The following story has been published every news service. Let me give you just a few excerpts below:

U.S. Special Forces parachuted overnight into Somalia from fixed-wing planes, then advanced on foot to a compound holding two kidnapped international aid workers and freed them, U.S. officials said Wednesday. …

The Navy SEAL unit that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year in Pakistan participated in the mission, a U.S. official said, without specifying whether any of the same individuals were on both assaults. …

The special forces troops took fire as they fought their way into a compound where the hostages were held, the official said, adding the troops believed that the kidnappers were shooting. The official is not authorized to speak to the media and asked not to be named.

Nine gunmen were killed in the strike, Little said, adding that they had explosives nearby. There were no known survivors among the kidnappers, he added.

The American assault team did not suffer any casualties, the Pentagon said. …

Obama, who had given the go-ahead at 9 p.m. Monday, was updated on its progress throughout Tuesday, Carney said. …

The story is quite worth reading. However, Father Orthoduck finds himself thinking that he would not wish to ever get the President of the United States so angry that he would send out Seal Team Six against his person. Look at the story, they took fire and had no casualties and no wounded. I am glad they did not, as the Somali pirates are not “nice” people. But, uhm, Father Orthoduck is beginning to wonder whether the members of Team Six are fully human or whether they are today’s version of the Terminator?

There is a sad story from the New York Times that speaks to business ethics and what is considered acceptable and ethical business practices. It will also speak to you about what the expected future is for USA workers. Here are a few quotes with commentaries.

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas. …

… It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

Now to this point this sounds like a typical industrial argument. The USA has indeed been much too focused on the short term. For decades both conservative and liberal commentators have been warning that our failure to set aside capital for infrastructure upgrades has been damaging our ability to be competitive. And that is completely true. However, what no comentator expected was the globalization that was going to be coming. The increased efficiency in global travel and the ability to ship goods cheaply from country to country has made it possible to produce goods and parts in various countries and ship them to almost any other country in a cost-efficient manner. This has meant that revamping infrastructure is not as cost-efficient as building new infrastructrue in another country. In fact, that was a realization that struck decades ago when companies realized that it was cheaper to build a new plant in the USA than to revamp existing infrastructure. So, factories began to move out of the old industrialized parts of this country to non-industrialized parts of this country. It was a plus for industrialists in the USA that they were able to blame unions for their moves rather than admitting that this was but one factor in the decisions to move factories. Eventually, however, even the wages that the poorest-paying parts of the USA pay are considered to be too high. You see, the story continues:

Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Now, read the last three paragraphs again and think about what it implies for the future of the American worker. Please do read the whole article. It is important that you do, because this is Tea Party future. This is the future if the only emphasis is on jobs and maximizing profits, with little emphasis on caring for others. Look again carefully at the last three paragraphs. Workers at a Chinese factory were living in company dormitories. They were roused and given but little food. They were told to work 12 hour shifts. By the way, this is in a Communist country, which means that when you buy Apple, you are supporting not just socialism, but Marxist socialism. Oops, did you notice that there is no family emphasis? The workers were in dormitories, not in family housing. Oh, and should Father Orthoduck mention that when we buy cheap goods from China (not Taiwan) we are buying goods from a country with forced abortions?  More than that, many supporters of the Tea Party are busily running campaigns against anyone who supports abortion in an even indirect way while they have no trouble buying goods from a country which openly forces abortions upon people. Hmm, Father Orthoduck guesses that economic policy trumps pro-life policy because Father Orthoduck certainly does not see pro-life organizations running campaigns to stop us from buying from communist China. That is, Tea Party supporters are against what they call socialism in the USA while strongly supporting it with their economic policies and buying habits.

Yes, this is a rant by Father Orthoduck about both the Tea Party and those who say they are against socialism while inappropriately supporting employee mistreatment in Marxist and socialist countries such as China and other countries that have oppressive child labor, etc. This is what it means to be a Tea Party supporter. It means that in the USA they hoist signs that claim that Obama is leading us to socialism at the same time that they have no problems with worker wages being lowered or with products being sold in the USA that are produced by Marxist-oppressed overseas workers. It means that Tea Party supporters have no problem with a slow return to workers having to live in company housing and buying at the company store. For those of you who do not know history, I would suggest that you read the history of company towns and company stores, particularly in mining regions in the Appalachian areas of the USA, and what it took to have a decent life as a miner in the USA.

