I am sure you have heard about the brouhaha over Barack Obama's spiritual “mentor” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Even though I don’t watch television news, I could not avoid hearing about Rev. Wright. According to the Wall Street Journal, Rev. Wright “proclaims himself an exponent of ‘black liberation theology.’ He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having ‘systematized’ this strain of Christianity.”
Before I comment about James Cone’s “black liberation theology” I should mention that I came across what is known as “Liberation Theology” when I was in seminary. This was back in the 80’s when “Liberation Theology” was all the rage before the fall of the Berlin wall and about a decade after my conversion from Marxism to free-market economics. I immediately recognized “Liberation Theology” for what it is—Marxism dressed up in Christian garb. I know that I caused some of my seminary profs and fellow students a lot of acid-reflux because I heard through the grapevine that my nickname was “the student from hell.” At any rate, “black liberation theology” is the next-generation of “Liberation Theology.”
In the following quote, Dr. Cone gets right to the heart of the matter in regard to “black liberation theology.”
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." (“The Religious Wright,” http://online.wsj.com/)
My purpose here is not to get political. What I want to examine are what I consider to be some of the false premises of Cone’s theology.
One of Cone’s premises is that God can be completely for one racial group and against another. This is built upon the premise of Liberation Theology which posits that God is “for the poor” and against the “rich.” First of all, there are a lot of rich black people, but, that is a side point. Biblically, God is not “against” rich people. Nor is God per se “for” poor people. The Bible teaches that God is the God of justice. He is no “respecter of persons.” Therefore, if poor people are being oppressed unjustly, He is their defender. However, if a person is poor because of his own profligate behavior, God is not “for” him in the sense of defending his actions against the bad “rich” people. Read the story of the Prodigal Son. After blowing all of his inheritance and ending up in a pig pen, the Bible says that he “came to his senses” and repented of his sin. The law of God also tells us not to pervert justice by favoring a poor man.
Exodus 23: 2 You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.
Another false premise which Cone propagates is that God in his “love” is desirous of destroying the “white enemy.” Obviously, this statement is a far cry from Martin Luther King’s dream of a “color-blind society.” Cone assumes that “white” people are only capable of “systemic” evil and somehow blacks are inherently innocent of all wrongdoing to the point that God sides only with them against the “white enemy.” It would be more accurate to say that Cone visualizes God “participating” with blacks in their destruction the “white enemy” “by any means at their disposal.” Apparently, Cone does not want God to be the defender of blacks; rather, he wants God to join blacks in their campaign to destroy whites.
Cone, obviously, has a horribly distorted view of God’s love, mercy and justice. God is colorblind. He is no respecter of persons. Additionally, God is not only not on a quest to destroy any particular racial group; He is overwhelmingly expressing His mercy and love by working overtime to save all of humanity. This is not to say that God fails to protect the innocent. He does. But this can include His protection of innocent white or Asian families against black criminal intruders as well as innocent black grandmas against slum lords.
In conclusion, you can better understand what Cone is getting at by simply changing some words in his quote. Change the words “white people” to “Jews” and the word “black” to “Aryan” and you will better understand his reasoning and its source. Cone teaches at the prestigious Union Theological Seminary. That says a lot.
|
Add my name to the rolls when it comes to liberation.
- Arye Michael Bender -
One of the things I read in various MSM pieces was that there really was nothing all that shocking about Wright talking about political issues in the first place because that kind of thing went on all the time in evangelical (?) black evangelical (??) churches. (I don't recall if they were limiting the claim to black churches or not.)
Is that true? I can remember only a handful of times that a priest in a homily has touched on current events, apart, I guess from somewhat more frequent mentions of the evils of abortion. I would find a sermon villifying a politician or promoting some explicit political position to be totally inappropriate.
On the other hand, I think I recall hearing G.L. Johnson preach on the evils of Communism back in 1975 (when I was in the People's Church Boy Scout and attended for the annual Boy Scout Sunday. I recall that it was lively and captivating and relevant.)
So what does go on in evangelical pulpit?
So what does go on in evangelical pulpit?
●Peter, one thing that cannot be laid at the feet of evangelical suburban “mega-churches” and seeker-sensitive churches is the charge that they are overtly political. If anything, they are hypersensitive about not coming across as a tool of the right wing of the Republican Party. Most pastors in these settings are very careful to approach even moral issues with sensitivity and a moderate spirit. They realize that they are often talking to an audience in which there are many secularized people who are unconverted. They truly want to communicate acceptance of the individual without giving moral approval for his/her unchristian beliefs and lifestyle. Additionally, most pastors are very concerned about jeopardizing their 501C3 status as a non-profit organization. This is why Rev. Wright’s comments appear so blatantly outrageous to most evangelical pastors. I cannot image doing something comparable without getting into a huge jam.
●Let me illustrate with an example from personal experience. About a year ago I had a woman come to talk with me in my office. She proceeded to tell me that she was going to “turn (me) in to the IRS” for my stand on homosexuality. However, she said she wanted to give me a chance to defend my position before she contacted the “authorities.” Frankly, I could not even remember preaching about homosexuality in the recent past. What she was referring to was that I had read a passage from St. Paul that listed homosexuality as a sin while I was preaching on another moral issue. Needless to say, I was flabbergasted. Her view was that by reading these texts from the Bible I was taking a political stand against gay marriage. I spent about two hours reasoning with her and was finally able to show her that churches must preach what the Bible clearly teaches. However, my point is that this represents the rather “chilly” environment that most evangelical pastors face today. That chill wind is not blowing from the “right.”
Enlightenment is liberation for all. ALL. When anyone is denied their rights anywhere, we are all less free.
●Well, I guess I am pretty unenlightened, Michael. I am personally very much in favor of denying “liberation” for convicted criminals. In fact, I would like them incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. Additionally, I believe that when violent criminals are not incarcerated the rest of society (including you and me) becomes a whole lot less free.
Amazing story. I wonder what she was doing at New Covenant in the first place? Was she under the impression that it was a haven of anything-goes relativism?
