Rhett Smith for U.S. Senate

May 13, 2008

Smith v. KTSA Radio Station

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 9:54 pm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASSAN ANTONIO RHETT SMITH, Plaintiff V. Civil No. SA-08-CA-0189 FB KTSA RADIO STATION, et al Defendant(s) OBJECTIONS—Response to ORDER and RecommendationSigned May 01, 2008 Plaintiff, Rhett Smith, is requesting action from the FCC that BMP Radio (KTSA 550AM) violated rules that “all qualified candidates for public office shall be given equal opportunity for use of broadcasting facilities.” Magistrate Judge John Primomo suggests that above defendants are “private persons”; and therefore can be Zionists or pro-Zionists “legally.” Whether Plaintiff, Smith, was denied “equal time for that reason,” is not the question; rather, was Plaintiff, Smith, denied equal time ? In the lawsuit Smith v. Gardner (Cause no. SA-07-CA-0982 OG) the Defendant, Gardner, was the Secretary of State of New Hampshire,—responsible for conducting that state’s Presidential Primary election; clearly a ‘Government actor’ subject to “restraint” of the First Amendment. Plaintiff, Smith, is herein stating “a claim against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),” which has had adequate opportunity to respond to the above mentioned complaint about rules violations. __________________________

Comments (0)

May 3, 2008

First Amendment vs. Zionist state

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 11:24 pm

The first of the First Amendment’s two religion clauses reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of __a Zionist state of__religion”

Comments (0)

April 27, 2008

Motion for Reinstatement

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 1:26 am

No. 08-50017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RHETT R. SMITH , Plaintiff-Appellant

IOWA State Republican Party,Texas State Republican Party,Federal Communications Commission,American Broadcasting Co. (ABC) News,Cable News Network (CNN),KTSA Radio Station (San Antonio),

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the Western District of Texas Case No. 5:07-cv-00668-xr

MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT Appellant, Rhett Smith, asserts that two (Defendants) Appellees in the original complaint—Republican Party of Texas Chairman, Tina Benkiser, in January and KTSA Radio Station, in February—have acted, since the original complaint filing date in a manner so egregious as to require that Appellant had to notify the Courts of their roguishness which has required additional filings. Relief sought: demand that the FCC and regulated broadcasters acknowledge Plaintiff’s First Amendment protection from “establishment of religion” and further initiate an appropriate “fair” method of addressing non-Zionist candidate Rhett Smith. Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change. . Others, including a majority of the justices of the current Supreme Court, believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another. In the words of the Court in Everson:“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” The First Amendment ensures that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.And as Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that “debate on public issues … [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide open.” Plaintiff-Appellant, Rhett Smith, prays for unspecified monetary damages from non-government defendants. RHETTR.SMITH,ProSe Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

Comments (0)

April 17, 2008

Motion for Reinstatement

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 6:00 pm

NO. 08-50017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RHETT R. SMITH , PlaintiffAppellantAppealfromtheWesternDistrict of Texas Case No. 5:07-cv-00668-xr v. IOWA STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY, et al

Defendant(s)-Appellee(s)

MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT Appellant, Rhett Smith, asserts that two (Defendants) Appellees in the original complaint—Republican Party of Texas Chairman, Tina Benkiser, in January and KTSA Radio Station, in February—have acted, since the original complaint filing date in a manner so egregious as to require that Appellant had to notify the Courts of their roguishness which has required additional filings. Relief sought: demand that the FCC and regulated broadcasters acknowledge Plaintiff’s First Amendment protection from “establishment of religion” and further initiate an appropriate “fair” method of addressing non-Zionist candidate Rhett Smith. Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change. . Others, including a majority of the justices of the current Supreme Court, believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another. In the words of the Court in Everson:“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” The First Amendment ensures that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.And as Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that “debate on public issues … [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” Plaintiff-Appellant, Rhett Smith, prays for unspecified monetary damages from non-governmental defendants. RHETT R. SMITH,Pro Se Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

Comments (0)

