Exploring the Connections

Soldier in Iraq Loses Home Over $800 Debt

Capt. Michael Clauer's homeowners' association foreclosed on his $300,000 house and sold it for $3,500.  

by Nick Baumann
Mother Jones, May 28, 2010

Michael Clauer is a captain in the Army Reserve who commanded over 100 soldiers in Iraq. But while he was fighting for his country, a different kind of battle was brewing on the home front. Last September, Michael returned to Frisco, Texas, to find that his homeowners' association had foreclosed on his $300,000 house—and sold it for $3,500. This story illustrates the type of legal quagmire that can get out of hand while soldiers are serving abroad and their families are dealing with the stress of their deployment. And fixing the mess isn't easy.

Michael went on active duty in February 2008 and was sent to Iraq. After he shipped out, his wife May slipped into a deep depression, according to court documents. "A lot of people say that the deployment is more stressful on the spouse than the actual person who's being deployed," Michael, 37, says in an interview with Mother Jones. May Clauer had two kids to take care of—a ten-year-old and a one-year-old with a serious seizure-related disorder. In addition, she was worried sick about her husband. Michael's company was doing convoy security in Iraq—an extremely dangerous job. "It was a pretty tough year for the whole company," he says. "We had IEDs, rocket attacks and mortar attacks, and a few soldiers that were hurt pretty bad and had to be airlifted back to the States."

Seeking to avoid hearing about the situation in Iraq, May stopped watching the news. She rarely answered the door, and Michael says he couldn't tell her when he went "outside the wire"—off-base. May also stopped opening the mail. "I guess she was scared that she would hear bad news," says Michael. That was why she missed multiple notices from the Heritage Lakes Homeowners Association informing her that the family owed $800 in dues—and then subsequent notices stating that the HOA was preparing to foreclose on the debt and seize the home.

In Texas, homeowners' associations can foreclose on homes without a court order, no matter the size of the debt. In May 2008, the HOA sold the Clauers' home for a pittance—$3,500—although its appraisal value was $300,000, according to court documents. The buyer then resold the house to a third person. (Select Management Co., the company that manages Heritage Lakes, declined to comment for this story.)

It wasn't until June 2009 that May realized what had happened. Around that time, the new owner started demanding rent from the Clauers. She told Michael, who was still in Iraq. "At first I didn't believe it," he says. "I didn't understand how someone can take your house and not give you anything for it." When Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Iraq in July, Michael says he told him about the problem. According to Michael, Perry called May and put lawyers in touch with the Clauers' attorney, but couldn't do much to alleviate the situation. (Perry's office didn't respond to calls seeking comment.) In August 2009, the new owner sent the couple an eviction notice, according to court records filed in the case. In Iraq, "the stress level was finally starting to come down," says Michael, and he was "starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel." He adds, "Then all of a sudden I get hit with this, and I'm trying to get out of there and get home and see what I can do to fight this."

At no point did anyone from the HOA—which is, after all, composed of the Clauers' neighbors—appear to have tried to visit May Clauer's house to talk to her about the problem. "The HOA board members...don't live very far from me at all," Michael Clauer says. There were "neighbors owing much more than us [who] were notified in person of pending foreclosures, but my wife only received a few letters." David Schechter of the Dallas/Fort Worth television station WFAA, which first reported this story [1], notes that the "Clauers' HOA says homeowners are free to call them, but they do not call or visit homeowners when there's a problem. They're only required to send a certified letter."

There are a bevy of laws that are supposed to protect servicemembers from losing their homes or jobs while they're on active duty, including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The homeowners' association's lawyer filed an affidavit wrongly claiming that neither of the Clauers was on active duty, says Barbara Hale, the couple's lawyer. Hale is seeking to have the court reverse the foreclosure and declare it "null and void," she says.

In the meantime, the Clauers have obtained an agreement allowing the family to stay in the home, Hale says. She's "confident that the courts will sort this out and do the right thing," but notes that the drawn-out legal process must be stressful for the Clauers.