I remember once when I was teaching Corporations Law, I was trying to schedule a review session before the Final. My practice was to write-up a sample exam and hand it out, then come in and go over the answers. This was done on my own time as kind of, well, "a nice thing."
One year I was trying to schedule the review session, but everyone had problems with everyone else's dates. After I had nailed down the least problematic date, I finally told one student who had a problem that I was sorry but it didn't matter to me why she had a conflict, I had to go with the best date for the most people.
The next week, I had a note accusing me of insensitivity to immigrant Americans because her conflict was with her Naturalization celebration party. I spent a little bit of time assuring her that I respect and admire those who enrich this country with their gifts (which is true, but - jeepers - I could see the victim rights claim a mile away.)
Maybe Timbo remembers some of that.
Being accused of being a racist when I was actually working for free is a very souring experience.
(End note - I ran into this individual at Whole Foods last month and she was eager to talk to me. Go figure.)
Anyhow, in my personal experience, and yours, the chilling wind always blows from the leftist presumptions, even when I was a student. See also the Washington Post's Easter editorial and this amazing story of how leftist anti-war protesters desecrated Easter Mass in Chicago.)
I think that one of most imprudent decisions to come down the pike in the history of American jurisprudence was the Bob Jones University decision that allowed the IRS to strip the tax exempt status from BJU because of its racist policies. Now, I don't hold a brief for that bigotted institution, but I felt that if a religious entity wasn't free to preach what it believes - or if the State was free to pick and choose acceptable religious practices from unacceptable practices - then the First Amendment guarantees would be seriously weakened.
Of course, my fellow law students practically cheered the decision when it came down since apparently that decision didn't involve any important First Amendment rights, such as reading pornography or defaming a "right wing" evangelical preacher. < /sarcasm>
Up until the 1930s, a truism of Supreme Court jurisprudence was that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." Couple that with selective enforcement and it hardly seems surprising that the levers of cultural power are in the hands of the secularists.
Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer noted, "It is the true believer's ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and consistency." The leftist true believer need not look at his own culpability for desecrating the most holy moment of Christianity in which the faithful worship the Risen Lord; instead, his eyes are on the supposed moral failings of others. It is the moral failings of others that are a stumbling block to the true believer’s glorious utopian future. This is why a leftist true believer is one of the most dangerous fanatics in human history.
Black preachers are expected to be prophetic. They are expected to take on the dark forces. When does the 'prophetic' problematic? When it steps on my toes? When it is not in concert with my perception of biblical truth? As I have been hearing about this discussion the past week, I keep reminding myself how John the Baptist died and why he died! Now there was a prophetic voice who wasn't afraid to call it as he saw it!
Did Wright and Cone take their liberation theology too far when they called whites the enemy? I think so. I think they fell into the same traps western Europeans do when they read the scriptures from their euro-centric point of view and fail to critique their own culture. I would point to the confusion of the Amercian flag and the cross as an example of this failure to critique culture. I think Wright and Cone's afrocentricism blinds them from seeing how the behavior of many of their men have perpetuated the view of black men as being unaccountable for their sexual misbehavior.
(It is years since I read Cone or heard anyone mention his name - I am sure I have book on black theology here someplace. I thought black liberation theology had long ago disappeared. I am friends of many of the leading black pastors in Phoenix and we have not discussed this for at least 20 years!)
Those are my thoughts at the moment
ron
Did Wright and Cone take their liberation theology too far when they called whites the enemy? I think so. I think they fell into the same traps western Europeans do when they read the scriptures from their euro-centric point of view and fail to critique their own culture. I would point to the confusion of the Amercian flag and the cross as an example of this failure to critique culture. I think Wright and Cone's afrocentricism blinds them from seeing how the behavior of many of their men have perpetuated the view of black men as being unaccountable for their sexual misbehavior.
●A little full disclosure first; I find the moral equivalence argument repugnant.
●You asked, “Did Wright and Cone take their liberation theology too far when they called whites the enemy?” You expressed that you think so. Obviously, making a particular race the “enemy” is completely unchristian; however, my point is that the basic premises of both liberation theology and black theology are unscriptural and heretical. This is a far cry from a person with a western European background failing to critique their cultural reading of the scriptures. By the way, isn’t it possible for an Asian-American or a Hispanic-American from your perspective to confuse the American flag and the cross? How are they equivalent to Cone or Wright? I know many American Christians who have Asian and Hispanic backgrounds who are highly patriotic. Some have served with great distinction in the armed forces. Could it be that you just politically disagree with these people so you find it convenient to suggest that they are morally equivalent to Cone who clearly calls whites the enemies of God.
●I understand your position regarding how Cone’s Afrocentricism might blind him to the sexual misbehavior of black men. However, I would frame the problem differently. As I see it, the problems of the black underclass are solvable only by themselves. Cone, Wright and others who are from the upwardly mobile black middleclass are doing a grave disservice to those in the black underclass. By blaming whites or any other race (Koreans have also been blamed)—no matter how culpable—they dis-empower those in the underclass. The message becomes, “The solution is outside yourself.” It also deflects from identifying those behaviors that engender urban pathologies like illegitimacy, drug use, alcoholism, theft, etc.; which—amazingly—are “traditional” vices.
So, what churches were these? What churches are these?
As has been so frequently the case with so much of christianity, up until 400 AD it was considered anathema for slavery to be embraced as Christian. But beginning with the new Christian alliance with the Roman Empire, Christianity was easily influenced to find justification in the Bible for slavery, even where there was little found there to suppose support. Centuries pass and racism grows. And when we evaluate the teachings of Aquinas, we find him calling it "natural".
It seems natural in our time that we would have Christian religious leaders declaring that God could not be partners with these white oppressive Christian organization. I would imagine in good conscience that these leaders would come from all races.
I would assert that if certain denominations who have churches within their ranks that express deep racism, religious leaders should repudiate them no matter the color. Or in their silence approve. Right?
But here, once again, we have white against the black. It just doesn't feel right.
?You asked, “Did Wright and Cone take their liberation theology too far when they called whites the enemy?” You expressed that you think so. Obviously, making a particular race the “enemy” is completely unchristian; however, my point is that the basic premises of both liberation theology and black theology are unscriptural and heretical. [I would add that a white theology is also unscriptural and heretical.]