April 16, 2008

Establishment clause

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 7:17 pm

	The first of the First Amendment’s two religion clauses reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … .” Note that the clause is absolute. It allows no law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws respecting an establishment of religion. The establishment clause sets up a line of demarcation between the functions and operations of the institutions of religion and government in our society. It does so because the framers of the First Amendment recognized that when the roles of the government and religion are intertwined, the result too often has been bloodshed or oppression. For the first 150 years of our nation’s history, there were very few occasions for the courts to interpret the establishment clause because the First Amendment had not yet been applied to the states. As written, the First Amendment applied only to Congress and the federal government. In the wake of the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was adopted. It reads in part that “no state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law… .” In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause. Establishment There is much debate about the meaning of the term “establishment of religion.” Although judges rely on history, the framers’ other writings and prior judicial precedent, they sometimes disagree. Some, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, argue that the term was intended to prohibit only the establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over another. Others, including a majority of the justices of the current Supreme Court, believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another. In the words of the Court in Everson: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” To help interpret the establishment clause, the Court uses several tests, including the Lemon, coercion, endorsement and neutrality tests. Lemon test The first of these tests is a three-part assessment sometimes referred to as the Lemon test. The test derives its name from the 1971 decision Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Court struck down a state program providing aid to religious elementary and secondary schools. Using the Lemon test, a court must first determine whether the law or government action in question has a bona fide secular purpose. This prong is based on the idea that government should only concern itself in civil matters, leaving religion to the conscience of the individual. Second, a court would ask whether the state action has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Finally, the court would consider whether the action excessively entangles religion and government. While religion and government must interact at some points while co-existing in society, the concern here is that they do not so overlap and intertwine that people have difficulty differentiating between the two. Although the test has come under fire from several Supreme Court justices, courts continue to use this test in most establishment-clause cases. Lemon test redux In its 1997 decision Agostini v. Felton, the Supreme Court modified the Lemon test. By combining the last two elements, the Court now used only the “purpose” prong and a modified version of the “effects” prong. The Court in Agostini identified three primary criteria for determining whether a government action has a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion. Coercion test Some justices propose allowing more government support for religion than the Lemon test allows. These justices support the adoption of a test outlined by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissent in County of Allegheny v. ACLU and known as the “coercion test.” Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. Under such a test, the government would be permitted to erect such religious symbols as a Nativity scene standing alone in a public school or other public building at Christmas. But even the coercion test is subject to varying interpretations, as illustrated in Lee v. Weisman, the 1992 Rhode Island graduation-prayer decision in which Justices Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, applying the same test, reached different results. Endorsement test The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O’Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. She expressed her understanding of the establishment clause in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she states, “The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community.” Her fundamental concern was whether the particular government action conveys “a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” O’Connor’s “endorsement test” has, on occasion, been subsumed into the Lemon test. The justices have simply incorporated it into the first two prongs of Lemon by asking if the challenged government act has the purpose or effect of advancing or endorsing religion. The endorsement test is often invoked in situations where the government is engaged in expressive activities. Therefore, situations involving such things as graduation prayers, religious signs on government property, religion in the curriculum, etc., will usually be examined in light of this test. Neutrality While the Court looks to the endorsement test in matters of expression, questions involving use of government funds are increasingly determined under the rubric of neutrality. Under neutrality, the government would treat religious groups the same as other similarly situated groups. This treatment allows religious schools to participate in a generally available voucher program, allows states to provide computers to both religious and public schools, and allows states to provide reading teachers to low-performing students, even if they attend a religious school. (See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002, and Mitchell v. Helms, 2000.) It also indicates that the faith-based initiatives proposed by President Bush might be found constitutional, if structured appropriately. The concept of neutrality in establishment-clause decisions evolved through the years. Cited first as a guiding principle in Everson, neutrality meant government was neither ally nor adversary of religion. “Neutral aid” referred to the qualitative property of the aid, such as the funding going to the parent for a secular service such as busing. The rationale in Everson looked to the benefit to the parent, not to the religious school relieved of the responsibility of providing busing for its students. Later cases recognized that all aid is in some way fungible, i.e. if a religious school receives free math texts from the state, then the money the school would have spent on secular texts can now be spent on religious material. This refocused the Court’s attention not on the kind of aid that was provided, but who received and controlled the aid. Decisions involving vocational training scholarships and providing activity-fee monies to a college religious newspaper on the same basis as other student groups showed the Court focused on the individual’s control over the funds and equal treatment between religious and non-religious groups. In the 2002 case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the plurality decision clearly defines neutrality as evenhandedness in terms of who may receive aid. A majority of the Court continues to find direct aid to religious institutions for use in religious activities unconstitutional, but indirect aid to a religious group appears constitutional, as long as it is part of a neutrally applied program that directs the money through a parent or other third party who ultimately controls the destination of the funds. While many find this approach intuitively fair, others are dissatisfied. Various conservative religious groups raise concerns over diminishing the special place religion has historically played in constitutional law by treating religious freedom the same as every other kind of speech or discrimination claim. Strict separationist groups argue that providing government funds to religious groups violates the consciences of taxpayers whose faith may conflict with the religious missions of some groups who are eligible to receive funding using an “even-handed” approach. Conclusion Although the Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause is in flux, it is likely that for the foreseeable future a majority of the justices will continue to view government neutrality toward religion as the guiding principle. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa.