All too many Tea Party supporters claim the moral high ground while they are in fact supporting Marxism and socialism (by their buying habits) and having no problem with wages being cut and families being torn apart so that the husbands (or single women) are available 24/7 in worker dormitories to do whatever is necessary so that profits might be maximized. When profits become all that is important, then families take a much lower place. When profits become all important, then even life (whether infant or adult) takes a much lower place. This is what it means to be a supporter of laissez faire capitalism. This is what it means to be a secular Tea Party supporter. Let Father Orthoduck strongly state that if one is a Christian Tea Party supporter, then while one may support conservative economic policies, one ought to also support boycotts of any country that has strongly anti-life policies. To say that one is against President Obama for socialism while buying Marxist Chinese goods without a protest is a contradiction. One must, as a Christian Tea Party member, be concerned not simply about profits but about any working conditions that will be destructive to families (such as worker dormitories). To say that one is a Christian Tea Party member without making any mention of boycotts against China is only to show either a total uneducated ignorance of reality or to show just how shallow one’s understanding is, or to broadcast to the world that profits are more important than babies. Sadly, most Christian Tea Party members are all about slogans rather than about consequent stances. Most Christian Tea Party supporters do not even think about who their buying policies are supporting and what their policies mean to employee wages and benefits.

People ask why Father Orthoduck cannot give an unequivocal support to the Republican or to the Democratic party. The reason is that neither party is truly pro-life, pro-family. Being pro-life and pro-family means that you must be pro-life and pro-family in every country in the world, not just simply in this country and in a very limited set of circumstances. It means that one ought to support pro-life family policies, even if those policies do not maximize profits. Being a Christian is more than just tallying up the number of abortions while ignoring matters such as worker dormitories and child labor. Being a Christian is realizing that both parties have an awful lot of areas which are not fully Christian. You see, neither party is pro-life and pro-family. On the other hand, both parties have some pro-life, pro-family platform policies.

So, Father Orthoduck’s rant is finished. But, he hopes that you will rethink what it means to be pro-life and pro-family and realize that this subject means more than just economic slogans and anti-socialism slogans. It means being consequent in your thinking and in your actions. Next time a Tea Party member tells you that the only Christian option is the party they support, please educate them.

Let Father Orthoduck leave you with the words to “Sixteen Tons” so that some of you might even try to understand why we cannot have an unregulated free market economy:

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man’s made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that’s a-weak and a back that’s strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin’ when the sun didn’t shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said “Well, a-bless my soul”

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin’, it was drizzlin’ rain
Fightin’ and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol’ mama lion
Cain’t no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

If you see me comin’, better step aside
A lotta men didn’t, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don’t a-get you
Then the left one will

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I found out today just how angry a cat can become.

My wife and I are currently visiting our daughter, who has just delivered her second child, our fourth grandchild. I am staying at a hotel. Tonight my wife washed our clothes at our daughter and son-in-law’s house. After they were done, they were ironed and carefully folded into the suitcase. Eventually, the suitcase was zipped shut. It was the eventually that got us in trouble! We did not check the suitcase before we zipped it shut.

So, we zipped it shut, put it sideways in the car, and I drove to the hotel. I slung the suitcase out and carried it up the elevator to my room. Then I opened the suitcase. AND A CAT JUMPED OUT AND STARTED YOWLING. Yes, one of our daughter’s cats had snuck into the suitcase and, surprisingly, stayed quiet during the whole process of zipping the suitcase, carrying it to the car, slinging it into the back seat, driving to the hotel, etc.

Unfortunately, the cat was fully freaked out. I had to put on my winter coat and my winter lined leather gloves in order to chase the cat. And, it is a good thing I did! The cat tried to scratch me, bite me, and otherwise cause severe damage to me. Fortunately, nothing quite made it through, though I had a throbbing thumb for a while. The throbbing thumb would have required medical attention if it had not been covered with a lined leather glove. The cat bit down on it with a significant amount of power.