This is a far cry from a person with a western European background failing to critique their cultural reading of the scriptures. By the way, isn’t it possible for an Asian-American or a Hispanic-American from your perspective to confuse the American flag and the cross? [Of course, it is possible for Asian/Hispanic American to confuse the flag and the cross - but Wright was referring to whites and not to Hispanics or to Asians so he must be meaning 'northern European whites' - such as you and me.]
How are they equivalent to Cone or Wright? [I didn't mention Asian or Hispanic Americans, you did - so I don't think that they are the talking point - nor did Wright.]
I know many American Christians who have Asian and Hispanic backgrounds who are highly patriotic. Some have served with great distinction in the armed forces. Could it be that you just politically disagree with these people so you find it convenient to suggest that they are morally equivalent to Cone who clearly calls whites the enemies of God. [Which people am I politically disagreeing with - Asian and Hispanic Americans? Cone and Wright? Whites? Can you clarify 'these people'?]
The message in this sermon doesn't quite match the hysteria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related
(Sorry I don't know how to put it into the post like Peter does, someday I'll figure it out.)
Show up at Holy Child for Thursday's Aquinas Group and I will teach you the craft of HTML coding.
This week, we are doing Question 78.
On the subject of Jeremiah Wright being taken out of context, I don't see it, really. one of the contributors made that claim so I listened to 10 minutes of Wright's sermon and what I heard was him engaging in a tendentious moral equivalence argument directed to the point that 9/11 was equivalent to, and somehow the product of, America's alleged genocide of the Indians, the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, etc.
I will give him due credit, however, for raising the perennial subject of the individual taking moments of loss to engage in self-reflection.
But, honestly, I didn't actually see evidence that the congregation was going to reflect on their individual sins. What I noticed was that the congregation started getting really pumped up when Wright began to launch into his litany of condemnation about America. The congregation obviously - to me - knew what was coming and were anticipating that riff as the audience at a rock concert would anticipate some favorite song.
In short, the context - in my view - was that Wright was really telling his congregation that the relevant sins were not their's, but were the sins of White America that had done those bad things.
I recall that right after 9/11, Falwell (I think) said something about 9/11 being condemnation by God because of America's embrace of the homosexual agenda. This was condemned as being a kind of pharisaism since it essentially said "we are being judged for you sins." Falwell's comments were taken as beyond the pale of appropriate theological reflection, and, I believe, Falwell had to issue some kind of retraction.
In short, after watching the full ten minute excerpt, I don't see that further contextualization provides him with a defense.
I would, however, be interested in your response; as John can corroborate, Catholics don't listen to a lot of "prophetic" sermons.
This sentiment is common until it is a family member or friend who commits a crime. Then this idea only applies to the "other" criminals. Suddenly, those crying to lock the bums up and throw away the key talk about second chances, probation and mitigating factors that make "their criminal" unlike the rest and deserving of some consideration of the person beyond the fact that they committed a crime.
If we really had them "incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law", we would bankrupt our society. Its bold talk in the abstract until one actually considers the ramifications.
The fact is, the United States locks up more of its citizens than ANY other country on earth. One in 100 persons are currently locked up with the total now exceeding 2.1 million souls. This is a 500% increase over the past 30 years. Most of those in custody are there for NON-violent offenses.
See: http://www.sentencingproject.org/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=571 for several links to the data and reports on the same.
Something is wrong when the United States has more people incarcerated than China who has 4 times the population. Building more prisons and hiring more prison guards is not a solution. It is an economic black hole. Already, about a half dozen states spend more on their prisons than they do on education.
Some bad guys do need to be locked up forever. We should be spending our resources there. The idea that every convicted criminal should uniformly get the max for whatever they did is unrealistic and I think irresponsible.
Finally, I'm guessing that if it was your son or daughter that got into trouble, you would not stand up in court and tell the judge that you think they should get the maximum punishment for their crime.
You see, justice isn't so obviously black and white when the abstraction is removed and the people getting locked up are real.
I haven't been to many black churches like this but my limited exposure is that the rhythm you detect is kind of a common structure for their sermons. I'm not sure the excitement at certain points makes other points less important. In fact, I think they tend to deliver the point of the rant in a quiet way. You can see it in the video...build and build on a riff, then stop and quietly state the point. Repeat.
I didn't post that as a defense per se to his comments. I do think it shows that the message isn't as titillating as has been reported. That isn't to say his theology is on the mark. I think your analogy to the trouble that Falwell got into is well placed however. Wright goes too far, I agree. I guess I'm just not so shocked after seeing some of these portions of his sermons.
Let me say what I think is a fair point that I got out of Wright's sermon: I think that it is a proper function of a pastor to remind his flock that participating in a cycle of revenge is self-defeating and un-Christian.
I think that a spiritual leader properly plays the prophet by counselling against his congregation's natural, instinctive, human reaction in favor of the virtues that get lost in the passion of the moment.
So, I appreciated that part of his sermon.
However, is that what his congregation needed to hear? Were his words directed to his congregation, or were they directed to another audience?
Looking at the crowd's reaction to Wright's litany of sin, it seems apparent that that congregation's temptation was not to cry for revenge upon the enemy's of the United States, but, rather, to indulge in schadenfreude over the blow to American pride.
A truly prophetic speech to that congregation might have been to point out that since charity is a virtue, schadenfreude is a sin, and compassion for the suffering of their fellow man might involve sharing in that suffering.
In another congregation, Wright's sermon might have been appropriately prophetic, but as it was it seemed "pharisaic" in that it was condemning sins that he and his congregation didn't think they had any guilt.
But, hey, what do I know? I don't have any experience in giving sermons. I'd be interested in hearing from the real experts in this area.
I do not have the time to read your very long lectures any more than you do mine. Out of consideration choose to shorten your dialogue to laconic remarks. With a little discipline you can refrain from useless characterizations by simply answering my questions (many are always available for you)making your point directly. I will then be able to please you with my contributions.
