>

Do you have a life list? Earl, of television's My Name is Earl, has a list. So does Ellen DeGeneres and Beyonce, and apparently millions of others as well. According to an article in the NY Times this morning, life lists are becoming the tool busy people are using to give order to their lives and move toward goals they might not otherwise accomplish.

The website 43Things.com asks visitors to "Discover what's important, make it happen, share your progress. Find your 43 things.." It offers to help you complete the task. Given the demands on our time, the stresses that most of us feel, and the tendency of a lot of U.S. citizens to be workaholics, making a list of the important things we'd like to do before we die is probably a good idea.

Making a list is a variation on an older method I've used, first as a skeptic because I'm not much into visualization exercises, but later with appreciation. The list not only brings focus, it raises to consciousness important thoughts, wishes and desires that get buried in the mix of our everyday activities.

I was out of a job, facing the prospect of no reliable income and needing to move quickly to set a new direction. I sought out a career counseling service that specialized in developing career plans and one step was to collect articles of interest. We were also required to interview people in fields that attracted us, the idea being that these efforts would identify subjects we had passion for, and it was good research for skills needed in the marketplace. It also made it possible to network with people. However, the most unpalatable task for me was the requirement to visualize an enjoyable project or activity we'd like to do in the next five years and write about it. But this became the most valuable exercise of all.

I think it was unpalatable because it seemed a bit "airy fairy." I was without a steady job, I didn't have time to dream. I needed practical, concrete steps to get myself employed. But, the visualizing turned out to be a practical, concrete foundation for action, much to my surprise. I visualized sitting in a room overlooking Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and writing. I also visualized producing a documentary on street children in Brazil. I had no clue about how to make these things happen, and truth to tell, didn't even know where the image about writing In Addis came from. It was pure daydream. But I had heard about ancient stone churches in northern Ethiopia carved from rock deep in the ground, and I had filed that interest way down in my subconscious where it lay undisturbed for many years.

What emerged was my desire to produce documentaries with an interest in people in the developing world. Because I had been doing film, video and photography, plus writing, this wasn't new. But it seemed highly unlikely to me at this low time in my life, when I needed to get on the stick and support a family, that producing documentaries in Ethiopia and Brazil would put food on the table. Never the less, I began to make contacts and met a few people who shared this interest. Over the course of the next several months, some of them pretty bleak and discouraging, these contacts led to others and I found supporters who were willing to help find funds for a documentary on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Later, I met with some mothers from Brazil visiting New York and heard their stories about street children being murdered by vigilantes. They wanted the story told, but had no money and no prospects. Neither did I.

So I filed that away and set about putting together the documentary on Ethiopia. The funding developed and we were in production for nearly two years. I found myself sitting in an apartment overlooking Addis writing a treatment, and later a script. The daydream became a reality. (Actually, because the government of Ethiopia was a cruel, tightly controlled Marxist machine, working in Ethiopia was a nightmare but that misses the point).

As this was wrapping up I received a call to talk with a church group interested in telling the story of seven street boys who were massacred in a "safe house" in a suburb of Sao Paulo. It was a horrible story. A nighwatchman hired to protect the kids was bribed into letting gunmen enter a social service center that gave the kids a safe room to sleep in and they were murdered in their sleep.

We worked out a research trip and I went to Brazil, stayed with the street workers and kids for two weeks and began to get a handle on how to approach a documentary on the tragedy of these children. Funding was arranged and within a few months I returned and produced the documentary.

I think the value of the list, or visualization, is to bring focus and specificity to inner yearnings that get submerged in the rush of daily living. If we draw aside and let these inner yearnings rise to the surface they become important and more attainable. I suspect they must be realistic. I had more contacts who shared my interests than I recognized in my depressed, panicked state, so my submerged documentary ideas were more attainable than I thought. Visualizing had made them more than mere figments of imagination. Research gave me necessary background. Networking made the contacts required. It's an interesting rode to empowerment and fulfillment.

So, airy fairy or not, I suspect list making is a good thing. I'm stopping this essay now. I think I need to start making a list.