The one good thing for the Clauers about Michael's deployment to Iraq was that it gave them a chance to get their finances in order. Michael got a bonus and expenses at home were lower. Now all of that money is gone, says Michael, who is currently working as a production supervisor at a roofing company. "It's ridiculous how much this is costing us," he says. "I'll be taking out a mortgage on my house that was free and clear just to try to get my house back."

Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for Clauers' congressman, GOP Rep. Michael Burgess, says that Burgess is "aware of Capt. Clauer's issue," but says it is "office policy to not comment on constituent casework."

Even if he can't get his family's home back, Michael hopes that the public will pay attention to his story and push for changes to the laws that give Texas HOAs so much power. "We don't want to see this happen to other people," he says.

UPDATE: Several people have emailed asking how they can help. The Clauers have set up a legal defense fund to help pay for their court battle. You can send checks (made out to Clauer Legal Defense Fund) here.

Clauer Legal Defense Fund
 c/o Plains Capital Bank
1629 Hebron Parkway West
Carrollton, TX 75010
 
Michael Clauer's wife's name is May, not Mae, as this story and other news reports originally stated. Clauer got back from Iraq in September, not October (his active duty period ended in October.) This story has been corrected to reflect those changes. The story has also been edited since it was originally posted.

Episcopal Church calls for comprehensive US immigration reform

by Staff Writers
Ekklesia News Service, May 3, 2010

The Episcopal Church has responded to a controversial Arizona law expelling undocumented immigrants from the state by calling for comprehensive reform and justice for migrants.

The law, roundly condemned by human rights and faith groups, will also require people suspected of being illegal immigrants to show proof of legal status.

The Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations, based in Washington DC, USA, has issued a full statement on immigration reform, emphasising its commitment "to render hospitality to those who are most vulnerable."

The Church "calls on the United States Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform."

Its statement continues: "The passage in Arizona of the toughest anti-immigrant law in the country demonstrates the need for action at the federal level. In an open letter last Friday the Bishop of Arizona, the Rt Rev Kirk Smith, expressed that 'today is a sad day in the struggle to see all God's people treated in a humane and compassionate manner (…) With the Governor's signing of SB 1070, it seems that for now the advocates of fear and hatred have won over those of charity and love. Arizona claims to be a Golden Rule State. We have not lived up to that claim.'

"The lack of fair and humane immigration reform opens the door to misguided and divisive state and local attempts to address immigration enforcement. We urge Congress to provide a solution to a broken immigration system that separates families, spreads fear and keeps millions living in the shadows. Every day, members of our congregations see the unacceptable consequences of our broken immigration system. We urge the Senate and House to enact bipartisan immigration reform that reunites families, protects the rights of all workers, and provides an opportunity for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status.

"As Christians, we are called to embrace the stranger and to find Christ in all who come to us in need. The Episcopal Church is committed to working to reform our immigration system. As Bishop Smith reminded us, 'We will continue to work as hard as we can to defeat this law and to work toward just and fair laws that protect the rights of all human beings. We all know that our immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed by scape-goating the most vulnerable of those among us.'

"With strong leadership in Congress, we are confident we can solve the broken immigration system. We encourage members of Congress to join faith leaders to stand up for immigration policies that renew the dignity and human rights of everyone," concludes the Episcopal Church, part of the 77-million worldwide Anglican Communion.

US Christians brand new immigration law "social and racial sin"

by Staff Writers
Ekklesia New Service, April 24. 2010

Progressive Christians in the US have branded a new law on migration a "social and racial sin".

The comments came after the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed Senate Bill 1070, an immigration law seen as one of the toughest in the US.

The bill will require state police to question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion".

The bill - which takes effect in 90 days - also makes it a crime under state law to be in the US illegally.

President Obama has described the law in the US border state as "misguided".

But the Rev Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical leader, said in a statement that the “radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform."

On Tuesday, Wallis – along with other national and local faith and civil rights leaders – delivered more than 10,000 petitions to Jan Brewer, calling on her to veto the bill.