	Related Pledge plaintiff’s challenge to Congress’s chaplains rejected Federal judge throws out atheist Michael Newdow’s establishment-clause claim, releasing decision on same day Newdow argued Pledge of Allegiance case before Supreme Court. 03.26.04 Louisiana school boards pray, defying ruling Tangipahoa Parish board, which lost court ruling, forgoes public prayer to begin meeting, but other boards pray in protest. 03.03.05 Maine high court revisits voucher question Parents in towns with no public high school want state to cover tuition for their children to attend religious schools. 03.27.05 5th Circuit upholds Bible removal from courthouse Panel says Houston display violates establishment clause; county vows to appeal. 08.16.06 House bill aims at lawsuits filed against church-state violations Act would deny attorney’s fees for successful litigation of cases based on establishment clause; there’s no Senate companion bill, however. 09.27.06 High court hears atheists’ challenge to faith-based programs Issue is whether individuals have standing by virtue of their being taxpayers to bring complaint in federal court system. 02.28.07 5th Circuit: Fight over Bible in courthouse display moot Court also refuses to vacate federal judge’s ruling that monument violates establishment clause. 04.25.07 ‘Faith-based’ case tests establishment-clause lawsuit standing By Tony Mauro Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn’t address meaning of religion clause, but could affect whether taxpayers can sue over government efforts to accommodate religion. 12.04.06 Ten Commandments, nine justices, zero winners By Charles C. Haynes Whatever the Supreme Court does in the Ten Commandments cases, neither those who want religion endorsed in the public square nor those who want religion removed from the public square will be satisfied. 03.06.05 Will Charles-Camilla marriage spark church-state divorce? By Charles C. Haynes Entanglement of British government with Church of England becoming increasingly awkward for everyone. 04.17.05 Church, state and Judge Roberts: Will the wall come tumbling down? By Charles C. Haynes If nominee is confirmed and believes as his predecessor did, a vital bulwark against government-endorsed religion could be weakened. 09.18.05 In Afghanistan or America, theocracy and freedom cannot co-exist By Charles C. Haynes Release of Christian convert from Islam reminds us that protection for religious liberty under a secular constitution is the only way to ensure freedom of conscience. 04.02.06

Comments (0)

About the First Amendment

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 7:07 pm

About the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment was written because at America’s inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms.

Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.

When the U.S. Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, it did not contain the essential freedoms now outlined in the Bill of Rights, because many of the Framers viewed their inclusion as unnecessary. However, after vigorous debate, the Bill of Rights was adopted. The first freedoms guaranteed in this historic document were articulated in the 45 words written by James Madison that we have come to know as the First Amendment.

The Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, when the state of Virginia ratified it, giving the bill the majority of ratifying states required to protect citizens from the power of the federal government.

The First Amendment ensures that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” as Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette.

And as Justice William Brennan wrote in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the First Amendment provides that “debate on public issues … [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

However, Americans vigorously dispute the application of the First Amendment.

Most people believe in the right to free speech, but debate whether it should cover flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, hate speech, pornography, nude dancing, solicitation and various forms of symbolic speech. Many would agree to limiting some forms of free expression, as seen in the First Amendment Center’s State of the First Amendment survey reports.

Most people, at some level, recognize the necessity of religious liberty and toleration, but some balk when a religious tenet of a minority religion conflicts with a generally applicable law or with their own religious faith. Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but decry the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.

Further, courts wrestle daily with First Amendment controversies and constitutional clashes, as evidenced by the free-press vs. fair-trial debate and the dilemma of First Amendment liberty principles vs. the equality values of the 14th Amendment.

Such difficulties are the price of freedom of speech and religion in a tolerant, open society.

Related

Best First Amendment books

First Amendment timeline

The First Amendment in the Colonial newspaper press

Comments (0)

April 7, 2008

Semper Fi . . .

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 8:16 pm

thank you, Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi . . .

