The Raven Foundation

 

^{Governer John Kitzhaber of Oregon}

 

There has been a lot of discussion this year about the death penalty and morality.  In September, Troy Davis’s high profile execution took place in Georgia.  Davis was convicted of the 1992 murder of Officer Mark MacPhail.  While MacPhail’s family called for Davis’s execution in the name of justice, others throughout the world sought to save Davis’s life.  The Pope, politicians, celebrities, and others who wore Troy Davis t-shirts claimed there was too much doubt in the case against him.  No weapon linked Davis to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses recanted their original testimony, stating that the police coerced them to identify Davis as the killer.

 

Two weeks ago the question of morality and the death penalty emerged once again, this time in my home state of Oregon.  On November 22, Governor Kitzhaber issued a moratorium on the death penalty, saving the life of Gary Haugen, who murdered two people.

 

It is quite the controversy for Oregonians, who voted in 1984 in favor of the death penalty.  Despite overseeing two executions in his previous stint as governor, Kitzhaber claimed, “I simply cannot participate once again in something that I believe to be morally wrong.”

 

Kitzhaber has taken a lot of heat for his decision.  One victim’s family calls him a coward and claims, “that he should suck it up and be a man about it and put his personal feelings aside and let it happen because it should happen.”  Even Haugen thinks he should be killed, stating that Kitzhaber doesn’t “have the guts to carry out the execution” and “saying that he wants to be executed.”   Even Wesley J. Smith, a writer for the Catholic magazine First Things, calls Kitzhaber a hypocrite and suggests he should carry out the will of the people.

 

As governor, Kitzhaber has the right to go against the will of the people by issuing a moratorium on the death penalty.  That right was established by the framers of the US Constitution and later the states gave governors that right.  Alexander Hamilton argued that right was needed in the name of mercy, asserting that “one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government than a body of men.”

 

I was surprised when I found Hamilton’s quote.  Is it the government’s job to be merciful?  According to Hamilton and the other framers of the Constitution, it is.  This leads me to ask a question about morality and mercy.  How would our ideas of justice change if we understood that it is interconnected with mercy?

 

Let’s go back to the night Troy Davis was executed.  There was another execution that night – Lawrence Brewer was executed for the brutal killing of James Byrd Jr.  Brewer, a white supremacist, has admitted to slitting Byrd’s throat, chaining his body to the back of a pickup, and dragging him down a dirt road in Jasper, Texas.  Brewer has shown no remorse and has “boasted about the killing and the thrill of it.”  Chillingly, he claimed, “I have no regrets” and “I’d do it all over again.”

 

How did Byrd’s family respond to Brewer’s statements?  Indeed, they wanted justice, but they also wanted mercy and they responded with forgiveness.  They asked for Brewer’s life to be saved.  Ross Byrd, the 32 year old son of James Byrd, said this: “You can’t fight murder with murder.  Life in prison would have been fine.  I know he can’t hurt my daddy anymore.  I wish the state would take in mind that this isn’t what we want.”  Betty Boatner, Byrd’s sister, claimed, “He has no remorse and I feel sorry for him, but forgiveness brings about healing.  We had begun to heal a long time ago.  We’re praying for his family as well as our family, and for the citizens of Jasper.  We already made peace with it a long time ago.”

 

Two statements are worth considering.  First, “You can’t fight murder with murder.”  Of course, you can fight murder with murder, but it’s futile; fighting murder with murder only leads to more murder.  Michael Nagler points to this fact in his important book The Search for a Nonviolent Future:

 

… As Sister Helen Prejean points out, Texas executes more people than any other state, “yet its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.”  New York, which does not have the death penalty, reduced its crime rate dramatically in the first four months of 1992, largely by expansion in other, more preventative areas of crime control. (pg 94-95)

 

Morally speaking, what we attempt to articulate in supporting the death penalty is that murder is really okay and can be carried out in the name of justice, as long as you commit murder in the specific rules and regulations that society deems appropriate.  For example, when I was in seminary, a professor told our class, “We need the death penalty because it tells people that as a society we won’t stand for this type of behavior.”  But the spirit of violence that leads to murder cannot be contained with societal rules and regulations.  Studies support this claim, as states without the death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty.  The lesson that the death penalty actually teaches is that violence is an appropriate response to violence and that murder is okay.  This is what we refer to as mimetic (or imitative) violence.   The death penalty is the result of the state, we the people, getting sucked into the act of murder, which is why the spirit of violence can’t be contained by state rules and regulations.  Sure, we clean it up.  We don’t make it bloody.  We justify our violence as “good” and we claim to use it in the name of justice.  The problem is that every individual and every group make the same justifications for the use of violence.  We all think our violence is “good” and their violence is “bad.”

 

The other statement I’d like to explore with you is this: “forgiveness brings about healing.”  We often think the opposite is true: that justice brings about healing.  Now, I’m all for justice, but justice that is based on revenge gets us into a mimetic cycle of violence.  That type of justice enslaves us to violence.  A justice that is based on forgiveness frees us from violence, from scratching deep, painful wounds, and allows us to start healing.