I note here that in your topic, your characterization of outspoken men of color as certainly not Christian, your meaning was not a political one. You overtly stated there that it was not one.
Then in short order within the comments, you extend it into current politics.
I do not have the time to read your very long lectures any more than you do mine. Out of consideration choose to shorten your dialogue to laconic remarks.
●If your Highness will grant me the privilege of writing as I see fit on my ever-so-humble blog, I will be forever grateful. Hopefully it has not stressed you to read these two unworthy sentences.
I have seen sermons on entirely different subjects but delivered in a similar style by other preachers. The congregation's reactions are pretty normal for this style of worship I believe.
For example, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urYje1DxyZU
See: http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm
An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology by H. Wayne House.
Black theology's dominant perspective on God is God in action, delivering the oppressed because of His righteousness. He is to be seen, not in the transcendent way of Greek philosophy, but immanent, among His people. He is doing something,19 as illustrated in the Old Testament when He delivered His people Israel from Egypt's bondage.20
This emphasis on God's activity, at the expense of His essence, reveals that black theology partakes of process thought. The continued emphasis on God's action among His people appears to be similar to the idea of the immanence of God in process theology,21 over against the God above the order of things. God is also seen to be in flux, or always changing. Segundo comments on this black view of God.
The fact is that God shows up in a different light when his people find themselves in different historical situations. That does not mean that we must take pains to re-create each specific historical context in the past. For if God continually presents himself in a different light, then the truth about him must be different also.22
Similarly, Grey suggests, "If God is the active and immanent initiative that energizes life, and if God is continually changing throughout the whole of history, then we cannot resist the emergency of his revolutionary designs through us."23
●I couldn’t say it any better than to quote, “God is also seen to be in flux, or always changing…and if God is continually changing throughout the whole of history, then we cannot resist the emergency of his revolutionary designs through us.” Give you three guesses as to who gets to determine what the current “revolutionary designs” are of the “God-in-flux-and-change” (hint: it isn’t the Bible, the Magisterium, or the “evil hierarchy” of organized religion).
The fact is, the United States locks up more of its citizens than ANY other country on earth. One in 100 persons are currently locked up with the total now exceeding 2.1 million souls. This is a 500% increase over the past 30 years. Most of those in custody are there for NON-violent offenses. Something is wrong when the United States has more people incarcerated than China who has 4 times the population. Building more prisons and hiring more prison guards is not a solution. It is an economic black hole. Already, about a half dozen states spend more on their prisons than they do on education.
●First of all China is a totalitarian state. Secondly, it is much more homogeneous. The reason we have had a 500% increase in lock-ups is because of a commensurate increase in crime. Crime levels are related to the level of fatherless-ness and illegitimacy (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16341/article_detail.asp). Abortion, as Ron Lott has shown, has played a role in the driving up illegitimacy (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/22/did-roe-v-wade-cause-illegitimacy/)
●What is an gigantic economic black whole are policies, laws and attitudes that undercut the two-parent family. Support the family and reduce crime. Until then I would prefer not being murdered in my home.
You wrote: "I am personally very much in favor of denying “liberation” for convicted criminals. In fact, I would like them incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. Additionally, I believe that when violent criminals are not incarcerated the rest of society (including you and me) becomes a whole lot less free."
I see Timbo already took a stab at this one. And I read your reply.
I am going to make an observation about your comment here.
First you make a generalization: "I am personally very much in favor of denying “liberation” for convicted criminals. In fact, I would like them incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law." No definition is given of the word, 'criminal.' Are we speaking about some one who shoplifted a loaf of bread or are we talking about the teen who shot two of his classmates as he committed a robbery of the Subway store at which they worked?
The reason, I ask is because you then make the second statement: "Additionally, I believe that when violent criminals are not incarcerated the rest of society (including you and me) becomes a whole lot less free." This is now a reference to a particular kind of criminal, a violent one. I think we can get general agreement in our society that locking up violent criminals is a good thing - since we don't want to become prisoners of our own homes.
The discussion about locking up every criminal is up to debate. What is to be gained from locking up every criminal? Maybe we would be better served if they went to school, especially a trade school, where they could learn a useful skill from which they could derive gainful employment. At the cost of incarceration these days (about $30,000 a year) we could be giving many of these people a quaility education.
The pareto principle is alive and well in the criminal justice system. 80% of the people there are not there for serious crimes and they will not return to the system; 20% of those incarcerated do the most violent crimes. Why don't we figure out who the 80% are and use our resources to help them become even more productive members of society?
At any rate, those are my observations and I thought.
Where is this information? I don't think this is accurate. Crime decreased for several years in this decade, especially violent crime, yet the incarceration rate grew significantly. Non-violent drug offenders represent the majority of those locked up in this country.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree that having no or worse, a dysfunctional male role model is a disaster that leads to a number of serious problems including drugs and crimes. It does not follow from this however that all persons convicted of crimes should be given the maximum punishment.
Thom also said- "Until then I would prefer not being murdered in my home."
With all due respect, this is paranoid. The chances of a complete stranger murdering you in your own home are very tiny. The vast majority of murder victims know their killer. There are random acts of violence, no doubt, but this still doesn't present a rational argument that supports the notion that everyone convicted of a crime should get the max.
I'm a little surprised you think this actually. Wouldn't you agree that a person that takes a bike out of your open garage in mid-day should perhaps get a lower sentence than someone who enters your home at night and steals your computer, and watch, and personal items with your family asleep in the house? Both are burglars. Should they both get the same sentence? And given the same crime, should a multiple offender get the same thing as an 18 yr old with no record? Should someone's mental health be a factor? If it was your son or daughter, wouldn't you want these factors to be considered?
Maxing everyone as you suggest without concern for these issues and a thousand others that real life creates for people isn't going to make us safer. One size fits all punishment doesn't consider each individual's culpability. If this is true, how can the punishment fit the crime?
Crime and punishment are complex issues. I don't know anyone that is "for" crime. I am quite certain however that the solution will not be to simply lock every person who commits any crime up for as long as possible. We don't come close to that now but we are still drowning in the costs of trying.