The cat was behaving so badly that I had no choice but to lock it in the trunk during my drive back to our daughter and son-in-law’s house. By now it was after 10:30 pm. Of course, this was not calculated to settle the cat down! When I arrived, my son-in-law was waiting. To my surprise, when I opened the trunk, the cat was crouched in the back. Because the cat knows our son-in-law, he was able to coax it out and into his arms. I swear that I heard a sigh of relief as the cat allowed our son-in-law to take him into his arms.

This whole episode certainly made for an interesting night! The moral of the story: in a cat owner’s house make sure to check your bags before you leave the house.

trademarks

Yesterday Father Orthoduck quoted Carl Sagan who himself was quoting another scientist. Carl Sagan said:

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of evidence if they are to be believed.” – Carl Sagan

Father Orthoduck agreed with Carl Sagan, and at the end of yesterday’s post suggested that God appears to hold the same opinion!

When Father Orthoduck was but a duckling seminarian nearly 40 years ago, he was taught that God indeed backed up his major claims with major actions. That is, he did not leave humans to completely wonder what an action meant. Rather, before the major action he sent prophets saying that God was about to act, then he acted, then after he acted he sent more prophets to interpret the action in order to make sure that people understood what had happened. Note that the professor was not saying that God only sent prophets when he was about to act, rather he was saying that when one reads the Bible, it appears that no major salvation action would take place without warning from God and then follow-up interpretation by God. As examples, think of the Exodus, the Great Exile (particularly the Books of Daniel and Esther), and the Resurrection.

Years later, scholars such as Dr. Peter Wagner, and Charismatic teachers such as Pr. John Wimber developed the theology of power encounters. This was a variation that spoke more to missionary and local situations rather than major actions by God. The theology basically claims that wherever the Gospel is expanding, there is a special outburst of God’s power whose purpose it is to support the missionary effort by both providing proof that what the evangelist is preaching is real and that the existing spiritual powers are no match for God. There are also special outpourings of God’s grace in order to break the power of evil that has been holding the peoples captive. As an ex-missionary, Father Orthoduck can guarantee you that there is some significant truth behind that statement, as he experienced some events that would be difficult to explain without a special outpouring of God’s power. As examples, look at even the modern history of Orthodoxy as it expanded out of its European, Medittarranean, Arabic, etc., patriarchates. God raised up saints, such as Saint John the Wonderworker, Saint Herman of Alaska, etc., who were called Wonderworkers because of the way in which God used them to pour out his power. Note, however, that Orthodox theology equally holds as outpouring of God’s power those who received the power to die faithfully as martyrs, holding fast to the faith. Such a person was Saint Peter the Aleut.

Actually, variations of this type of theology have been around for centuries, but they have usually been used in a negating fashion. One can go to some Orthodox (and Presbyterian, and Reformed) websites to see how they classify gifts such as tongues and interpretations of tongues, etc., as being “sign” gifts that were only meant to be for a time and in order to prove the reality of the Resurrection. Father Orthoduck has severe problems with such claims. First, as he mentioned in the last paragraph, the Orthodox Church still experiences the outpouring of God’s grace to the whole Church, and especially to certain saints who express God’s grace in powerful ways. More than that, it is the claim that God did this in the Early Church, but now will never do that again. This appears to be a most dangerous claim with regard to God. It is one thing to say that blood sacrifices will never return again. That is clearly stated in both Scripture and Holy Tradition.  It is another to claim that certain gifts mentioned in both Scripture and Holy Tradition will never return again. That is a most dangerous claim. The hesychast tradition is itself quite close in many of its expression to the expression of the ecstatic gifts.

But, this is all to say that Carl Sagan actually had a point. Extraordinary claims are much more easily accepted when there is extraordinary evidence. Frankly, it is a neat summary of the human condition. Our God has met us at our human condition. The main place at which he has met us in our human condition is in the Incarnation. God became one of us so that we might become one with him. More than that, in the Resurrection, and in the expressions of God’s grace and power that is found in the Apostolic witness, and in the continuing witness of God’s grace and power that is found in many of the saints throughout history, God has continued to provide the extraordinary evidence that helps us to believe that his extraordinary claims are true.

terms

Father Orthoduck quite liked the definition that is found in the last two panels of this comic. Please ignore the rest of the comic. Unless you have been following the story arc, it will make no sense to you. But catch what one of the characters says about bureaucratic power. She defines it as, “the power of stubborn small-mindedness in large groups.” I think she has quite grasped something.