"The law signed today by Arizona Gov. Brewer is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation" Wallis said.

"It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited – it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.

"This radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. Enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. Enforcement without compassion is immoral. Enforcement that breaks up families is unacceptable. This law will make it illegal to love your neighbour in Arizona, and will force us to disobey Jesus and his gospel. We will not comply."

Other Christians said that the new law institutionalised racial profiling, and would make Arizona less safe.

The head of the humanitarian agency Church World Service (CWS), said the law went "beyond anti-immigrant sentiments and supports racial profiling."

"We are deeply concerned about the enactment of SB 1070," said CWS executive Director and CEO, John L. McCullough. "This legislation feels reactionary and hateful. It is a clear representation of the politics of division and exclusion.

"Gov. Brewer has ignored the advice of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Mesa Fraternal of Police to veto the bill," McCullough said.

"By this action, she has actively institutionalized racial profiling and will make Arizona less safe."

Church World Service is a 63-year-old faith-based humanitarian organization that works in the US and internationally.

"Church World Service understands first-hand the impact this legislation will have on communities," said McCullough. "We do take heart that President Obama has strongly condemned this legislation, and urge his administration to do everything in its power to prevent its implementation and the consequences it will have for human rights."

Elizabeth Warren and Goliath

by Jim Wallis
God's Politics 'Blog, Feb 11, 2010

I had a most instructive conversation this week with Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard economist who is also the Chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. Warren has a way of cutting through the jargon and confusion of many economists and of this economic crisis — right to the moral core of the issues at stake. I knew her for her keen insights, but I didn’t know she was from, as she puts it, a “mixed marriage from Oklahoma” — Baptist and Methodist — and that she is a former Methodist Sunday school teacher. In the interview I did with her for Sojourners, her moral and even theological comments were as impressive as her economic analysis of our present crisis. She said the battle for financial regulatory reform is like the battle between David and Goliath. (You can read the interview in the April issue of Sojourners magazine, which comes out in early March.)

Warren’s narrative of the U.S. economy, and the banking industry in particular, was very clarifying. For most of U.S. history, our country went through repeated periods of boom and bust, with all the consequences of those cycles. But after the Great Depression, a number of new financial regulations — rules for the road — were put into place that were designed to protect average Americans in particular from the continued abuses of the big banks and the often terrible results in bad times for ordinary people. Two important examples were the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect people’s savings and the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 to prevent banks from speculating with depositors’ money. And the new rules worked for several decades, creating both prosperity and security for many American families and an emerging middle class. But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession.

She explained how credit card and mortgage application forms used to be only a page or two and were both clear and understandable to the average person — even allowing people to easily compare and contrast the deals offered. But now, as all of us know, these forms have expanded to 30 pages or more with lots of complications, hard to comprehend provisions, and “fine print” that cleverly hides a long list or traps, tricks, and a myriad of both exploitive arrangements and outright abuses that greatly benefit banks at the expense of borrowers and card holders. In clear moral terms, Warren described the current behavior of our biggest banks as deliberately deceiving, entrapping, and cheating unsuspecting customers into very precarious and ultimately disastrous financial positions. And with no more rules of the road, the banks were leading their customers into the financial ditch. An economic crisis has been the result with massive suffering and pain for millions of Americans.

We are now living in a “lawless” economic environment, according to Warren, where our biggest banks have become our most dangerous predators — and with no protections for the rest of us against the “law of the jungle,” as she puts it. The consequences for our economy, our culture, our families, and even our souls have been disastrous. This is not the way we should want to live, Warren says, and it is creating a world which we should not want our children to grow up in. She makes the urgent case for reform with the compelling analysis of a top economist, the family values of a grandmother, and the moral arguments of a person of faith. The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition “which still shapes me.”