My comment wasn't meant to insult.
I field questions from all comers. With my new schedule I certainly do not have the time to read everything. So, pardon me if I want to read in a discriminating manner (like most here), especially when what I am reading is a dance away from the subject.
You raised the subject of Black liberation Christianity and Obama's minister as if their dialogue is new. How astonished would white America be if Christians of Color remarked specifically on the racist words of obscure white ministers? The objective here is in every way political.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
In the last 30 years, the per capita crime rate has dropped. The increase in population cannot account for a 500% increase in incarceration rates. In fact, you are less likely to be the victim of crime today than in 1978. In 1978 there were 5140.4 crimes per 100,000 people and in 2006, 3308 crimes per 100,000 people. The statistics for violent crime are similar. In 1978, you were nearly twice as likely to be murdered than today.
We will never really deal with our crime and punishment problems until we deal with the facts and not the hype. Its much more effective politically to be "tough on crime" than to have a rational approach to these problems. Locking every criminal up forever is popular, even if it is unrealistic.
Your statistics show (a) crime rates have dropped and (b) incarceration rates have increased.
Why are we not permitted to conclude that the latter has caused the former?
I was originally against 3 strikes law on the notion that crime opportunities would be filled by a virtually endless supply of criminals - a kind of "Say's Law."
However, a different theory says that a majority of the crimes are committed by a minority of the criminals - a kind of 80/20 rule - and by permanently removing that minority from the population, we will lower the crime rate.
It seems that the statistics support the latter thesis.
Everyone in CA now feel safer?
Yes, I feel safer.
It seems that Arizona should pass 3 Strikes and send them to Kansas.
Seriously, your anecdote suggests that criminal activity is subject to economic analysis like a lot of other human activities, and, so, raising the cost of criminal activity will divert criminals into less "costly" activities.
Odd Numbers
by Zubin Jelveh
Feb 8 2008 3:02PM EST
Who Pays for California's 3-Strikes Sentencing Rule? Arizona and Nevada.
There is no question that criminal activity dropped appreciably after California adopted a "three-strikes" mandatory sentencing rule in 1994. A report issued by the state a decade later found crime rates had fallen dramatically across the board.
Similar rules which force judges to hand down longer prison terms once a criminal has committed three or more offenses have been adopted in over 20 states, but California's version is by far the most stringent.
Yet two unintended consequences of the three-strikes law call into question its ultimate effectiveness, says Harvard economist Radha Iyengar.
In a new study looking at criminal activity in California during the 1990's, Iyengar finds that criminals who already had two strikes against them were 10 percent more likely to make the third strike a violent one. That translates into 21,000 additional violent crimes per year, Iyengar estimates.
The reason? It's about bang-for-the-buck.
Three-strikes laws raise the cost of criminal activity, so if you're a criminal with a prior rap sheet, why use your last opportunity on a small-time job like a burglary or theft when you can extract the most "benefit" by committing a more damaging crime like rape and robbery?
More surprisingly, but not illogically, criminals shifted future offenses to other, more lenient states. Iyengar estimates that 50,000 additional crimes were committed outside of California because of its three-strikes rule. Hardest hit by this extra criminal activity were Arizona and Nevada.
Iyengar's results suggest that California's three-strikes rule is pricier than previously estimated. Using an estimate of the cost of crime that only includes costs to the victim, she found that the increase in more damaging violent acts offset some, but not all, of the gains from the drop in overall criminal activity.
However, "if you include the increased cost to other states, the costs of increasing incarceration and the long-term effects of prison," Iyengar said in an interview, "[the three-strikes rule] becomes less and less cost effective."
Here is the Abstract from Iyengar's research paper which has this interesting title: "I’d rather be Hanged for a Sheep than a Lamb The Unintended Consequences of ‘Three-Strikes’ Laws
"Strong sentences are common “tough on crime” tool used to reduce the incentives for individuals to participate in criminal activity. However, the design of such policies often ignores other margins along which individuals interested in participating in crime may adjust. I use California’s Three Strikes law to identify several effects of a large increase in the penalty for a broad set of crimes. Using criminal records data, I estimate that Three Strikes reduced participation in criminal activity by 20 percent for second-strike eligible offenders and a 28 percent decline for third-strike eligible offenders. However, I find two unintended consequences of the law. First, because Three Strikes flattened the penalty gradient with respect to severity, criminals were more likely to commit more violent crimes. Among third-strike eligible offenders, the probability of committing violent crimes increased by 9 percentage points. Second, because California’s law was more harsh than the laws of other nearby states, Three Strikes had a “beggar-thy-neighbor” effect increasing the migration of criminals with second and third-strike eligibility to commit crimes in neighboring states. The high cost of incarceration combined with the high cost of violent crime relative to non-violent crime implies that Three Strikes may not be a cost-effective means of reducing crime."
Radha Iyengar
Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Scholar
Harvard University and NBER
1730 Cambridge St Cambridge, MA 02138
riyengar@rwj.harvard.edu
●Peter posed the question as to whether or not crime is subject to economic analysis. Speaking Thomistically, yes. At the universal level, when analyzed from the perspective of “incentives”, criminals do more crime where there are more incentives. They do less crime when there are more disincentives. The Three Strikes Law is a disincentive to criminals. Concealed Carry Laws are disincentives to criminals. The basic rule of thumb is that criminals tend to prey on people and in situations that provide the highest returns and lowest costs to them. This is why they tend to choose victims that will likely not resist them or surprise unsuspecting individuals (a woman in a dark, empty parking lot). This makes perfect sense. However, from a “particular” (or individual) level, criminals engage in crime for a wide spectrum of reasons. Chief among the reasons, again, is fatherlessness:
Fatherlessness: The Root Cause, The link between crime and fatherlessness is astonishing. By Dave Kopel, Independence Institute
A Detroit study found that about 70 percent of juvenile homicide perpetrators did not live with both parents. Another study found that of girls committed to the California Youth Authority (for serious delinquents), 93 percent came from non-intact homes. Nationally, seventy percent of youths incarcerated in state reform institutions come from single-parent or no-parent homes. A survey of juvenile delinquents in state custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than 1/6 came from intact families; over two-fifths were illegitimate.