We have all complained about the small-mindedness found in every bureaucracy. But, we often do not reflect on the idea that it may be every bit as much our own fault as that of those in the bureaucracy. You see, Saint Paul said long ago that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now, Father Orthoduck knows that he was not referring to bureaucracies, but there is a side point that can be made. When all is said and done, a bureaucrat is an employee, a person who must make a living in order to cover the basic necessities of life for him or her self, which probably includes a family. S/he cannot take a chance on being fired over a mistaken decision. So, it is safest to always follow the rules.

When Father Orthoduck was in basic training, he remembers a drill instructor giving us some advice. He said that the Army has a rule book. As long as you follow it, you will not get in trouble or be court-martialed. But, if you break the rule book, two things can happen, one bad and one good. If you break the rules and you win a great victory, they will give you a medal and re-write the rule book. If you break the rules and either something goes wrong, or you do no better than if you had followed the rules, then they will throw the rules at you and court-martial you. The lesson was obvious, you had better follow the rules.

Father Orthoduck knows that the approach above has been modified to allow for much more adaptability than was possible when he was in the Army. However, the approach above is still the approach in any government non-battle, non-Armed Forces position. There is nothing to be gained by crossing the rules, and a job to be kept by enforcing the rules. Let those in higher reaches take the responsibility for any exceptions to the rules, that is what they get paid for. Add to that pressure the tendency towards a peaceful life that we all have, and one can end with some significant small-mindedness. Multiply that small-mindedness by tens of thousands of bureaucrats and you get some significant paperwork traffic jams in any type of government.

But, here is Father Orthoduck’s question to you. Can you blame them? Look at your TV screen for a month. Usually, at least once or more a month, there is a story about some person who received amnesty from a governor or some person who did not receive a sentence as strict as some people wished or a story about a politician who bent some rules. What is the normal response? Outrage from the populace and from the news media. You see, WE are the ones who insist that the laws and regulations must be followed. WE are the ones who scream for the blood of those who do not enforce the laws and regulations to the last drop of blood.

A bureaucrat who is in charge of a small office with some rules is quite aware of that. Who will defend him/her if s/he violates the rules? When was the last time that you saw or read an article about a bureaucrat who bent or broke the rules and received high praise for that? No, every bureaucrat knows that just about every story ever printed linking a bureaucrat and the bending or breaking of rules is a negative story asking that the bureaucrat get fired. Under those circumstances, why should a bureaucrat not learn to be small minded and to enforce the rules, even when the rules are causing harm to someone.

Remember the principle that Father Orthoduck was taught in basic training! As long as you follow the rule book, no harm will come to you. The moment you do not follow the rule book, the majority of what can happen to you will be bad. And so, a bureaucrat learns to stifle any tendency to bend or break. Almost every bureaucrat has had a bad experience with what happens if you do not follow that rule. No bureaucrat has had a good experience with bending or breaking the rules. And so, WE teach them small-mindedness, by our insistence that the government must follow the rules to the last drop of blood. Let’s not try to blind ourselves by claiming that somehow small-minded people are drawn toward government bureaucracies or that government, by definition, is the entity that causes small-mindedness.

No, WE are the ones who help cause small-mindedness. That and, as Saint Paul said, “the letter kills …” There is a reason why our Orthodox hierarchs have the right to apply eikonomia to various situations. There is a reason why we insist that our canons must be applied in a medicinal fashion rather than a legalistic fashion. It is because we know that a “legal” application of our canons will lead to small-mindedness and bureaucratic numbness. The same is true in government civil service, except they generally have no person in their hierarchy who is allowed to exercise flexibility. Rather, all the way up the line, the exercise of flexibility is generally punished or used as a political bludgeon.