Warren is the “mother” of the idea for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA),which is in the current financial reform bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, and is now slowly making its way through the U.S. Senate. But the big banks are aggressively fighting back, trying to prevent their own regulation only one year after the financial meltdown for which they were in large part responsible. There seems to be no remorse, let alone repentance, from the big banks — only record new profits enabled by their taxpayer-funded bailouts, and enormous bonuses to the executives who made the very decisions that brought the economic system down on the heads and hearts of so many Americans. The biggest banks in America are giving shame a bad name.

Why are new rules, regulations, and protections necessary? Because of the human condition, the realities of human nature, and a biblically orthodox understanding of human sinfulness. Yes, the reasons we need the protections offered by a Consumer Financial Protection Agency are as theological as economic. And it is amazing to me how many of those who oppose any regulation of Wall Street also claim to be religious conservatives. They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, “the myth of the sinless market.” I am a conservative Christian too, conservative enough to have a healthy appreciation for human sins, human failings, and fallen-ness, and after witnessing the behavior of America’s biggest banks during this economic crisis, an old theological term called human depravity. It is simply bad theology to trust large corporations not to pollute our waters, poison our air, or cheat their unsuspecting customers. They have to be prevented from doing so for the sake of the common good. Good financial and economic rules reflect, not only good economics, but also good theology. And the free market fundamentalism of Wall Street’s defenders is, among other things, bad theology.

But as Elizabeth Warren, a good Methodist, warns, the banks are trying everything they can think of to kill financial reform. And we must not let them do that. In the name of a fairer economy, of family values, of moral values, and of sound biblical theology, the faith community must now make itself heard on the urgent issue of financial regulatory reform. We must hold our biggest banks accountable to the common good. So let our Senators not just hear from the bankers, but now also from pastors who see what such abusive banking behavior has done to their families and parishioners, to devastated communities with shuttered houses, to the prison of debt that more Americans find themselves in. People of faith across the land must now tell their elected representatives that we will be “watching and praying” to see what they will do about necessary financial reform. We don’t have the money in our financial coffers that the banks do to finance their political campaigns, but we do have our voice and our votes which will be turned against them if they vote against the best interests of our people and for the greed of the bankers. Jesus said it well — choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). Let’s now put that choice to our Senators, who need to hear from us this next week while they are in their district offices during the Presidents’ Day recess. Critical decisions are being made for or against critical financial reform right now.

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Archbishop of Canterbury opens Trinity Institute conference

By Lynette Wilson, EpicopalLife Online, January 28, 2010

[Episcopal News Service] Theology's contribution to economic decision-making goes beyond simply raising the question of "common good"; it also offers a framework into what is being assumed – human motivations -- promoted through economic practices, said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams during a Jan. 28 lecture at the 2010 Trinity Institute.

"If we find, as a good many commentators and researchers have observed in recent years, that working practices regularly reward behavior that is undermining of family life -- driven or obsessional, relentlessly competitive and adversarial -- we have some questions to ask," he said.

Williams' lecture "Theology and Economics: Two Different Worlds?" opened day two of the Trinity Institute's 40th National Theological Conference --"Building an Ethical Economy: Theology and the Market Place," exploring the intersection between economics and theology, held at Trinity Wall Street in New York's financial district Jan. 27-29. The conference officially began Jan. 27 in the evening with a Holy Eucharist, where Williams celebrated and Archbishop of Burundi Bernard Ntahoturi preached.

"Economic activity is something people do, one kind of activity among others; and as such it is subject to the same moral considerations as all other activities. It has to be thought about in connection with what we actively want for our humanity," Williams said.

Following his opening remarks, Williams was joined by a panel of theologians and economists: Kathryn Tanner, a theology professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School; Partha Dasgupta, an economics professor at the University of Cambridge; and Susan Lee, an economist and award-winning journalist who has covered economics for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

In exploring the intersection between economics and theology, the conference seeks to explore questions and themes including: "Is capitalism a belief system?"; "What is wealth and how should it be measured?"; "constructive models of economics and consumerism"; and "envision ways to build an economy that is both ethical and just." The conference includes presentations, panel discussions followed by Q&A sessions and theological reflection groups.