Said one counselor at a juvenile detention facility in California: “You find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, a kid who has never been exposed [to] any kind of abuse, I’d like to meet him… a real gangbanger who comes from a happy, balanced home, who’s got a good opinion himself. I don’t think that kid exists.”
The increase in violent for criminals looking at three strikes was actually predicted long before 3 Strikes went into effect. In fact, I voted against 3 Strikes on that basis.
The notion was that criminals lookng at their third strike would be indifferent to whether they committed a violent crime since the penalty was the same. This seems particularly the risk under California's 3 Strike law, which makes even a non-violent felony eligible for the third strike.
I, therefore, expected something like a bloodbath as a dangerous, and increasingly more competent, criminal element fought with every means to prevent their going to jail for life.
The actual result is nothing like what I expected.
I also have to wonder if the 21,000 additional violent crimes statistics tells the whole story.
While it may be the case that there are 21,000 more violent crimes from offenders looking at their third strike, the total amount of violence may have gone down, even among criminals for several reasons.
First, criminal tend to get more proficient with experience. As they get more comfortable with committing crimes, they may become more inured to using threats of violence or actual violence to carry out their ends. Hence, absent 3 Strikes, the criminal who are committing acts of violence on their third strike might have gotten to that level on their 5th or 6th offense, and, then, when released, may have continued where they left off when incarcerated.
Second, the since the first two strikes have to be violent (Timbo can check me here if I'm wrong) that rule might have the effect of diverting potential career criminals and opportunistic criminal away from violent crimes.
Given the results of 3 Strikes, I would be inclined to vote for it now, although I opposed it originally. if presented with the option.
As for the "outsourcing" of crime, I have to wonder if that doesn't offset the "insourcing" of crime to California. Historically, because of its more liberal welfare, its better climate, and its economic vitality, California has attracted more than its fair share of people who commit crimes, which may have benefitted neighboring states by drawing away criminals. Presumably, those factors ought to be considered in determining the externalities of 3 Strikes.
●By moving to other states, criminals are demonstrating rational judgment. Californians cannot be made to feel guilty for causing criminals to act rationally and end their criminal acts in California. Neighboring states need to act more rationally. Additionally, the “cost of incarceration” cannot possibly be measured by cost-per-inmate analysis. Crime drives businesses and jobs out of a community. Business owners are rational too. Ron, notice the additional costs added to your life as crime goes up (i.e. bars on windows, security systems, increased vigilance, etc.). Now imagine trying to run a business with these costs plus skyrocketing insurance while customers are growing reluctant to enter your high-crime neighborhood.
●I’ve quoted this principle from Aquinas before. He is speaking of capital punishment in specific; however, I am noting it here in regard to the general lifestyle of criminal. He states:
The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. (SCG, Book III, chapter 146)
●The general principle is that attempts to “rehabilitate” criminals (even by faith-based organizations) are less sure than the fact that criminals are going to continue to pose a threat to civil society. Of course, despite all of the evidence that supports Aquinas’ clear-eyed insight, moderns Christians tend to adhere to greater sentimentalism than did he.
As I recall from debating criminal justice issues in the '70s, the single greatest fact that correlates with crime rates is the average age of the male cohort in a community.
Generally, as we know, younger males are more risk taking, less rooted to the community and less attentive to long term goals. Consequently, younger males are more likely to commit crimes. Also, as men get older they tend to drop out of criminal activity.
Consequently, whenever America has had a substantial number of young men as a cohort, the crime rate has spiked sharply.
This happened in the 60's and 70s, as the Baby Boom (Boo! Hiss!) worked its evil way through society.
It also happened at the turn of the century when waves of immigration brought rootless Irish, Italians and Jews to America.
The American society of the late 19th and early 20th Century, consequently sought to tame the energies of rootless young men though things like the YMCA and churches and similar institutions. (These observations mostly comes from James Q. Wilson, as I recall.)
So, your point about fatherlessness is well-taken insofar as father serve as a civilizing influence on young men, which, presumably, they do.
Of course, the problem that we have today is that the traditional civilizing influences of social opprobrium and status are less effective than previously was the case. Also, we have children growing up in households where the family structure is fluid and negotiable, which then leads - economically - to less incentive to invest affection and time into children, who might be lost in a divorce.
The result of that structure, according to Economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is to create a generation of children who are inclined to "attachment disorders" that occur when children don't form deep emotional attachments to their parents. Such children, according to Morse, are inclined to become borderline psychopaths who lack a basic empathy for their fellow man.
In other words, our "lassez-faire" family structure may be creating a generation of borderline sociopaths, who lack the ability to make our liberal democratic culture work. (Moreover, as its citizens fail to develop the social capital necessary to make society work, society will respond by using the only thing it can use, the coercive measures of force in things like 3 Strikes law and Zero Tolerance rules. (This last bit is my contribution; I haven't seen it outlined anywhere yet, but it seems obvious.)
Morse outlines this in frightenting detail in her book Love and Economics: Why the Laissez Faire Family Doesn't Work." (now out in paperback.)
If our culture was as smart as it thinks, it would do everything it could to strengthen marriage.
That's a good point.
One of my clients, who has family in Mexico, told me that because of the corrupt justice system there, Mexicans have to go to extraordinary steps to avoid being preyed upon. Things like putting up barb-wire fences, security doors and windows. Apparently, going outside at night with sneakers can be worth one's life.
The economic costs, including the cose of lost business opportunities as people withdraw from the market for portions of the day, undoubtedly outweigh the costs of incarceration.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that incarceration is necessarily a good thing or the best thing or good in itself.
Most of my posts have been about suggesting that taking a too narrow view of the costs of crime doesn't tell the whole story we need to make an informed cost-benefit analysis.
Morse outlines this in frightenting detail in her book Love and Economics: Why the Laissez Faire Family Doesn't Work." (now out in paperback.)
If our culture was as smart as it thinks, it would do everything it could to strengthen marriage.