Oddly, the Founding Fathers did have some concept of eikonomia. That is why Presidents and governors have the right to grant amnesty. That is why judges have flexibility in applying judgments. That is why district attorneys have prosecutorial discretion. That is why certain positions in federal or state government have periodically had the right to be flexible. It was the knowledge that the system needed some flexibility, some possibility of adustment without needing to go through the cumbersome process of law or rule change. Until we recognize the need for flexibility in our system, we will continually run up against bureaucratic inflexibility. And, here is a tip for you. It will not matter whether it is a large bureaucracy or the village clerk. As long as punishment is the reward for human concern and keeping your job is the reward for following the rules as written, and only as written, so long will the rules be applied inflexibly, whether it is the IRS or the village clerk or the judge or the district attorney or the bureaucrat who denies your petition for a zoning variance.

If we want bureaucratic flexibility, then WE must stop insisting that the law must be followed, without exception, to the last bitter jot and tittle. We must allow for flexibility if we want a bureaucracy that is not small-minded.

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary levels of evidence if they are to be believed.” – Carl Sagan

It may surprise you to read that I completely agree with Carl Sagan on the quote above, though I disagree with his application. Carl Sagan popularized that quote, though it probably came from a gentleman named Marcello Truzzi. He started the magazine, The Zetetic Scholar, and was reputed to have said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” He was a skeptic’s skeptic, which means that he even doubted the skeptics! That is, he called anyone a pseudoskeptic who assumed that any proposition is false without bothering to investigate it. Of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), he stated:

They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it’s a mere anomaly.

Thus though he was a skeptic, he was not actually a Carl Sagan type of skeptic. Rather, he insisted that all claims have to be subjected to scientific inquiry with no preconception. He further insisted that any claim which drastically changes the received scientific wisdom requires extraordinary levels of evidence in order to make the change in belief. He was also a founding member of the Society for Scientific Exploration (now somewhat defunct) whose mission statement is/was:

The primary goal of the international Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science. A secondary goal is to promote improved understanding of those factors that unnecessarily limit the scope of scientific inquiry, such as sociological constraints, restrictive world views, hidden theoretical assumptions, and the temptation to convert prevailing theory into prevailing dogma.

Topics under investigation cover a wide spectrum. At one end are apparent anomalies in well established disciplines. At the other, we find paradoxical phenomena that belong to no established discipline and therefore may offer the greatest potential for scientific advance and the expansion of human knowledge.

That is, unlike Carl Sagan, he was quite willing to admit “apparent anomalies” (paradoxes) in what we know, as well as phenomena that are not really being studied by anyone and which may yield future scientific advances. He was quite aware of the problems of “sociological constraints, restrictive world views, hidden theoretical assumptions, and the temptation to convert prevailing theory into prevailing dogma.” Nevertheless, should you think of him as friendly towards religion(s), that would be untrue. Rather, he was a rigorous applicant of the scientific method, to the point that he did not paper over the problems nor ignore the limitations of the method nor minimize the gaps that are found in every discipline. In fact, he defined the true scientist in an article about himself in 1987 as:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact.” Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

Notice the very careful wording that he uses above. It is actually a quite worthy wording, and one with which Christians could generally agree with certain caveats. “The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. … But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.” That is, the most a skeptic should say is that a particular claim “is not proved.” If s/he moves beyond that to saying that a claim is ”due to an artifact” (or disproved) then s/he themself must then prove that s/he has disproven the earlier claim.

Now, that may not seem like much, but it has some strong implications. Dr. Truzzi would have looked at the Carl Sagans, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennetts, etc., and probably considered that they had gone far beyond the evidence in their statements that they had shown religion to be false. But, he also would have had little patience with the people who do one study or who find one study on the Internet and promptly declare that all the previous scientific orthodoxy has been disproven. That is, if his beliefs prevent a skeptic from simply declaring something to be false without adequate proof of falsity, they also prevent a person from declaring a change in an existing belief simply based on a study or two. That is, a major change in belief requires major proof to be adduced. This principle was designed to counter the easy-believism found in so many of the “fringe” groups in the USA who make some outrageous claims about vaccinations, autism, chelation therapy for cancer, etc., etc. Just because a medicine is alternative in no wise makes it true. It also is subject to something stronger than merely making the claim that “our” worldview makes it impossible for us to accept the truth of the alternative medicinal claim.

Oddly enough, it may surprise you to know that I think that God also seems to have held to some version of that saying. (Hint: think of events like the Crossing of the Red Sea, the Resurrection, etc.)