Over the past few years, Williams said, he has repeatedly noted that the word "economy" is at its root a term for "housekeeping," which has implications as to where the discourse belongs.

"A household is somewhere where life is lived in common; and housekeeping is guaranteeing that this common life has some stability about it that allows the members of the household to grow and flourish and act in useful ways," he said. "A working household is an environment in which vulnerable people are nurtured and allowed to grow up (children) or wind down (the elderly); it is a background against which active people can go out to labor in various ways to reinforce the security of the household; it is a setting where leisure and creativity can find room in the general business of intensifying and strengthening the relationships that are involved.

"Good housekeeping seeks common well-being so that all these things can happen; and we should note that the one thing required in a background of well-being is stability," he said.

"'Housekeeping theory' is about how we use our intelligence to balance the needs of those involved and to secure trust between them," Williams said. "A theory that wanders too far from these basics is a recipe for damage to the vulnerable, to the regularity and usefulness of labor and to the possibilities human beings have for renewing (and challenging) themselves through leisure and creativity."

The same kind of damage, Williams said, results in an economic climate where everything is reduced to the search for maximized profit and unlimited material growth."

"The effects of trying to structure economic life independently of intelligent choice about long-term goals for human beings have become more than usually visible in the last 18 months, and one reason for holding this conference is the growing force of the question 'what for?' in our global market. What is the long-term well-being we seek? …" he said.

In addition to clergy and lay participants attending in New York, the conference is taking place at partner sites around the United States and the world.

In his sermon Jan. 27, Ntahoturi spoke about the importance of partnerships and proper use of "talents." Using the Gospel reading, Matthew 25:14-30, he said it was possible to expand on the definition of talents to include skills, abilities and resources.

"God has given everyone abilities of various kinds and no one is untalented in the kingdom of God. This story encourages us to use our gifts wisely for the common good. Reminding us about our accountability before God … it's not about how much we invest, but the quality of our investment," he said.

Williams said during his lecture: "It is really to claim that our job as human beings is to imagine ourselves, using all the raw material that science or psychoanalysis or economics can generate for us – in the hope that the images we shape or discover will have resonance and harmony with the rhythms of how things most deeply are, with what Christians and others call the will and purpose of Almighty God."   

During the panel discussion, Williams mentioned having been "moved" the previous day during a visit to St. Ann's Episcopal Church in the South Bronx, particularly when he heard that a high school near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, sends volunteers to the church annually.

Prior to the conference, Williams also participated in a panel and gave the address at an event organized by the office of the Anglican Observer at the United Nations Jan. 26 and held at the Desmond Tutu Center on the campus of The General Theological Seminary. He also took part in discussions at the United Nations and, along with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, met with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

~~ Lynette Wilson is an ENS staff writer and editor.

MLK and the Supreme Court: Why Campaign Finance Reform is a Civil Rights Issue

by Myrna Pérez, God's Politics 'Blog, 01-22-2010

This week started off by honoring Martin Luther King Jr. and is ending with a Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, giving corporations unprecedented ability to affect election outcomes by declaring unconstitutional certain limitations on corporate expenditures on electioneering.

The connection between the two might not seem obvious.  Campaign finance reform is seldom considered as a civil rights issue.  These laws are not about discrimination based on characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.  In fact, limitations on corporate expenditures are not even about people, but are instead about state-created institutions — corporations — which can have perpetual life without conscience or soul.  But at their core, campaign finance rules are about power imbalance.  And power imbalance was something about which MLK was deeply concerned.

The connection between the two might not seem obvious.  Campaign finance reform is seldom considered as a civil rights issue.  These laws are not about discrimination based on characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.  In fact, limitations on corporate expenditures are not even about people, but are instead about state-created institutions — corporations — which can have perpetual life without conscience or soul.  But at their core, campaign finance rules are about power imbalance.  And power imbalance was something about which MLK was deeply concerned.