●Fascinating insights, Peter. I strongly agree with your notion that as citizens fail to develop proper social capital for a civil society, ever more coercive measures must be employed. I personally find this highly regrettable. Additionally, I agree that a rational society would do everything it possibly could do to strengthen marriage. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the spirit-of-the-age that blessed us with the Sexual Revolution cannot put 2 + 2 together.
It is a vicious and growing cycle, but there is an answer. Teen Challenge centers across the country, for example, have the best 5 year treatment rate versus any secular treatment program in the country.
Ultimately we, as Christians, can argue over what the root cause of crime is, or we can seek the source cure.
This was penned prior to your extended moralizing about the healthy engine of (black) crime, their disproportionate representation while incarcerated should be on everyone's mind.
You speak of disincentives and incentives. I have not heard from the predominately relatively rich white and rich here concerning the incentives of racially related factors.
Pot calling the kettle black much? Seriously you live in a very nice house on in the state with the most expensive real estate in the country while the native live in squalor elsewhere on the island. What are you doing for them?
I guess you are just as racist as anyone you are trying to accuse of being racist.
You speak of disincentives and incentives. I have not heard from the predominately relatively rich white and rich here concerning the incentives of racially related factors.
Unless you are suggesting that Blacks are inherently more prone to crime, you certainly have heard such a discussion.
The destruction of the family, the rise of fatherless families, the tearing down of informal institutions of authority and the proclivity of youthful males to become involved in crime are all features of modern Black culture, largely because of the failed social engineering policies that were instituted as part of the "Great Society" project.
Certainly, employment discrimination against blacks is something that should be eradicated.
Fortunately, there are people like myself who are willing to file righteous employment discrimination lawsuits to end that social evil.
Please don't thank me for doing my bit - and more than you, I reckon - to actually end racial discrimination. When I do my job, I do more than just kvetch.
But let's be honest. The social pathologies I listed above make those who grow up in that environment less competitive in dealing with technology, or, for that matter, basic things like showing up to work day after day and on time.
This is hardly a racial observation. The crime problem of the late 19th Century involved European ethnic immigrants, who were incarcerated at disproportionately higher rates than WASP citizens, and who likewise faced discrimination and needed to learn how to deal with a non-peasant culture.
When the Titanic sank, a greater percentage of third and second class passengers - who were boarded "below the water line" - died than first class passengers. Those "below the water line" are always the first to experience a culture's pathologies. The answer, therefore, is stop doing what has been failing for the last 40 years.
Your memory is short. We rent a 5 room house of less than 1000 sq. ft.. We own no property. We don't live in a van down by the river or in a makeshift tent as many do. The tropical forests here are thick with the homeless, with the Philipino and Asian immigrant.
But what you are doing is skirting the point.
Anyways, I'm not skirting the point at all. I'm just pointing out that you are trying to point out how racist all these rich white guys are when you are one of them. You have been shown to be a bigot several times by the way.
Further, you miss the point. If you would read more than the title to Thom's blog before commenting, you would have caught the last line that pointed out that this kind of theology is the exact same as the garbage spouted by so many members of the KKK in different color skin.
Tell me, Gecko, is it acceptable for a black man to teach and believe that God is again white men but not acceptable for a white man to teach and believe that God is against black men? Thom, and the rest of us by the way, have taken the stand that neither position is acceptable.
You are fabricating Thom's point when you try and make him out to be racist. This action is rooted in your own bigotry.
On a side note, if lack of income gives anyone an advantage I would have to say that I must be the voice with the most right to speak on the matter, not you Gecko. Trust me whe I say I make less than a living wage, but I still give my tithe and then some. We have supported those even less fortunate than us even before starting in full-time ministry with our own money not leaving it to the church to help out. Even now, with the resources of the church at my disposal, we continue in this despite our own poverty.
Yet you would sit on your high horse puffed up at how humble you are and judge what you do not know because you cannot stand the thought of Christians living and loving God the way you have been taught we don't.
I'm sorry you had some bad experiences, but the first step to getting past your hate is admitting there is a problem.
Lets be honest with your example turning on you. The working poor on the Titanic died not because they were in the lower levels. They died on that boat because they were LOCKED on the lower levels of that boat to die. The lifeboats were limited in capacity to 1/2 of the passengers.
In our society the poor are held down. Deadbeat husbands, fathers leaving families to flounder. Women at midlife having trusted in their husbands are left alone with little hope. Philanderers who think alimony is a proper and ample substitute.
Read. We are RENTING. We enjoy our humility and our simple life.
People on the Big Island struggle with expenses you will never see. Add 75 cents to your gallon of gas. Fortunately for most here they have property that was sold to them dirt cheap when the cane sugar industry collapsed less than a decade ago.
But again you now not only missed the point, you avoid the point.
Thom, they were saying the same stuff before the civil war. The notion this is a new message is baloney.
What white ministers have been saying about black America has been going on just as long. And now it stretches to include the mexican immigrant.
●No, the poor are not “held down” in our society as I will prove. Here is what the largest study done on the economic mobility of immigrants tells us:
Immigrants' wages down, study says But later generations move up economically, By Eunice Moscoso, COX NEWS SERVICE , July 26, 2007 http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070726/news_1n26immig.html
The economic progress of immigrants in the United States is slowing, a trend that does not bode well for future generations, according to a study released yesterday…The trend is partly due to a larger influx of immigrants with lower levels of education who earn less money, said the study by the Economic Mobility Project, an initiative of the nonpartisan Pew Charitable Trusts… Although current immigrants are arriving with a mix of educational backgrounds similar to the mix of earlier waves of immigrants, the larger volume of immigrants with low levels of education could make it difficult for the next generation to move up the economic ladder, the study said… The report also found that recent immigrants from industrialized nations tend to earn more than native-born workers, but those from non-industrialized nations tend to earn less than native-born workers. By the second generation, however, the differences based on country of origin tend to disappear as wages for all immigrants move toward the U.S.-born average.