===MORE TO COME===

profile

From Fox News:

A judge this week ruled this week that Texas can no longer deny driver’s licenses to legal immigrants with temporary visas and must issue standard licenses instead of non-standard ones approved by a state panel three years ago. …

 Gov. Rick Perry, a popular choice among Republicans looking for a 2012 GOP presidential contender, supported the policy that was a blueprint for a new law that is set to take effect at the end of this September. Under the law, all legal immigrants with visas authorized for less than one year or scheduled to expire in less than six months are still entitled to standard-issued driver’s licenses.

“The governor continues to support requiring driver’s license applicants to prove they are in the country legally before being issued a license,” Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said in an email to FoxNews.com. …

In Texas, the ruling is a victory for immigrant rights groups who said that thousands were denied standard-issued licenses even though they had valid immigration documents issued by the federal government. …

If you are here legally, you have rights. If you read further into the story, what really happened was that the legal immigrants were not really issued the non-standard licenses either quickly or easily. And, the policy was never approved by the state legislature, rather it was a bureaucratic ruling by a state board. And, the policy is not even backed by the current Republican governor of the state! More than that, many of the immigrants who were in effect denied licenses were coming in temporarily to work under the government’s H1B visa program. In other words, this is a policy that stank of xenophobia and the judge and the state’s Republican governor and its legislature found it so. Why do I say that? Read the story above again and notice that the state legislature and governor stepped in and even before the judge’s ruling and had already approved a new law set to take place in September which repudiated the bureaucratic board’s decision. So, let Father Orthoduck send a big “thank you” to the elected representatives and to the judiciary of the State of Texas.

What is the H1B visa program and why were so many people so horrified over the board’s decision?

The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. …

The regulations define a “specialty occupation” as requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor including but not limited to architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, biotechnology, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum (with the exception of fashion models, who must be “of distinguished merit and ability”.) Likewise, the foreign worker must possess at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent and state licensure, if required to practice in that field. H-1B work-authorization is strictly limited to employment by the sponsoring employer.

Notice that (except for the fashion models listed) in order to receive an H1B visa, you must have at least a Bachelor’s degree. In reality, many of you have already met people with H1B visas. They are the professionals with foreign accents who are now found in so many companies in the USA, including hospitals, etc. Many of them go on to become permanent residents and good productive citizens of the USA after a time. Why are they here? Bluntly speaking, because there are not enough USA citizens choosing to specialize in the professions in which these have majored. In many hospitals, nurses with foreign accents are here because of a nearly crippling nursing shortage in USA hospitals. They come in on a variation of the H1B visa and end up being approved for permanent immigrant status. Nurses are highly paid professionals, but also work very hard. Sadly, despite our unemployment levels, not enough young men and women choose to go into this field. The same is true with certain types of engineers, physical scientists, etc. Those immigrants are here doing jobs that our own youth will not train to do.

Can you see why there was such horror in Texas over this board’s decision? If it had stood, those specialized immigrants could have been sponsored to any other state in the union to a waiting ready job. Texas would have quickly faced a brain drain which it could ill afford. And, since those immigrants are here legally, they were not going to be deported, they would simply have been picked up by other companies. This is why governor, legislature, and judicial branches all reacted so strongly and (for government) so quickly.

But, it also points out the danger of a shotgun approach to the word “immigrant” And it also points out a danger that is current in America, and that is the danger of overusing words, devaluing them, and ginning up overly broad reactions. This board’s actions show that the reality for many in this country is that they no longer distinguish between the word “legal” and “illegal” when it comes to immigrants (or any of several other matters). This is not the first time that legal immigrants have been injudiciously punished because they are not citizens, even though they are here legally. For instance, Fox News also reported in January of this year that a British legal immigrant who had held a gun permit in South Dakota for several years was denied a gun permit renewal because of a new State of South Dakota law that denied gun permits to anyone who was not a citizen. A lawsuit has already been filed, and rightly so. If you are here legally, you have rights.