I will post your email on my website: www.Rhett08.com

I am a candidate for President of the United States

I honor you and pray that the whole world hears Peter Macdonald’s voice. . .

Rhett Smith

Peter Macdonald <nh.red.sox@gmail.com> wrote:

Life ? Another Day 4-07-08

Boston Globe criticism

Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217

I served Our country as a U.S. Marine. I returned a combat related 100% disabled veteran to New Hampshire. I have volunteered every day since I returned helping others to relieve my guilt of coming back alive. Better people than I, gave their lives so that our Supreme Law “Constitution” protected every individual equally. I have relived events from my experiences as a Marine every day since I came home. This letter is not about me, it is about every child since the creation of the U.S. that has served to protect and defend said Constitution. Some people believe that I should stop writing letters. Newspapers and media refuse to print my letters. The VA stops my medical care to prevent my writing letters. The Strafford County Sheriff’s office highlights words in RSA’s to inform me my letters are criminal acts. These deputies are now Judge Fauver’s personal enforcers against public opinion of Fauver. The Boston Globe sends me email telling me to commit suicide. Our children go off to foreign soil to serve the U.S. and return to be striped of our rights, dignity, and medical care.

Do Veterans deserved to have our opinion printed? Does a Veteran’s opinion only matter if it does not expose criminal acts committed by judges and government officials? Should judges and government officials have the right to violate the law to harm a disabled veteran that dares volunteer help to others. Look at the care given to returning Veteran’s with injuries from combat. Many slip through the cracks and are set a drift in society to become homeless or dead after being discharged. VA hospitals are second class medical facilities where some doctors don’t speak English. Veteran’s care is dependent on fitting with in a budget. A caring VA staff care is limited by administration officials. The NH government officials are so daring that they use a disabled veterans health as a weapon to control public information and NH VA officials allow this crime. Life? Another day where the newspapers believe censoring the words of a disabled veteran will make the U.S. a better place for all to live. The NH motto is “Live Free or Die”, it should be “NH Veteran’s should die before coming home” I have violated no laws and I write the truth. Ask! Why should a newspaper print articles about me and ask me to commit suicide yet they refuse to print the words of the disabled Veteran being harmed? The NH governor should listen to my words.

Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi

http://calendar.yahoo.com/smithrhett

Comments (0)

March 21, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — rhett @ 8:16 pm

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	”rhett smith” <rhett.smith@yahoo.com> View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject:	Re: Fw: Easter and Faith: For Christians Grappling with the Spiritual Issues of Holy Week
To:	“Tom Keene” <tomkeene@grandecom.net>
CC:

thank you, Tom Keene,

Today is Good Friday, . . . . as you know, I have been ”grappling” with Faith and Religion for so long now ; . . . I remember my childhood in the 1950’s and my grandmother (God rest her Soul) whom I love dearly, taking me to the “picture show” in our small north central Texas town to the see ‘ THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK ‘.

As a child, I was just beginning to understand something of the most devastating event in world history —– World War II . . .the Holocaust . . .and the nuclear crimes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . As I watched Anne Frank’s life story, how could I have known about the misuses of religion even then, that now threaten the future of all humanity, . . . or that . . . . this March 16th would mark the fifth anniversary of the brutal death of Rachel Corrie who was crushed by an Israeli D-9 Caterpillar bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza Strip. This brave 23-year-old American student from Olympia, Washington, was killed attempting to save a Palestinian home from destruction. Rachel Corrie’s name is probably not familiar to you. The struggle to defend the rights of Palestinians is not very popular in this country.

Now, as an adult, I must somehow re-address the issue of the Holy Land, and not only must I speak of the Christian Revolution that began on this day 2008 years ago, but I must put it in the context of the American Revolution, . . . .during which

The first freedoms . . .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

. . . were articulated in the 45 words written by James Madison that we have come to know as the First Amendment.

I believe that no person who accepts or proclaims Christ can be a Zionist, . . . 2008 years ago, the religious theologians and government officials attempted to crucify the Christian faith and now 2008 years later, I believe, “Christian-Zionism” is equivalent to religious “blackmail” and furthermore that condoning the “secrecy” of Israeli WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD’S) in the Holy Land is equivalent to “nuclear blackmail” .