Appeals to moral obligations and the duties of citizenship rarely come up in discussions of campaign finance regulations of corporations, however, and it is no wonder.  The emergence of MLK’s themes about power flow from what MLK calls the “supreme unifying principle of life” — love.  But of course, being creations of law and society, and not people, MLK’s unifying principle of life does not apply to corporations.  Appeals to fairness or guilt or patriotism do not work on something without a conscience, and they seem unlikely to move corporate decision-making.

The only things that control or limit the behavior of corporations are laws.  The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was such a limiting law; it prohibited corporations from expressly advocating the election or defeat of particular candidates or broadcasting election communications within the period before federal elections in which those advertisements would have the greatest impact on the election outcome.  BCRA did not attempt to regulate how corporations made their money, nor did it deprive corporations of the opportunity to pursue dominance in the market.  It did, however, seek to prevent a corporation’s dominance in the market from turning into dominance in politics.

In Citizens United, in addition to gutting part of BCRA, the 63-year-old ban on corporate independent expenditures first set forth in the Taft-Hartley Act was also removed from the law.  The Court’s 5-4 decision eliminated any meaningful separation between the market and politics. It seized the role of protector of unfettered speech rights of those corporations Justice Kennedy called the “voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.”  The judicial branch’s assertion of this role stands in stark contrast to the role played by the judicial branch which earned praise by MLK in 1957 for being the only government branch accepting any real responsibility for protecting the citizenship rights of the men and women who were marginalized and disenfranchised in this country.

Jim Wallis soberly observes in his new book Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street—A Moral Compass for the New Economy that “[t]he market has trumped all else and replaced much of the moral space of society.”  The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday cemented that triumph of the market over the “moral space” in our country.

Myrna Pérez is Counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

Demonising Haiti, ignoring slavery

by Spencer Dew, Ekklesia News Service, Jan 21, 2010

In what has now become a much-circulated clip, tele-evangelist Pat Robertson makes sense of the catastrophic Haitian earthquake as the latest in a string of curses delivered by God to Haiti’s people. Robertson’s interpretation of this catastrophe, whether we find it repellent or compelling, offers an excellent example of one of the ways religion functions: Robertson reiterates a reassuring framework of meaning in the face of experiences which call such frameworks into question.

The earthquake, rather than evidence of the random and senseless nature of human existence, provides for Robertson evidence of God’s existence and ongoing, partisan involvement in human history. Robertson’s theology provides comfort, too, in its categorisation of the victims of this tragedy as deserving of their fate, insulating Robertson from the agony of identifying too closely with these wounded, mourning, homeless, and hungry fellow humans.

Robertson may be moved by this suffering – his remarks were delivered as the Christian Broadcasting Network raised money for earthquake relief – but his religious anthropology renders this suffering, in his words, “unimaginable,” a stark contrast to anthropologies that urge empathetic relations.

For Robertson, the Haitian people are markedly 'other', a tone that carries through his version of the nation’s history: “They were under the heels of the French,” he says, “You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French. True story. And so the devil said, OK, it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”

This story is, of course, far from true. Robertson offers here a typical demonisation of the Voodoo religion and a Christian distortion of the legend of the 1791 Bois Caiman ritual. Yet Robertson, one imagines, finds animal sacrifice and blood vows repellent, and he has no reason to be accepting of any religion other than his own, ruling them all false and therefore damnable.

In the clearly defined narrative Robertson insists upon, the followers of God can expect rewards while to the followers of the devil, come destruction, blood, and wailing. The troubling aspect of Robertson’s remarks, however, is not the myths he offers to make sense of the world, but what he leaves out of his thumbnail history of Haiti: Unmentioned in his summary is the word “slavery.”

The “true story” that Robertson occludes is that Haiti, the first country to be founded by former African slaves, owes its origin to armed uprising. What began as raids on plantations became full scale revolutionary war, with people who had been regarded as chattels claiming their liberty via the blood of their former 'masters.'