 

I want to be clear: I don’t blame anyone for being pro-death penalty.  I think it’s a normal reaction to murder.  Far be it from me to tell someone to be merciful and forgive when a loved one is murdered.  That being said, I don’t think it’s a healthy reaction.  The spirit of violence is mimetic, but so is the spirit of mercy and forgiveness.

 

“You can’t fight murder with murder.”  It’s so true.  If we want to solve the problem of violence, the violence of the death penalty will only delay the process.  What we need is the spirit of mercy and forgiveness.

 

************************************************************************************************************************

 

Do you think justice and mercy are interconnected?  Or is justice the opposite of mercy?

Do you agree that the death penalty teaches us that violence is an appropriate reaction to violence?

Does forgiveness bring healing?

Is it the Government’s job to be merciful?

 

 

One of the ugly truths of human existence is that violence works.

 

As a proponent of nonviolence, it is hard for me to make that statement, but please hear me out.  The anthropologist René Girard claims that we gain temporary peace through sacrifice, expulsion, and other acts of violence.  In this sense, violence works to bring a sense of peace and calm, but that sense of peace and calm is simply that – an illusion that the problem has been solved.  Although violence brings this sense of peace, it doesn’t have the capability of solving underlying problems.  In fact, violence covers up the problems.  Because those problems are not dealt with, they emerge once again.  We remember the sense of peace that violence brought us before, and so we repeat the cycle.

 

To paraphrase the great non-violent activist Michael Nagler in his book The Search for a Nonviolent Future, violence may work, but violence never works.  It might give us a temporary sense of peace, but it never solves our problems.

 

What does this have to do with the recent events at University of California, Davis?

 

The UC Davis campus police believe that violence works.  They used pepper spray to coerce the students who were nonviolently protesting.  That violence worked temporarily as a means to forcibly remove students, but it didn’t work, as two days after the incident student protesters once again occupied the quad, leaving the authorities wondering how they should now respond.

 

Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi believes that violence works, and employed that belief yesterday in the form of expulsion.  She claimed about her decision to place campus Police Chief Annette Spicuzza on administrative leave that “As I have gathered more information about the events that took place on our Quad on Friday, it has become clear to me that this is a necessary step toward restoring trust on our campus.”  The Los Angeles Times correctly reports that this act of expulsion is an attempt to restore peace.  The authors of the article claim that “Katehi announced Monday that she had put campus Police Chief Annette Spicuzza on administrative leave, an effort to restore peace to the 32,000-student public university.”

 

UC Davis assistant professor Nathan Brown, along with some other faculty members, also believes violence in the form of expulsion works.  Brown wrote an impassioned article on his blog calling for Katehi’s resignation.  “I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation…”

 

I want to be clear: What the UC Davis campus police did was an irresponsible act of violence that put nonviolent protesters in physical danger.  But here’s the thing: All violence is irresponsible because it never works.  It only covers up the underlying problems.  Expelling a police chief by placing her on “administrative leave” may give a sense of peace, but that form of violence isn’t going to solve the bigger problem of our faith in violence.  Demanding Katehi’s resignation might give a sense of peace as we think we are holding someone responsible, but that act of expulsion will only teach that expulsion is an effective way to solve problems, and thus, cover up the real problems.

 

Perhaps our hope lies with the students.  I hope that all of this violence and talk of expulsion will not distract them for the real issues that they are protesting – universities throughout the country are raising tuition costs and cutting budgets.  In the face of further violence, I hope they remain nonviolent in their protests, because violence will only cover up the issues they are protesting.

 

Because violence never works.

 

 

A recent article on the Huffington Post by Michael McAuliff titled, Republicans: Super Committee Remarks By Chuck Are Proof Obama Wants It To Fail points to the mimetic crisis in contemporary politics.  It’s a crisis of blame.  In my opinion, few things in this world are as mimetic, or imitative, as blame.  Blame gives birth to blame and soon we’re all pointing fingers.

 

Reporters are just as human as politicians, which means they also get caught up in the game.  McAuliff’s for example, reports that “In a sign of just how unlikely Congress' deficit-cutting super committee is to succeed, Republicans took the blame game to another level Tuesday, saying the White House wants it to fail.”  The Republican remarks of blame came after Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer blamed the Republicans as he predicted the deficit Super Committees’ plan will fail.  Schumer claimed:

 

“I don’t think the Super Committee is going to succeed because our Republican colleagues have said ‘no net revenues.’ When Democrats move too far left, we lose. We’re now — the basic mainstream of Democrats…we’re willing to move to the middle.  They are not willing to do any revenues.”

 

According to McAuliff, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell “took the blame game to another level” when McConnell stated:

 

“It's pretty clear when Chuck Schumer speaks, he's speaking for the most partisan Democratic positions. It does raise the suspicion that the folks down at the White House are pulling for failure, because you see if the Joint Committee [on Deficit Reduction] succeeds, it [upsets] the story line that they've been peddling, which is that you can't do anything with the Republicans in Congress."

