starting to be dropped against the officers supposed to be responsible for these men.

I submit that both our country and Iraq have leaders who have lost their way. The difference is that we have an opportunity to change that direction by selecting a new leader and rejecting the policies of the old. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that we expect our leaders to be accountable for their actions. We have also an opportunity to insist that our leaders are doers of the word, not just speakers.

I would also go further and assert that as long as we are in Iraq we will not be able to claim any high moral ground in discussions with any other country whether they are in the Middle East, Indonesia, or Africa.

The consequences of inaction for us and Iraq are clear.

“And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” Matt 7: 26-27

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”  Matt 5:44-45 

This is Jesus at His most radical and challenging.  It isn’t enough to love our neighbors as ourselves. We also have to love our enemies, those that actually seek to do us harm.  It is clearly only God’s job to figure out who is evil and who is good.  It is our job to be grateful to those we fear or hate because they are the ones who help us discover our bias and weakness.  If we strive to be perfect, this is how we’re going to get there. 

As far as our attitude to Muslims is concerned, we have a long way to go. 

I read a disturbing letter to the editor in the Toledo Blade.  It was in response to an column by a Toledo Muslim regarding the Christian myopia which seems to affect our foreign policy and re-enforce the notion that our Christian nation is really out to defeat Islam rather than just responding to attacks from bin Laden. 

There is a frightening ignorance in this country of Islam.  It is this ignorance which some politicians and fundamentalists have used to demonize all Muslims.  It is also this ignorance which causes fear in those who distrust what they don’t know.  This is just as wrong as when we try to blame illegal immigrants, African Americans, Japanese, Germans, Jews, or the Irish for all our problems. 

Islam is a beautiful religion of devotion and commitment.  If more Christians could get past their pride and self-righteousness, they would find this out on their own.  Islam means surrender.  Devout Muslims surrender their life to God in ways that Christians only imagine.  The daily prayer and prostration to Jerusalem is part of this process of demonstrating obedience as well as piety.  The only analogy I can come up with in Christianity is kneeling, but it is so much more than that.  I can tell you with no need to check the statistics, that there are way more Muslims on their knees in prayer every day than Christians, yet there is still the sense in this country that Muslims are primitive and violent. 

Much has been made of the position of women in some Muslim societies.  The reality is that both the Koran and the Bible have been used to subjugate women.  There are many Christian religions where women have an institutionalized subservient role.  There are also modern Muslim countries where women participate in all aspects of the economy in much the same ways as they do in this country.  I would submit that this is a cultural issue and not a religious one.   

Detroit has a large Muslim population.  Some cities and schools responding to that demand have added features to public facilities to wash hands and feet in preparation for prayer.  In my mind this is no different than adding changing tables or handicapped facilities to rest rooms.  It is the sort of loving response to individual needs that one would expect from a open free society.  It’s also a practical solution to the challenges posed by Muslims trying to use public sinks for this purpose.  Instead conservatives have latched onto this as just another example of soft-headed liberalism.  The thought goes, “How can we be accommodating Muslims in this country when we are waging a war against them in the Middle East?” or “Why are we spending money to make it easier for Muslims to pray when we can’t spend money to support Christian prayer in public schools?”

The Koran, on the other hand, teaches tolerance and respect for all of the world’s religions.  That respect includes prohibiting evangelizing those who already have committed to another religion.  Those that come to Islam, have to come of their own free will.  The Koran has a wonderful term for Jews and Christians.  We are “People of the Book”.  They have much more respect for the Bible than we do the Koran.  They view us brothers and sisters because we have the same father.  

Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way — except in the case of those of them who do wrong — saying, “We have faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him” (29:46).

The Koran also counsels against aggression of any sort.  Muslims are instructed to strike only after they have been struck.  Only when they are so threatened that their life may be at risk do they have the choice of being aggressive.  Then they are encouraged to fight whole heartedly.  When the opponent surrenders, however, Muslims are obliged to accept whatever terms are offered without negotiation, embrace their enemy, and seek as quickly as possible a return to peaceful existence. 

These basic Muslim teachings have obviously been perverted by fundamentalism.  So has Christianity.  All of the worlds great religions grew in response to violence and found their voice in offering people an alternative to the endless cycle of revenge and retaliation.  It was their intent to remove violence from society.  Fundamentalism, however, seeks to distort these teachings and divides the world between believers and non-believers.  This view justifies violence in the misguided cause of defending the faith.   

Just as no one person speaks for all Christians, no one person speaks for all Muslims.  One of the common myths is that Muslims have not condemned the excesses of extremism in their religion.  Just as Christian leaders have condemned violence at abortion clinics and gay bars, muslim leaders around the world have condemned the violence directed at the United Stated by bin Laden inspired forces.  

The sooner that we condemn this notion that we are engaged in a conflict between good and evil or Christianity and Islam, the sooner that we will be able to embrace the notion that the Koran and the Bible provide all of the guidance we need to solve this conflict.  All we are lacking is leaders with the humility and obedience to actually follow the teachings in the books they claim to defend.   

It may well be that God will restore the love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. God is All-Powerful. God is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful (60:7).

I love the old testament story of Nehemiah.  It occurs during a time when Israel was occupied by Babylonians.  Nehemiah was doing a good job for King Artaxerxes in Shushan.  When he heard that Jerusalem was in danger of being overrun by it’s neighbors, he asked for some time off to help them rebuild their fortifications.  The King agreed and gave Nehemiah some men to help him out.  Nehemiah had to deal with doubt, political intrigue, and even an attempt on his life by the neighbors.  What was most challenging, though, was the general skepticism of the Jews in Jerusalem who felt that the walls couldn’t be rebuilt.  They were also afraid that if they tried, they would only encourage their neighbors to attack and knock it back down again.  Nehemiah prayed for inspiration, saw through the lies, and was able to rebuild both the wall and the self-esteem of those who lived there.
 
We’re facing a similar situation today in New Orleans.  President Bush recently visited New Orleans on the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  Recovery there is very slow.  Though it seems like we are spending huge amounts of money in the region, very little seems to be getting into the hands of those who need it most.  There is plenty of blame to go around for both the levees failing as well as the response to the tragedy.  Lately, however, some conservatives are starting to blame the victims for choosing to live in such a vulnerable place to begin with. 
 
New Orleans appears to be in the same situation that Jerusalem was almost three thousand years ago.  It is defeated, broken, and discouraged.  The rich parts of the city and the tourist areas have largely recovered.  For the poor, however, there is no work. There is no money.  They have lost their homes and their hope.  In this desperate atmosphere, the crime rate is soaring. 
 
Then there are those who sit on the sidelines at a safe distance and cluck that perhaps we should just let this city die so that we can build a cleaner, safer, better-run city somewhere else.  The smug racism that simmers not far underneath that position is even more disturbing than the palpable hypocrisy.
 
These are our brothers and sisters who suffered a terrible loss through no fault of their own.  They have come to our aid in terrorist attacks, tornadoes, and floods.  Our government has failed to come to their aid in their time of greatest need.  What has happened instead is a stream of volunteers from churches all over the country spending their own money to demonstrate their brotherly love.  They are rebuilding New Orleans house by house, but it is a painfully slow process while the people still suffer.
 
More than anything else, New Orleans is a failure in leadership at every level.
 
We need a modern-day Nehemiah who will lead this country into a new vision of itself – a vision that includes a commitment from all of our citizens to sacrifice for the greater good and accept nothing but the best from ourselves and our leaders.  Nehemiah was unwilling to allow Jerusalem to die because he loved the people.  We need leaders who feel the same way about every person in this country, regardless of their politics, race, creed, sexuality, economic, or legal status.