At the end of her life Mother Teresa expressed profound doubt about the existence of God according to a new collection of her letters. This revelation is a source of discussion at Cosmic Variance blog about the nature of religious belief. Among the points of discussion is a question: does religious belief induce charity, and is the expression of charity a sufficient basis for belief? Could belief in false teachings be justified if they lead to positive behavior? Or, is correctness of belief the sole criterion?

Apparently Mother Teresa wrestled with these questions. They led her to ask if the charitable work she was known for was hypocritical. "What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

Apparently this doubt continued for the last eight years of her life.

Doubt is a profound part of religious life. Many of the greatest saints in the Christian tradition experienced doubt. The Book of Job is an extended discussion of doubt and it offers no safe harbor. Similarly, many Psalms express open, raw questioning. Jesus asked, "Why have you forsaken me?" For the biblical writers, the experience of evil was too profound to be ignored, so profound that it had to be a part of the life of faith. And the Bible provides no easy answer. In our culture of fast food theology, we tend to forget this biblical complexity. The absolutist morality of some religious teachers has made doubt appear to be a sign of weakness, not a part of the mature life of faith.

It's understandable that doubt would creep into the inner lives of the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's order). They carry out the most difficult work imaginable. I met with a group of these nuns in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia some years ago and we discussed doubt and faith. The nuns drove a van into the city streets in the evening and picked up the most vulnerable and ill. They also received terminally ill patients from the hospitals and were among the first to operate a hospice for patients with AIDS. Daily, they witnessed death, and actually sought out the dying.

In the hospice, I met a little girl whose face was severely disfigured because a soldier had hit her with a rifle butt. She was also scarred from some type of burn. Her disfigurement was so great it was difficult to see the form of a face.

How can a caring person not experience doubt in these circumstances? As we discussed the question, the nuns were forthright. They did get overwhelmed at times, but they always felt the strength of a spirit beyond their own resources, they said. I thought how remarkable that must be, and also how inadequate my faith was.

The little girl's face still haunts me. And the reality of the evil that disfigured her cannot be easily resolved with platitudes, nor philosophical treatises discussing evil. It's just too deep to be explained away. It's no wonder Mother Teresa wrestled with this.

The fact of evil doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God, nor the correctness of belief. Paradoxically, the presence of doubt is no measure of faith in the long term. Perhaps it's more important for us to know a figure no less charitable and self-giving than Mother Teresa, as Job before her, experienced the same doubts and fears the rest of us harbor. Doubt is an existential reality and in that realization is maturity and perhaps a measure of hope. To doubt is not simply to be lacking in faith. It is to be human. And to be faithful is not to be free of doubt, it is to engage the difficult questions and struggle with life's meaning in the face of the evil that distorts and disfigures in many different ways. And In the meantime, we serve, each in our own way, we serve because no matter the answer, the suffering must be eased, the ill cared for, the dying comforted and held close.

This, we do know.

what you
regard as
you is
really a
transient
construct
created by
the brain
from multiple
sensory sources.
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

"Don't believe everything you hear and only half of what you see." Those lyrics from a country song in another era ring true to the the out of body experiments reported yesterday.

Scientists successfully induced out of body experiences in which people responded to touch one part of the body as if it were applied to another area which they were seeing through 3D goggles. This induced state of consciousness mirrors reports of out of body experiences by people who have gone through traumatic episodes, according to the scientists conducting the experiments.

What intrigues me is the assessment of one scientist about reality and our perception of it. The experiences "call into question the axiom that everything you are is anchored in your body," said Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, of the U.C. San Diego Center for Brain and Cognition.

But if we are not anchored in our physical bodies and our perceptions can be altered to such a degree through relatively simple optical illusions, then our conscious ordering of "reality" is certainly open to considerable question. We can't believe everything we hear, only half of what we see, and who knows how much of what we feel. How many times have I heard, "perception is reality," to explain away a dubious act otherwise open to question. Well, maybe perception isn't reality. Or maybe reality isn't limited to what we can see, hear, feel or think. Or maybe the Matrix is all there is after all. But, how can we ever know...for sure?