Tom Keene <tomkeene@grandecom.net> wrote:

ï»¿

—– Original Message —–

From: Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP)

To: tomkeene@grandecom.net

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 10:46 AM

Subject: Easter and Faith: For Christians Grappling with the Spiritual Issues of Holy Week

Faith and Easter

3 Essays that may inspire Christians who grapple with the challenge of Easter: Catholic Father Richard Rohr on Faith, Evangelical Rev. Tony Campolo on God as Suffering Servant, and Walter Wink on Jesus and Resurrection.

(The Network of Spiritual Progressives is an interfaith organization seeking a world in which love, generosity, kindness, ethical and ecological sensitivity, caring for others, and awe and wonder at the grandeur of creation replace the crass materialism and selfishness of the contemporary world. We welcome submissions from all religious traditions that provide new interpretations or deeper understanding of the spiritual realities of our own lives, of contemporary politics and culture, of traditional texts, or of the universe. Selected articles may be posted on our web site www.spiritualprogressives.org, printed in our affiliated magazine TIKKUN, or shared with our readers through emails like this one. Meanwhile, we wish all our Christian members and friends a spiritually deep and meaningful Good Friday and Easter. The essays pritned here are taken from Tikkun magazine. Tikkun: www.tikkun.org NSP: www.spiritualprogressives.org)

Faith by Father Richard Rohr

I am wondering if I have ever understood faith-or if I want it now that I am getting the point. The price of faith is much higher than I imagined it to be in my youthful readings about martyrdoms and lives of heroic sacrifice.

Now I know that faith is not believing-certain-ideas-all-evidence-to-the-contrary. It is not dogged loyalty to childhood conditioning or pledges of allegiance to sacred formulas and official explanations. It is surely not the addictive repetition of rituals or practices that keep God under control. These approaches give the ego comfort, but they give little comfort to truth, and even less to the scary and wonderful coming of the Reign of God.

I can only describe faith in its effects: people of real faith seem able to hold increasing amounts of chaos in one tranquil and ordered life. Faith seems to make people spacious, non-controlling, and waiting in awareness. The faith that Jesus praises as salvation (and sufficient in lepers, Samaritans, and those outside the temple system) is something very different than religion as such. It is a capacity within people to contain and receive all things, to hold onto nothing, with almost no need to fear or judge rashly. Faith-people find it unnecessary to secure themselves because they are secure at a deeper level; there is room for Another in that spacious place.

If Someone is not holding together the Big World, then I had best concentrate on making sense out of my own little corner. If No One else is finally in charge, I had best take charge. If No One else is caring for me, I had better be preoccupied with security and insurance. If No One else is naming me, I will be very invested in my own image. If the only joy is self-acquired, then any mood-altering substance will do. All the burden, anxiety, and options are back on me and I must take myself too seriously-it is the glory and the price of secular men and women. When Prometheus can no longer enjoy sitting at the fireplace of the gods, he must steal his own fire, but he pays the price forever. Such seems our contemporary exile. The human mind is enamored and burdened with itself, trying desperately to hold itself together. Trapped in our fractured worlds, we are unable to re-connect with one another.

Because people of faith are comfortable with the totality, they are the only ones who can hold the disparate parts together, make the peace, or “mend the breach.” The recurring temptation is to separate, analyze, and judge the parts, which gives us a sense of control and “understanding.” But Steve Levine speaks universal wisdom when he declares that, “Understanding is the ultimate seduction of the mind. Go to the truth beyond the mind. Love is the bridge.” Faith, driven by love, enables us to give up our need to understand, allows us to let go, and for Someone else to hold us together. It is not a giving up as much as it is an opening up and refusing to close back down for the sake of self-sufficiency and mastery. If this is indeed the character of faith for postmodern people, or any people, then I finally know why faith is so rare and why Jesus himself wondered if he would find very much on this earth (Luke 18:8).

Today, there seems to be a breach in almost every wall. Some have said, the “cosmic egg” that seemed to hold us together for a long time is now broken. “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men” find themselves unable to put it back together again. It feels like the earth moved beneath us somewhere in the mid or late 1960s: the old certitudes, the agreed-upon assumptions, the core values of Western civilization came up for major questioning. Our presuppositions dissolved and the questioning has not stopped. We now find ourselves engaged in major, and sometimes minor, culture wars on almost every personal and social issue. It is all thinkable now, and most of us are beyond being shocked by anything. We are often sad, discouraged, even alienated from the only world we live in. It was so much easier to exist inside the cosmic egg! It feels like exile from home and manifests in rampant abuse, violence, victim behavior, denial, social hysteria, or life-boat ethics. Each enclave of security seems to be clutching at its small certitudes: defiant, assertive, and substituting opinions for deeper identity.

