A World of Hate

The Southern Poverty Law Center (www.splcenter.org) does an annual survey of groups in America that preach hate toward others. They recently issued their analysis for the year 2007. I realize that some folks look askance at Morris Dees - one of the founders of SPLC - and the work of the center, but I tend to give the group a lot of credibility.

The report was not very encouraging. In 2000, SPLC identified 602 such groups in America. In 2007, there were 888. That, as you can tell, is a substantial increase. These groups include the KKK and the Black Separatists as well as NeoNazis and NeoConfederates.

SPLC also provides a map showing the number of such groups on a state by state basis. California has the most with 80, and Texas is second on the list with 67 such groups. Some of the next states may not surprise you, but a few will. Following the two leaders are Florida (49), South Carolina (45), Georgia (42), Tennessee (38), New Jersey (34), Virginia (34), Pennsylvania (33), Missouri (29), Ohio (28), North Carolina (28), Michigan (26), New York (26), Alabama (24), Illinois (23), Louisiana (22) and Washington (20).

I always think of Virginia as a bastion of civilization and gentility. Why do so many groups find a hospitable home in Virginia? Why so many on the east coast, from among the original 13 colonies? Why so many from the heartland of our country?

The New York Times, I believe (though I cannot find it again), provided a graphic showing areas of concentration of particular hate groups in the United States. I found it interesting, for example, to note that Texas (20), Mississippi (11), and Tennessee (12) had the largest number of KKK groups with California, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio each having 6-10 KKK organizations. I can understand the KKK being plentiful in California - I suspect a researcher could find a lot of anything in California - and in the Southern States. Why, though, are there that many KKK groups in Indiana and Ohio?

This report was particularly sobering to me. We Americans are quick to identify and castigate groups world-wide that preach hate against Jews, for instance, but seem to be willing to ignore the reality that such groups - and more - exist here as well. I realize the principles of freedom in our country allow the opportunity for many groups with different perspectives to exist, but what does the presence of such groups that call for the elimination of people on the basis of religion or ethnic background in our country say about us as a nation? Why is the number of such groups increasing every year?

In a world of hate, what does it say about us as a people that many in our communities are part of it?

A List of Sins By Any Other Name ...

Reading the major news outlets for the last week would lead one to believe that the Vatican has discovered new sins that could send a person to Hell. That is, I think, an incorrect interpretation of what happened.

The traditional list of mortal sins includes such things as: pride, lust, envy, and greed. Put forward about 1500 years ago, the traditional list focuses on individual attitudes and actions. What Bishop Gianfranco Girotti spoke of last week were more social, or communion, sins, such as: environmental pollution, accumulating excessive wealth, and inflicting poverty.

Therefore, it is not correct to say that the Vatican has just discovered pollution as a problem. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church seems to want to remind people that there are other dimensions of human actions that have an impact on others and on our own spiritual condition. People of faith should realize that living a life of greed is not good, and neither is contibuting to the damage of the environment.

While I have played with a lot of different things to add to this posting, such as discussing some of the 613 commandments to be followed by people of faith as found in Jewish scripture or thinking about Jesus' radical redefinition of sin as found in the Sermon on the Mount, I will stay with my original intent and ask one simple question. What actions or attitudes do you think should be included on a list of sins for the 21st century? (Canny people will discern that I am making another effort to generate some commentary.)

Consider your list and share it with me.

The Geographic Cure

This is a chapter title in a book I just finished reading, Ice Bound: A Doctor’s Incredible Battle for Survival at the South Pole by Dr. Jerri Nielsen with Maryanne Vollers. This is the second of two books loaned to the Chittum family by good friend, Barbara Steinhaus, and tells the story of Dr. Nielsen’s battle with cancer as she served as the only doctor to the 40 people who stayed over the winter of 1999 at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Research Station.

Shortly after the onset of winter at the Pole, when the station is absolutely isolated because no flights can land there for about 8 months due to the extreme weather conditions, Dr. Nielsen discovered a lump in her breast and suspected cancer. She was forced to perform a needle biopsy on herself in order to get tissue to verify diagnosis and to administer chemotherapy to herself, with the help of others on base whom she trained, in order to begin treatment until she could leave.

The first chapter of the book, the one entitled “The Geographic Cure”, details what led to Dr. Nielsen’s decision to serve at the South Pole. Nielsen states, “I believe in geographic cures – they allow you to throw all your cards in the air and see where they land, then pick them back up and deal them again. I was ready for a new deal.”

That feeling she expressed struck a chord with me. There have been times in my life when I felt the same thing. I would hope for a chance to throw my cards in the air just to see in what new place they would land. Sometimes I resisted; other times I did not and grabbed for the new.

Have you ever felt that way? How did you deal with it? Did you succumb to the siren call of the new and different? Or, did you stay where you were?

I never thought I would see this.

Both CNN.com and the New York Times website carried stories of a new declaration on the environment from a group of 44 influential leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention. According to the news reports - I have not yet located a copy of the declaration itself, so I have to rely on the articles - the leaders wrote, '“We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues has often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice,” the church leaders wrote in their new declaration.' (from the NY Times story by Neela Banerjee).

This is significant for several reasons. First, these leaders in the SBC, who include the current President of the Convention and two past Presidents, seem to be contradicting a resolution passed at the 2007 annual meeting of the SBC, which took a more skeptical stance about global warming and humanity's role in it. Second, this is the first time that any leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention have spoken out about environmental issues. Again relying on the NYT article for the quote, Jonathan Merritt, a seminary student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, "I learned that God reveals himself through Scripture and in general through his creation, and when we destroy God’s creation, it’s similar to ripping pages from the Bible." Third, this flies in the face of the criticism that many conservative evangelical leaders have made of Rev. Cizik's (he of the National Association of Evangelicals) call for responsible environmental action on the part of the church.

It will be interesting to see how this declaration is received by others within the SBC and the broader conservative evangelical community. It will be even more interesting to see whether SBC churches are motivated to take any action because of it.