●Digging deeper we find:
The researchers found that children of Laotian and Cambodian Americans as well as Haitian Americans had the lowest median annual household income at just over $25,000. They were followed closely by Mexican American families, which had a median annual household income of about $30,000. On the other end of the spectrum, children of upper-middle-class Cuban exiles in Southern Florida reported a household income of more than $70,000, and Filipino Americans in Southern California had more than $64,000, followed by Chinese immigrants.
Furthermore, the study found that the most educationally and economically disadvantaged children of immigrants were most likely to have children of their own at a young age, compounding their difficulties at pursuing higher education. When surveyed at the average age of 24, none of the Chinese Americans had children, while in contrast 25 percent of Haitians, West Indians, Laotians and Cambodians did, as did 41 percent of Mexican American young adults.
Differences in arrest and incarceration rates are also noteworthy, particularly among second-generation, U.S.-born, males. While only 10 percent of second-generation immigrant males in the survey had been incarcerated, that figure jumped to 20 percent among West Indian and Mexican American youths.
●Okay, we now see that Mexican American youth have the highest incarceration rate and the highest rate of children born into economically disadvantaged parents of “a young age.” But what exactly is meant by “young adults” having children. Well, read this:
The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, birth records show that about one-third of births to both groups are now to unmarried parents. Moreover, unmarried immigrants are significantly more likely than unmarried natives to give birth. Illegitimacy may be especially problematic for children of immigrants because they need strong families to adjust to life in America. …Hispanic immigrants have seen the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births — from 19 percent of births in 1980 to 42 percent in 2003. This is important because Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of all births to immigrants. (Center for Immigration Studies, May, 2007)
●We, once more, come back to illegitimacy.
America is deeply divided, especially between black and white. What black ministers have been saying at church about white America has been the dialogue of generations - since the birth of this nation.
●No, as I think Ron will attest to, the majority of black ministers in America do not say the outrageous things that Rev. Wright has repeatedly said. Wright is part of the “progressive” cultural elite in the United States. Cone holds a “distinguished” chair at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Union is at the epicenter of “progressive” mainline Protestant theology.
You wrote: Thom, they were saying the same stuff before the civil war. The notion this is a new message is baloney.
●No, you are completely wrong. Black liberation theology has a distinct history that tracks back to progressive leftist Liberation Theology. You are uninformed.
You wrote: What white ministers have been saying about black America has been going on just as long. And now it stretches to include the mexican immigrant.
●I would love to see you prove this…I dare you. Of course, you cannot. Again, evangelical pastors and laymen lead the abolition movement in the English speaking world. We are not talking about some remote pastor in the back woods of the Deep South spouting racist nonsense. White evangelical pastors do not preach anything comparable to Wright and Cone. Cone and Wright are at the highest levels of cultural influence in the United States. They are the equivalent of Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. Both Warren and Hybels are deeply involved in moving thousands of people and millions of dollars to help the poor in America and to assist the fight against African AIDS. They both preach a strongly inclusive message. Thousands of evangelical pastors emulate Warren and Hybels.
This hits the nail on the head. Some of these attachment disorders have been shown to effect brain biology. In the most severe cases, it can feature a complete inability to empathize with another person, a true sociopath.
As to the three strikes law in CA. A strike is any felony offense listed as either a "serious" or "violent" offense. The third strike can be any felony and the sentence is 25 years to life.
Several issues-
1) it is not applied uniformly in CA. Some district attorneys charge all strikes on all felonies and other district attorneys only charge a case as a three strike case if the new offense is a serious or violent felony.
2) the retroactive effect can put a relatively harmless individual in prison for life for a minor felony if he has very old prior strikes. Example: I represented a fellow who had a couple of first degree burglaries from the 1982 (serious felony, not violent- but still a strike) when he was a young man, 25 years later and he gets a shoplifting case (he had a prior shoplifting so the second can be a felony). In the wrong county, this guy does the rest of his life in prison at taxpayer expense. Who is protected?
3) it can lead to some inequitable outcomes in case where the prior conduct becomes far more important than the current and similarly situated defendants get vastly different outcomes.
Personally, I would prefer if the 3rd felony was a serious or violent offense. By the way, the list of included offenses grows periodically.
You also asked me if the drop in crime corresponded to the increased incarceration of the very bad guys (due to 3 strikes and other increased sentence provisions). I think this might explain some of it but while crime decreased in this decade, the amount of people going to prison increased exponentially. I think the correlation isn't as strong as you suspect.
Finally, I think you guys all give most of these criminal types far too much credit for thinking things through. Some are clever enough but generally, they are totally impulsive and kind of a walking train wreck. Most of the time, their acts are fueled by alcohol or other drugs or a combination and things get out of control from there.
Go watch a felony criminal court calender some day and hang around the halls of any courthouse some morning. Most defendants are just pretty messed up and generally not too scary at all. Some are really bad. This is my point. We lump too many together, mess up the system and some bad ones slip through while the limited resources get spent on the dummies. This is the problem.
Who is in our Prisons and Jails?
• 93% of prison inmates are male, 7% female.
• As of 2006, there were 210,000 women in state and federal prison or local jail.
• 40% of persons in prison or jail in 2006 were black and 20% were Hispanic.
• 62% of jail inmates in 2006 were unconvicted and awaiting trial, compared to 51% in 1990.
• 82% of those sentenced to state prisons in 2004 were convicted of non-violent crimes, including 34% for drug offenses, and 29% for property offenses.
• 1 in 4 jail inmates in 2002 was in jail for a drug offense, compared to 1 in 10 in 1983; drug offenders constituted 20% of state prison inmates and 55% of federal prison inmates in 2001.
• Black males have a 32% chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives; Hispanic males have a 17% chance; white males have a 6% chance.
See: http://www.sentencingproject.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=425
●It is interesting to note that Asian-Americans have the lowest illegitimacy rate in America. Arthur Hu, who maintains statistical profiles of Asian Americans on his website (www.arthurhu.com) believes that the low rates of Asian illegitimacy may be one of the most important "secrets" of Asian "disproportionate" representation. Hu states:
"These figures also correlated with higher rates of marriage and living as extended families, low rates of divorce, births delayed until after careers are established, low rates of infant mortality, and low rates of drug, alcohol or tobacco use while pregnant, even among the poor,"