We yearn for breach-menders who can restore our ruined houses, as Isaiah says. We long for great-souled people who can hold the chaos together within themselves-and give us the courage to do the same. In mythology, this is the gift of the queen or the king. In religion it is symbolized by the temple in Jerusalem or the cathedral at the center of the city. In the psychological world, we speak simply of mental and emotional health. In spirituality, we dare to long for God. But our condition instead is always one of exile-”we are pilgrims and strangers on this earth” (Hebrews 11:13). It was in exile that the Jewish religion attained its most mature state. In exile, Isaiah took religious poetry and prophecy to its height. The collectivist ethics of Israel were refined and personalized by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the story of Job emerged to push the meaning of faith beyond conventional wisdom. Maybe it is the necessary pattern. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar were good religious men, giving Job the traditional religious advice, but it was still insufficient. Exile led Israel to the edges of what it had already experienced and battered open the door to the new realm of faith, which is always more than conventional wisdom. We are in cultural and spiritual exile in America now, and long to return to Jerusalem. Or even Kansas! Maybe a new door needs to be opened.

I doubt whether having a single cultural myth or national story is now possible. That is frightening as we experience the fractured results while groups divide, encircle, and defend: male versus female, rich versus poor, liberal versus conservative, Christian versus non-Christian, pro-life versus pro-choice, renew from within versus change from without, overdeveloped world versus underdeveloped world, straights versus gays, environmentalists versus developers, hierarchies versus memberships, whites versus people of color…. The rifts and chasms are irreparable.

Many are unable to offer one another basic respect, engage in civic dialogue, or honor what God is apparently patient with: the human struggle. The Catholic Church is in disbelief and panic at its inability to be a truly universal communion. But I am still advised by Thomas Aquinas who said, “We must love them both: those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in search for their truth and both have helped us in the finding of our own.”

For the middle-part of this past century the goal seemed to be integration, homogenization, centralization, uniformity for the sake of unity, upward mobility, and acceptance. Suddenly, the pattern is reversing worldwide. Now the words are “multiculturalism,” diversity, smaller units, ethnic identity, decentralization, states rights, and my rights. For such a paradigmatic shift we need a new ethic and vision for ourselves. If it was e pluribus unum (out of the many, one) for the past two hundred years in the U.S., it now feels like e uno multos (out of the one, many). How do you create a new cultural myth when you are now many cultures? Such is our problem.

The overriding temptation of both churches and nations today is to circle their wagons and worship their own Promethean fire. But the ancient ruins must be built on age-old foundations: we need to assert both exclusivity and inclusivity, both priesthood and prophecy, both identity and universal table fellowship, both holding on and letting go, both the nuclear family and global consciousness. The conservative temptation is to put all the energy into the first: batten down the hatches! The liberal temptation usually succumbs to the second: no boundaries are worth defending except the right to choose itself.

We both need to recognize our underlying cultural assumptions, the “myths” out of which we all operate. Until we can admit that largely nonrational myths guide and determine our so-called rational choices, there is little chance that we will “restore the ruined houses” of our civilization.

Fr. Richard Rohr is a Franciscan priest of the New Mexico Province and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque

Tony Campolo
God As Suffering Servant

In any relationship, it is impossible to express love and power at the same time. Whoever is exercising the most power is expressing the least love, and whoever is expressing the most love is exercising the least power. In expressing love a person must give up power, hence loving makes a person vulnerable.

Consider a particular married couple. He loves her and will do anything to keep her in his life. She, on the other hand, does not love him very much, and is unconcerned as to whether he stays or leaves her. Who in this relationship has the most power? Who can dictate the terms of the relationship and call the shots in decision making? The answer seems clear. She can because she has all the power. But note that her power is the consequence of her lack of love.

Christians should have no difficulty in understanding this relationship between love and power, because their New Testament theology posits a God who, in order to express His love, chooses to give up His power. That is what we Christians believe the incarnation is all about. We believe that 2,000 years ago the almighty God set aside His power in order to express His love. We believe that this is why the Messiah entered history, not as a conquering emperor, but as a defenseless baby in a manger. The passage of scripture that speaks to this most clearly is Philippians 2:7-8, where we are told that in Christ, God “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ and humbled Himself.”

