Good Friday

William Sloan Coffin died yesterday at the age of 81. An anti-war, pro-peace, pro-civil rights minister, Coffin's attitude and philosophy about life truly defined and reflected his faith. In a 20-year old interview from Fresh Air, Coffin defined his worry about the religious right and why resurgences in religion aren't necessarily positive. In discussing his own faith and the true reasons why people should have and should seek faith in God, Coffin said something profound; he said that there was a substantial difference in those who seek faith in order to transcend their own lives and those who seek faith in order to save their souls. While fundamentalists and evangelicals may believe that the latter is the true reason, based on the teachings of the modern church, of why people should seek faith, but I agree with the former. The idea of uncertainty, as stated by Coffin, is a concrete idea and we as humans should have to accept the fact that life brings with it much and many issues of uncertainty; where we fit into the larger cosmos, life and God is then the journey of the believer through his or her life. One who believes simply to save him or herself seems to seek a guarantee against all bad things. Part of my own quirky faith is the absolute belief in randomness and just how life at this moment is a gift if we see how randomness has made some wonderful conditions and situations worth celebrating. Good Friday.

Now, I couldn't go this long without injecting some politics, now could I? Yesterday's SFChron included a column written by former Fresno State professor and farmer Victor Hanson who has exploded on the scene as the resurrection of Barry Goldwater. How at Stanford, Hanson interjects his two cents on us like the Cincinattus of old, like one of the greek figures that he teaches about. Unfortunately, lecturing about contemporary issues taking a truly classically-Greek perspective is like discussing contemporary religious and theological issues from a strict Pauline point of view (sorry, anyone). His most recent article is interesting as he attacks those who see the immigrants in this whole political mess with "soft" labels - undocumented workers, migrant workers, or other labels that fail to address their "true" definition - illegal aliens. Hanson believes the debate must change the language and labels in order to address the issue of illegal immigration and the porousness of our borders, and here, I agree. However, one issue and probably the biggest issue Hanson fails to mention is the fact that illegal immigration remains such a huge problem because of the ease of finding employment. Here is where American employers must take both half of the blame and all of it. Employers, based on countless economic factors (all related to the bottom line) are often tempted and eager to hire illegal aliens in order to keep labor costs down. Dishwashers, lawn mowers, hotel cleaners, all hired in order for the company to keep profits high and costs low. It's simple Economics 101 and yet the language and focus of the debate is the dreaded evil aliens coming down (imagine your best Orson Welles voice) and flooding our schools and hospitals, bringing cheap produce and blah blah blah, which truly shows the nativist streak Hanson speaks out against. If we're so desirous of eliminating illegal immigration, punish those who employ them and fail to report it; punish those who profit off the labor of illegal aliens; punish those who purchase goods and services provided by illegal aliens. Now, that gets tough, doesn't it? Now we're just about all implicated here. Nationalism and economics are clashing here; the free market is something that can't be applied to the labor pool in this country if the identity, safety and culture of this nation and its laws (however ignored) are to remain. I don't have the answers. I'm also not saying that Victor Hanson is a fool. I am saying that the tautology in his argument lies in his attack of the "one-sidedness" of the discussion as he wishes to level the playing field by making us all approach it from one perspective. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?