 

Of course, McConnell is infamous for saying that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

 

I don’t know how you will feel about me saying this, but I don’t think McConnell is a horrible human being.  I think he represents the political gamesmanship that infects Washington.  It’s not really about solving problems and making the world a better place.  Nah…It’s about blaming, scoring points, and beating the other team.

 

Do you want to know who started the blame game?

 

We did.

 

What’s happening on a political scale is a magnification of what can happen all around us.  Family members, friends, enemies, I’ve even heard husbands and wives get caught in blaming one another.  The blame game infects our culture, and, indeed, all of us.  Blame is a form of violence, as it inflicts verbal wounds on our opponents in an attempt to defeat them.  No one is innocent when we get caught up on this game, as René Girard states in his book Battling to the End, “When violence is involved, wrongs are always shared” (pg 16).

 

So, maybe the question “Who can we blame?” is the wrong question.  Might I suggest different questions?  Is it possible for us non-politicians to model another way for those politicians who are caught in the blame game?  Is it possible for you and for me to stop playing that game in our private lives and play a different game?  Is it possible, in the midst of a culture infected with the blame game, to play a different game - the game of grace?

 

What would the game of grace look like?  First, grace is free and unmerited.  In other words, there is nothing we can do to deserve grace.  It is quick to forgive and quick to cooperate.  If we played the game of grace, we would stop trying to score points and start working together to solve the problems in our families, in our communities, in our nation, and in our world.  Because when we play this game we know that we’re all in this thing together.  So, is it possible to play the game of grace?

 

I’ll let you decide.

 

 

“I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural.  I think that anybody who thinks this was a one time, one person transgression would be mistaken.” – A source for Politico

 

“When you’re in a leadership position, sometimes people just try to take a shot at you.” – J.D. Gordon, Herman Cain Spokesperson

 

Herman Cain.  Welcome to politics.

 

Cain’s rapid ascendancy as the GOP frontrunner has been remarkable and speaks to the growing frustrations with politicians in America. Cain is an unconventional presidential candidate, as his quest for the presidency is his first time running for public office.  He gained his leadership experience in the business world: Cain seems to have been successful in all his business endeavors.  He was the regional vice president of Pillsbury’s Burger King division, President and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, and then President of the National Restaurant Association.

 

All of that is impressive, but given that he hasn’t held political office, it’s fairly surprising that he finds himself as the lead candidate.  As such, it was only a matter of time before skeletons started walking out of his closet. Michelle Goldberd at the Daily Beast commented, “Herman Cain is currently leading the Republican polls. If he wants to be treated as a serious candidate … he’s going to be subjected to serious scrutiny.”

 

Indeed, Cain’s personal life is now under serious scrutiny.  Politico recently reported that Cain is being accused of sexually harassing at least two women who worked for him at the National Restaurant Association.  Cain responded to those accusations, claiming to be the “victim of a ‘smear campaign.’”

 

We have at least three people claiming to be victims in this story.  Who do we believe?  Whose story is true?  Who is the real victim?  Is Cain the victim, or are the women the victims?

 

Yes.

 

You may not like that answer.  It’s a paradox.  But the answer is yes.

 

How is Cain the victim?  He’s in the lead and because he is in the lead many people want to see him fall, especially his Republican opponents.  Whether or not these accusations are true, his Republican and Democratic opponents can unite against this creepy man who made unwanted sexual advances toward women who worked for him.  Of course, those who unite against Cain benefit in their accusations against him, as they feel a sense of moral superiority.  Knowing that he’s creepy allows us to feel good about ourselves.

 

How are the women victims?  If their accusations are true, they were sexually harassed by their boss.  They were victims of an abuse of power and made to feel like sexual objects as opposed to human beings.  That would be an abuse of power and Cain should be held responsible for his actions.

 

So, where is the truth in this story?  It’s hard to know because the truth is being obscured by whether or not you support Herman Cain.  For example, the “truth” for one side could be that, whether or not the accusations are true, this issue was solved in the late 1990s and has no relevance for his candidacy.  The “truth” for the other side could be that this issue reveals Cain’s abusive character that would only continue into his possible presidency.

 

I don’t know the truth of Cain's is guilt or innocence.  But I do know this truth – I don’t envy anyone who gets involved in politics.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

 

Adam discusses the SlutWalk Movement and theological implications. There are two different strands in the bible. One that says God is on the side of perpetrators of violence, and one that says God stands with the victims of violence. Jesus reveals that God even becomes a victim of human violence so that we might identify with the victims of human violence. God identifies with the SlutWalk movement, and with "sluts" because God identifies with the scapegoats of culture. One can even say that God is a slut because, in Jesus, God becomes the victim of human violence in order to transform our lives into lives of compassion, not accusation. And, when we get the sense that God has identified with us, our lives are no longer the same. We become transformed as we seek to care for our own body and other peoples' bodies.

For a summary of the SlutWalk Movement click here: http://slut-shaming.tumblr.com/post/6396171518/slutwalksummarised

For more commentary on the movement click here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/slutwalk-united-states-city_n_851725.html