From Nat Turner to Fred Hampton, the armed, independent black person has remained a nightmare image to those who benefit from white privilege in America, an image, indeed, not unlike Cotton Mather’s description of Satan incarnate in New England, that “Black Man” with the power to destroy the social order.

Haitian Independence was an event interpreted by much of the white, slave-owning world of the time as catastrophic. That 'they' would dare – and be able – to seize power called into question pre-existing systems of meaning-making as surely as any earthquake.

The image of black slaves shedding their chains and taking up arms contributes far more than any hobgoblins of the evangelical imagination to the historical 'curses' that have kept Haiti poor and troubled. The history of American relations with Haiti has been indelibly tainted by America’s true devil – the lingering effects of our own schizophrenic founding as a nation insistent on liberty, yet practicing slavery.

Just as racist terror helped shape the stereotype of Voodoo as devil worship, so too, racist attitudes have dominated the history of American relations with Haiti, from the fearful to the patronising, from clandestine political machinations to occupation by military force. It is to be hoped that the current attention on Haiti (for those of us who reject dismissive metaphysical explanations such as Robertson’s) will prompt Americans to examine the racism embedded not just in foreign and domestic political history but, indeed, in our own minds.

Without honest confrontation of the legacies of our past as a slave society, some 'they' will always be demonised and some 'devil' will always be imagined as a mask for our earthly hatreds and fears.

----------

(c) Spencer Dew is an instructor in the department of theology at Loyola University, Chicago, USA.

With grateful acknowledgements to Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School, Illinois, USA.

Taxpayers 'may fund child slavery' under new Government proposals

by Staff Writers, Ekklesia News Service, January 18, 2010

Pressure groups have accused the government of putting business interests above human rights and environmental concerns, saying taxpayers may end up funding child labour or slavery under new proposals.

It comes after the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), the creditor and insurer of many multinationals' projects in poor countries, proposed to ease tight standards on underage workers that it adopted six years ago after a political outcry.

Amnesty International UK, The Corner House, Jubilee Debt Campaign and WWF UK criticised the Government's plans, which they say would water down the human rights and environmental standards employed by the ECGD.

The groups fear that the changes would represent "a giant step backwards" for minimising UK companies' impacts on human rights, poverty and climate change in developing countries.

Of particular concern to campaigners is that the absolute prohibition on "harmful child labour" and forced labour will be replaced with a discretionary ban, where considered appropriate.

The moves are believed to follow heavy lobbying from UK exporters, who argued last year that the 'Business Principles' should be "modified, if not scrapped altogether", in a submission which campaigners call "short-sighted".

But campaigners warn this must not happen at the expense of increasing poverty, environmental destruction and human rights abuses around the world. Even with the current standards in place, they argue that the ECGD is effectively a taxpayer subsidy to the arms sector, fossil fuel industries and aerospace sector - which historically has comprised 75% of ECGD's custom.

They warn that a further watering down of standards would seriously undermine Britain's claim to be a 'force for progress' in the world.

Peter Frankental from Amnesty International UK said: "The upshot of these proposals is that British taxpayers' money could end up funding child labour and forced labour overseas. Lord Mandelsson needs to realise that people in the UK simply won't stand for this.

"The government should be sending out a clear signal to companies that child exploitation is never acceptable - not putting up the funding to help them do it. It's time the government accepted the need for UK companies to respect human rights in all their business operations abroad."

Nick Dearden from Jubilee Debt Campaign said: "the overwhelming majority of debt repayments paid by developing countries to the UK are based on ECGD projects - including arms loans for dictators and useless projects that did nothing to benefit ordinary people. These changes will unleash similar projects in future, and poor countries will spend another 20 years paying for our mistakes."

The ECGD is a government department which supports UK businesses exporting and wanting to invest in areas considered too risky to receive financial support from the private sector. It uses taxpayer's money to guarantee payment in the event of a default. Ramping up this system of 'export credits' is seen by the government as a key way of stimulating UK industry, especially during the current recession.

The ECGD asked Ekklesia to stress that "this is a consultation, that no decision has been made, and that if anyone wants us to do something different to our proposals they will need to respond to the consultation."