The God described in this passage is a God who refuses to use His power as He seeks to save the world. In the temptation story recorded in Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus, who we believe to be the incarnation of God, refuses to establish His Kingdom here on earth through the use of power. Instead, His Kingdom will come, not in a triumphalistic imposition of His will on the nations, but through sacrificial love expressed in His death by dying on the cross. While He is hanging on Calvary’s tree, Jesus’ enemies taunt Him and shout, “Show us your power and come down from the cross, and then we will believe in you” (Matthew 27:39-42). But His way is not to use power and coerce humanity, but to draw humanity unto Himself through sacrificial love. (I wish those on the Religious Right would get this message.) He said that if He were “lifted up” (i.e. crucified) that this act of sacrifice would draw people to Him and to His Father (John 12:32).

When I say such things in sermons, those in the congregation say, either silently to themselves or out loud, “Amen!” Yet they seldom follow this thought to its logical conclusion, that they have a powerless God on their hands, and that what goes on in the world is not totally under His control. Instead, I hear them say such things as “whatever happens, regardless of how tragic, is part of God’s plan!” When something terrible happens, like a child being run over by a bus, they often respond with such offensive statements as: “We just have to accept this as God’s will!” At the funeral of Rev. William Sloan Coffin’s son, who had died in a climbing accident, the preacher conducting the service said just these words. Rev. Coffin impulsively shouted back, “The hell it is! When my son died, God was the first one who cried!” This, from one of our time’s most prominent Christian leaders.

I believe Rev. Coffin was right!

If God is in control of everything that happens, then there would be no such thing as human freedom. Without freedom, none of us would be able to choose to love God-and loving Him is what God wants from us more than anything else. Love is, by its very nature, voluntaristic. It is never constrained. What I am saying is that God deliberately gives up power in order to express His love for us and to give us the freedom to choose to love Him in return.

It is surprising to me that most of my Jewish friends likewise believe that God is omnipotent. They do so even though the Hebrew Bible never declares Him as such. No wonder so many of them rejected their religious beliefs following the Holocaust. “How could an omnipotent, loving God let such a thing happen?” they ask. Does it not seem more likely that their loving and merciful God groaned in agony at Dachau and at Auschwitz? That He wanted to stop what went on in these places? It would be impossible to love God if it were otherwise.

If we are to accept the truths in the Adam and Eve story, must we not accept that God created humanity to act in freedom and thus to be capable of going against His will? And what do we do with that biblical God who, at one point sees that things have gone so contrary to His will that He even regrets that He made humanity in the first place (Genesis 6:6)?

The concept of an omnipotent God came from Greek philosophers. The Greeks are the ones who defined God with such words as omnipotent. This did not come from the Hebrew Bible. The prophets of old declared that their God was more powerful than all the other gods, but they did not say that He was in control of everything. They did not define Him as a puppeteer deity controlling all of our actions. Instead, they spoke of a God who mourns over much of what goes on in our world. (Consider what Abraham Joshua Heschel says in his book, The Prophets, about the differences between the God of the Hebrews and the God of the Greeks, if you want to explore this further).

In the story of Hosea, we get the picture of a broken-hearted God who suffers because of the unfaithfulness of His whoring beloved, but who never stops loving her. Such a God is not the “unmoved mover” who is the creator force spoken of by Aristotle. Instead, He is the passionate God who is marked by deep emotions and loves Israel with intensive love.

The God we find in both the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament is a God who pleads with His people to do justice and to live out love. This is a God whom Christians call the Servant King and that Jews should acknowledge as a God who limits His power so that we might have the dignity that goes with willingly choosing to do what is right and good.

I am sure that there are times that God must wonder if the price for giving us the freedom to love or to disobey His will is too high, and there are times when all of us wish that He would take charge of human affairs. Nevertheless, it is this God who ordains freedom whom we worship. In trusting us to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8) we find in Him a God who is infinitely worthy of our love.

The good news is that our God is at work in the world, driving back evil through those who acknowledge Him as Lord of their lives. We believe that the day will come when this God shall reign on earth as He does in Heaven. On that “Day of the Lord,” which is the eschaton of history, He will then be omnipotent, because on that day, we will love Him so much that we will ascribe all power and glory unto Him-forever and ever!