And that is what worries so many of us Latinos. Already Fox News has reported on citizens of Hispanic descent who have been stopped by immigration officials (and other officials) and told that they should carry “papers” to show their citizenship. Having served my country in the military, and serving my country now in a VA Medical Center, Father Orthoduck strenuously objects to second-class status. In various states we are seeing that feelings about “illegal immigrants” has spread not simply to legal immigrants but also to citizens of the USA, based simply on our perceived looks or names or even accents. In some states, such as South Dakota, it applied simply to any immigrant. And that is the definition of xenophobia. That is, it is an unreasoning fear of foreigners that gets extended even to foreigners who are here legally. You can also see that in the unreasoning attempts of many communities to prevent any mosque from being built in their area. Xenophobia is always masked by what are seemingly plausible arguments. But, court rulings and revised laws such as the ones cited above show that those seemingly plausible arguments are really illegal and immoral attempts to limit the liberties of a disliked group. And, that is why the Bill of Rights was written. It was written to stop a majority from illegally and immorally attempting to limit the liberties of a disliked group.

Additionally be very aware that when those feelings are applied to natural-born citizens of the USA who happen to be of a particular identifiable ethnic background, it is called racism. One can always find arguments as to why a particular ethnic or racial group should be held to special scrutiny. But, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ensure that all citizens are to be treated alike and the courts consistently have ruled that way. The reason the Constitution gave such powers to judges chosen for life was precisely because the Founders knew that any person elected for a term would be subject to the pressure of popular feeling on any given subject. For all that there is a quite reasonable argument over whether judges should be “strict constructionists” or not, please note that even strict constructionist judges have joined in opinions to declare quite a few laws unconstitutional. In addition, our own Congress and States have passed amendments to the Constitution, such as the XIVth (and others), to reinforce the Constitutional protections that apply to citizens (and legal immigrants) of this country.

So, let’s give a big cheer to the State of Texas in all its branches. And please become involved in countering the type of speech that tries to “dirty” the idea of either legal immigrant or naturalized citizen or even of natural born citizen of a particular ethnic or racial background. We cannot cite God in the Declaration of Independence (… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights …) to then turn right around to try to take (or minimize) those rights away.

faq

Father Orthoduck recently received the drawing above. It is a drawing of Father Orthoduck with a Kitsune. The message said in part:

You have an avatar as Fr. Orthoduck … truth be told I have an online persona as it were too. She’s a … fox (or as the Japanese call them, Kitsune … mythical foxes/tricksters that serve the Deity Inari in Shinto myth) So here she is … reading in curiosity and wonder as Fr. Orthoduck happily points out some stories of the Saints and verses for her to read.

I have excised enough of the message to make the sender difficult to identify. As C.S. Lewis is fond of having Aslan say over and over in his books, we are only told our own story. It is not mine to tell the reader someone else’s story. But, I will tell you that the drawing above brings a smile to my face every time that I see it. As the frequent reader knows, my wife and I were missionaries. During part of that period, I had the opportunity to visit a tribal village multiple times and to spend time getting to know the people and the culture and having the people get to know me and come to trust me. The end result of that multiple year set of visits was that the entire village decided to convert.

They, too, had their beliefs in both good spirits and evil spirits. At least one time I surprised the people by not being taken by an evil spirit. Frankly, all I knew was that I woke up in the middle of a full moon night at the village. I went outside and everything was bathed in pearly light. As I looked around, it seemed as though the village had been turned into a beautiful painting lit by the moon. The stars were shining brightly overhead and I could clearly see both the Southern Cross and the Milky Way. There was no electricity and we were high up enough in the Andes that there was less atmosphere and humidity for me to see through, which gave very clear viewing. It was all so beautiful that I began to praise the Lord and recite some of the Psalms that express the wonder of God and his creation as I walked around. Then, I returned to my sleeping area (a loft above a little local tienda), crawled in the sleeping bag and went back to sleep.

Next morning I woke up and told a couple of women at the tienda of the beauty of the night. They promptly blanched. It turns out that on those nights, it is a soul-sucker that comes around to entice you to come out and who will then rob your soul if you dare to listen to the call. I said that I had met no such creature, but rather had ended up praising the Lord and reciting some Psalms. They looked at each other again and decided that it must be because I was a priest. So, I told them that God, who is faithful, had kept me in his hand and wanted to keep them in his hand also. I know they did not believe me then, but it was one of the chinks that eventually led to the village converting. There were other happenings, but that is for other posts.