Williams questions lesbian bishop's appointment - but stays silent on Uganda

by Staff Writers

Ekklesia News Service, Nov 6, 2009

The Anglican Communion looks set to appoint its first openly lesbian bishop, with the election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles. Her election still has to be confirmed by national Anglican structures in the USA.

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has risked outrage by appearing to question her appointment, only days after his office said that he would not publicly condemn the extreme measures of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Despite his attempts to maintain a balance in church disputes over sexuality, Williams is likely to be accused of speaking out against the extreme on one side but not the other. Last week, his office suggested that he would be more effective working against the Ugandan Bill behind the scenes.

If her appointment is confirmed, Mary Glasspool will become the Communion’s second bishop to be living openly in a same-sex relationship. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire in the USA, became the first in 2003.

While not condemning the appointment outright, Williams said that Glasspool’s election “raises very serious questions” for the Anglican Communion.

He pointed out that “the bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold”.

This agreement had been taken to mean that there should be a moratorium on the appointment of gay bishops, an agreement that US Anglicans decided to overturn in July this year.

However, this understanding had also implied that the very conservative wing of Anglicanism should refrain from promoting prejudice against gay, lesbian and bisexual people.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill recently proposed in Uganda, which has divided the Anglican Church there, would introduce the death penalty for certain homosexual activity between consenting adults and imprison priests who failed to report on gay people in their congregations.

In response to public pressure, Williams’ office said three days ago (3 December) that “attempts to publicly influence either the local church or political opinion in Uganda would be divisive and counter productive. Our contacts, at both national and diocesan level, with the local church will therefore remain intensive but private”.

While most accept the Archbishop’s sincerity in opposing the Ugandan legislation, many suggest that he is being naïve about his tactics and giving the impression that Christian leaders will not speak up for gay people’s human rights. His decision to question Glasspool’s appointment, while saying nothing on Uganda, is likely to fuel such criticisms.

To sign the petition urging Christian leaders to speak out against the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, visit http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Uganda_Christians/index.html.

Medication lapse for Harris jail inmates especially long for patients with HIV

Grits for Breakfast, November 19, 2009

Randall Patterson has a compelling story at the Houston Press ("Jail misery," Nov. 19) that demonstrates in human form what the US Justice Department said were unconstitutional flaws in the Harris County jail's healthcare system. He highlights the case of Monte Killian, who became extremely ill after the jail failed to get him AIDS medication in a timely fashion.

In telling Killian's story, though, Randall buried his lede. Deep in the article we find this juicy paragraph:

It turns out that everyone who enters the jail on prescription meds experiences a break in their regimen, and that lapses in HIV treatment tend to be especially long. Dr. Michael Seale, the jail's director of health services, acknowledged the importance of minimizing such delays but said, "You can't go ahead without appropriate information." Thus, the clinic's thorough routine: Instead of confirming an inmate's claim of HIV by simply calling the inmate's doctor, the jail finds it necessary to test the inmate all over again before prescribing medication.

That's the critical piece - the element that makes this a public policy story that potentially affects everybody instead of just something that happened to Monte Killian. In September, the Texas Commission on Jail Standards cited failure to dispense prescription meds as one of the reasons the jail failed inspection, Patterson reports.

There are many situations where for public health reasons you wouldn't want to interrupt somebody's ongoing medication. AIDS patients are certainly one: Jails are unhealthy places and somebody without a natural immune system is in big trouble. And for obvious reasons, you don't want to keep mental health patients off their drugs for too long. For that matter, failure to keep somebody on antibiotics could cause jails to become incubators for antibiotic-resistant infections, which then migrate back to the free world.

That's an important glitch, plus it's a waste of resources to re-test inmates before prescribing medications. It would be quicker, easier and less expensive for everybody to rely on the private docs' diagnosis and prescription regimen until jail docs find reason to dispute it. That would also avoid medication delays that are getting the jail in trouble with the Justice Department and state jail regulators.