I know nothing of the ontological nature of God. I only know Him as a God who chooses to be limited in power, for our sakes. And even as I call God “Him” I reveal the limitations of my knowledge of God. God transcends both masculinity and femininity and my feminist friends are right in this. I use “Him” when I talk of God because the Bible does-and it is from the Bible that I get a glimpse of the God who is totally other than what the ancient Greek philosophers made Him out to be, and from whom too many of us formed our theologies about God.

Anthony Campolo, Ph.D., professor emeritus at Eastern University, is the founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an organization that develops schools and social programs in various third world countries and in cities across North America. He is the author of thirty-three books, including his most recent, Letters to a Young Evangelical.

Easter: What Happened to Jesus? by Walter Wink

Considering the weight the early church attached to the resurrection, it is curious that, subsequent to the empty-tomb stories, no two resurrection accounts in the four Gospels are alike. All of these narratives seem to be very late additions to the tradition. They answer a host of questions raised by the gospel of the resurrection. At the core of all these accounts is the simple testimony: we experienced Jesus as alive.

A later generation that did not witness a living Jesus needed more; for them the resurrection narratives answered that need. But what had those early disciples experienced? What does it mean to say that they experienced Jesus alive? The resurrection appearances did not, after all, take place in the temple before thousands of worshipers, but in the privacy of homes or cemeteries. They did not occur before religious authorities, but to the disciples hiding from those authorities. The resurrection was not a worldwide historic event that could have been filmed, but a privileged revelation reserved for the few.

Nevertheless, something “objective” did happen to God, to Jesus, and to the disciples. What happened was every bit as real as any other event, only it was not historically observable. It was an event in the history of the psyche. The ascension was the entry of Jesus into the archetypal realm. Though skeptics might interpret what the disciples experienced as a mass hallucination, the experience itself cannot be denied.

This is what may have happened: the very image of God was altered by the sheer force of Jesus being. God would never be the same. Jesus had indelibly imprinted the divine; God had everlastingly entered the human. In Jesus, God took on humanity, furthering the evolution revealed in Ezekiel’s vision of Yahweh on the throne in “the likeness, as it were, of a human form” (Ezek. 1:26). Jesus, it seemed to his followers, had infiltrated the Godhead.

The ascension marks, on the divine side, the entry of Jesus into the son-of-the-man archetype; from then on Jesus’ followers would experience God through the filter of Jesus. Incarnation means that not only is Jesus like God, but that God is now like Jesus. It is a prejudice of modern thought that events happen only in the outer world. What Christians regard as the most significant event in human history happened, according to the Gospels, in the psychic realm, and it altered external history irrevocably. Ascension was an “objective” event, if you will, but it took place in the imaginal realm, at the substratum of human existence, where the most fundamental changes in consciousness take place.

Something also happened to the disciples. They experienced the most essential aspect of Jesus as remaining with them after his death. They had seen him heal, preach, and cast out demons, but had localized these powers in him. Though the powers had always been in them as well, while Jesus was alive they tended to project these latent, God-given powers onto him. They had only known those powers in him. So it was natural, after his resurrection, to interpret the unleashing of those powers in themselves, as if Jesus himself had taken residence in their hearts. And it was true: the God at the center of their beings was now indistinguishable from the Jesus who had entered the Godhead. Jesus, in many of the post-Easter son-of-the-man sayings, seems to speak of the Human Being (the “son of man”) as other than himself. Was Jesus stepping aside, as he seems to do in the Gospels, to let the Human Being become the inner entelechy (the regulating and directing force) of their souls?

The disciples also saw that the spirit that had worked within Jesus continued to work in and through them. In their preaching they extended his critique of domination. They continued his life by advancing his mission. They persisted in proclaiming the domination-free order of God inaugurated by Jesus.

The ascension was a “fact” on the imaginal plane, not just an assertion of faith. It irreversibly altered the nature of the disciples’ consciousness. They would never again be able to think of God apart from Jesus. They sensed themselves accompanied by Jesus (Luke 24:13-35). They found in themselves a New Being that they had hitherto only experienced in Jesus. They knew themselves endowed with a spirit-power they had known only occasionally, such as when Jesus had sent them out to perform healings (Mark:7-13). In their struggles with the powers that be, they knew that whatever their doubts, losses, or sufferings, the final victory was God’s, because Jesus had conquered death and the fear of death and led them out of captivity.

Jesus the man, the sage, the itinerant teacher, the prophet, even the lowly Human Being, while unique and profound, was not able to turn the world upside down. His attempt to do so was a decided failure. Rather, it was his ascension, his metamorphosis into the archetype