I know some will draw deep theological meaning from these experiments and maybe that's important. But this morning it's not where I want to go with these reports. So, I'm refraining from heading down that path and just contemplating what might be, or not.

Blogger Bill Scher offers a great compilation of editorial opinion about the new guidelines for SCHIP coverage handed down to the states by the Bush Administration.

What's clear is that these guidelines have struck a nerve. My spouse came home yesterday reporting teachers at her school who have defended the administration on many other issues are incensed at this.

As for the argument that the pending SCHIP legislation will expand insurance coverage to middle income families that could afford health insurance on their own, or that families will abandon private insurance for public, I'm not so sure.

Any middle income parent with a chronically ill child is very likely not truly middle income. Even with health insurance, families with chronically ill children pay out-of-pocket costs that can easily drop them into low income economic conditions. Low income families are plunged into poverty, and it's likely their children don't get any medical care. They use emergency rooms, a practice any hospital administrator will tell you is expensive, a misuse of their staff's time and clogging up the system.

Many expenses they incur are not reimbursable medical expenditures but are necessary for the well-being or comfort of an ill child. Often, costs for in-home care is not reimbursable if it's not related to medical care, yet parents who are care-givers are on-call twenty four hours a day, seven days a week and they need a break. Sometimes this is covered by state health programs, sometimes not.

A family with a chronically ill child is more likely to be a single income family because one parent must stay home to care for the child. This care is time-consuming, emotionally draining and costly. Some is tax deductible, but that's little help when the money crunch comes. Medical visits that exceed allowable limits can eat into reimbursements and the family must pick up the remainder. Higher deductibles today also eat away at available income.

So, I'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that a family in New Jersey, for example, earning 300% above the poverty line is looking for a subsidized ride for child health insurance. Nor are they likely to jump ship for a government program. To do so could put the family at risk in the future. If the child were dropped from private insurance it is unlikely that child could be covered again in the future if the government program changed. This risk is so significant it would cause me to think more than twice about the long-term consequences of changing carriers.

If it sounds like I've been through this, I have. If I screw up my courage to write about it, and get my family's permission, perhaps I will. But in the meantime, I think the SCHIP legislation must be passed and the limitations put on the states to increase participation to unattainable levels must be lifted.

Ghandi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." I thought about this as I read Chuck Colson's commentary about "liberal" Christians in the Washington Post.

It isn't enough for Colson to trash the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for taking a rather mild position to allow bishops to take a breather when evaluating how to work with gay and lesbian clergy, he trashes mainline Christians as well, making Ghandi's point all the more discernible.

Colson's lack of grace also makes the scriptural admonition in 1 Peter 3 more pertinent.

I suppose it's a measure of our time that a call from United Methodist bishops to practice respect when holding church conferences evoked a blog post that claims a United Methodist clergyperson "lied through his teeth" in a conference years ago.

The bishops asked United Methodists to engage in respectful conversation as the quadrennial all-church meeting known as General Conference approaches. It's a pressure-packed meeting in which policies for the global church are considered, budget is approved and church-wide programs of mission and ministry are presented.

As many other denominations in this contentious age, United Methodists are confronted with theological and cultural issues that evoke deep-seated emotions. Among these, how to respond to homosexuality is one of the most prominent.

Neither church members nor clergy are one mind, but a majority of delegates have voted at past General Conferences for restrictive language that prevents the ordination of practicing homosexuals and states that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The church also affirms the sacred worth of every person and calls upon families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends and to commit to ministry with and for all persons. A recent survey reveals that people in different regions of the United States hold widely different views on this issue. However, when asked how important it is for the church to address disagreement on homosexuality, a minority say it's important to do so.

There are other contentious issues and sometimes the words used to characterize those holding opposing points of view have been harsh to the point of doing harm. It's this harsh, harmful speech the bishops have called delegates to avoid. It's a modest, appropriate request.