The picture above expresses nicely some of what I experienced in that village. I simply told them the stories of the Scriptures and of the saints. And God was faithful to provide and to call and to protect. And so, a whole village was added to the Church. Kitsunes can learn to follow the Lord.

guidelines

From Fox News:

Presidential candidate Herman Cain on Sunday defended his opposition to a new mosque in Tennessee, expressing concern about Shariah law and declaring Americans “have the right” to ban mosques in their communities. …

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Cain said he came out against the Tennessee mosque after talking to members of that community. He said the site is “hallowed ground” to Murfreesboro residents and that they’re concerned about “the intentions of trying to get Shariah law” — the code governing conduct in Islamic society. …

It was really only a matter of time before one of the Presidential candidates began to assail even the basic rights granted to Americans in the Bill of Rights. Already those who argue that we must be secure argue that everything from highly intrusive TSA inspections to a loosening of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure must be allowed. It was but a matter of time before the next step was taken to pick a religion which many do not like in order to broach the idea that protecting this country must mean forbidding the practice of one of the major religions of the world. Of course, that is not how it is worded. The religion is not being forbidden per se, only the building of their worship buildings. Many of the anti-mosque people are the same people who argue that Russia is wrong for limiting the number of evangelical missionaries and for preventing certain Christian groups from establishing themselves in Russia.

The argument is that somehow the building of a mosque furthers Shariah law. That argument, of course, comes from the propaganda of some of the most radical branches of Islam, the very branches that did bomb the USA. The problem is that this continues an argument that the Arab spring should have destroyed, and that is the argument that all Muslims are alike. But then, as a Latino Father Orthoduck is accustomed to this type of tactic. A couple of years ago, during the height of the pre-election anti-immigration debate, some of the debaters quoted some of the more extreme small Latino groups in the Southwest who advocated the formation of a new country there that would be Latino run. The reality of the many Latinos who have faithfully served the USA in both the Armed Forces and in Congress was irrelevant. The fact that they found a small group that said it was proof that all of us Latinos really wanted that. And, it was within the lifetime of Father Orthoduck’s parents that American born citizens of Japanese ancestry were put in concentration camps in the USA over fears that they would betray us to the Empire of Japan.

Those who argue this will, of course, argue that it is the people’s right to decide who lives in their neighborhoods and to protect themselves. The answer is that the Bill of Rights was written precisely in order to prevent the people from expressing their will in the matters of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. Time after time local and federal courts, and the Supreme Court have repeatedly ruled that our Bill of Rights are a wall of protection from the mad impulses of mob mentality. This is precisely what is happening in Tennessee, happened in New York, and has happened in other states. Again, as a Latino, Father Orthoduck remembers quite well the many statements that were tossed about last election season that may have started out as supposedly only about the undocumented aliens, but quickly became about all Latinos.

Furthermore, Father Orthoduck can cite more than one instance in which a particular housing subdivision tried to prevent either the building of a church building or even the meeting of a Bible study based merely on a local housing covenant. Some of the older Pentecostals can remember times when they had trouble building in certain areas because no one wanted those “holy rollers” in their neighborhood. The people’s right to decide can all too often be the people’s right to exercise their particular bias. Almost every time in which such a dispute was taken to court, was a win for the Christian group. Time after time the courts have ruled that neither local housing covenants nor zoning codes may be used to prevent religious expression.

Sadly, the current state of this country is that for which the Bill of Rights was written. That Bill was written as a protection for times when the people would forget their promises and would try to restrict the rights of a disliked minority. Sadly, for the last several of years, matters which used to be only read about in radical publications now come out of the mouths of presidential candidates and serving Congresspeople. In every case, those matters are shrouded in language which sounds reasonable until one realizes that the end effect is to repress some group who is already here and whose members are already citizens. Father Orthoduck has heard both some on the extreme right and some on the extreme left making arguments of this type.

Whether it is arguments that churches must be prevented from discriminating against people (the extreme left on homosexuality) or whether it is arguments that certain religions must be repressed (the extreme right on Islam), both sides forget the Bill of Rights and the very walls of protection that our Founding Fathers placed around us. Mind you, the protections are not perfect. But, they are certainly better than the alternative, which is relying on the will of the people for protection. The Founding Fathers did not trust the will of the people when it came to certain issues, and neither should you.

profile