In 1739, as it became clear the Methodist movement was taking on a life of its own outside the Anglican Church, John Wesley, the movement's founder, instructed his followers with a set of general rules. Reduced to their simplest form, they are: First, do no harm; Second, do all the good you can; Third, love God by attending worship, hearing or reading about the Word, receiving Holy Communion, praying individually and as families, searching the Scriptures, and practicing fasting or abstinence.

This is the heritage of the people of The United Methodist Church. It's remarkably fresh and contemporary. The bishops have called us to honor our heritage and behave as we've been asked historically to behave.

These are not the values of the majority culture. We've seen the incivility of that culture, its disrespect for the sacredness of human personality, its willingness to make violence a form of entertainment, its language that demeans and diminishes. I have not experienced what the blogger in the link above has experienced, It would make me skeptical too. Such experience shape us and culture infiltrates faith. I do believe we in the church have learned the cultural language of skepticism and despair. We can repeat it by rote. We can even live it out, if we choose to. Sometimes it feels like a a culture of despair it's killing us because it speaks in words that Gary Gunderson calls the language of death. This language is about division, competition, entropy, despair, disease, fear, separation, lovelessness and confusion. He says "It takes discipline to avoid the vortex that spins us into the center of fear." I think it kills our creativity, our excitement, our energy, our curiouslity. It puts us on the defensive. It nurtures fear and separation. This is not the language of life. It's certainly not what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of abundant life.

Conversations using the language of death can only spiral downward. Personally, they leave me in the dumps. I'm interested in getting to the top of the hill to see what's on the horizon--to glimpse the future. And I know I'm not alone. I think the only way to look toward the future is to put the language of death behind us. The bishops haven't asked us to avoid discussing our differences, they've asked us to show respect and compassion for each other even when we differ. It's not an impossible task. If it is, we're beyond repair.

But I don't think we are. In fact, I think people are already acting in ways that give life.

I heard a report today that Nothing But Nets which seeks to provide bednets for kids in malarial regions has raised $13 million in barely one year. It's become a grassroots movement. Those who started it had no idea it would take off like this. In this instance people are setting aside those contentious things that we can't agree upon and rushing toward life, something we do agree on.

But that's not all. The bishops identified seven vision pathways for church renewal they are holding themselves accountable for. In response, the general agencies of the church that carry out various ministries suggested four areas in which they will collaborate with each other, with annual conferences, local churches and other partners to address both internal and external ministry by the church. The four--attracting new leaders for the 21st Century, creating new places (communities of faith) for new people, engaging in ministry with the poor and working to end the killer diseases of poverty--are generating positive conversation, curiosity and energy. These are actions people of the church said they'd like to happen, and they've said they'd like to see them addressed collaboratively. They are biblical. They respond to Jesus' call to become disciples and follow him.

As the leader of a general church agency It's not my place to advise delegates how to vote, how to behave or what's important. That's not my purpose here. I am responsible for implementing the mandates of General Conference. But I care deeply for this community of faith and feel passionately about it. As a private individual I have hopes. And I'm sharing personal hope. Maybe I'm naive and my hope is in vain, but I hope the delegates to General Conference come with a vision of what could be--a world in which leaders lead with integrity and global vision, one in which alienation and hostility are transformed by hospitality and compassion, one in which people searching for meaning and purpose recieve an invitation into a faith community, one in which grinding poverty is addressed by empowerment and justice, and killer diseases are prevented and healing is offerred to everyone. Big hopes. Hopes worthy of our conversation, even the commitment of our lives. I also hope we honor the bishops' call and respect each other even when we differ. And I pray we look to the future where we may catch a glimpse of God calling us to help create a renewed and transformed world; and to be a people who do no harm, do all the good we can, and love God. I hope we speak the language of life.

We are taught
to follow
Jesus
and risk
transformation
--and risk
changing
the status
quo.
--Bishop Beverly Shamana

Hospitality and welcoming the stranger are central to the three Abrahamic faiths: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. TIME reports on faith groups offering sanctuary and experiencing renewed energy despite controversy about immigration in the U.S. Mainline communions have a long history of working with immigrants and providing sanctuary, and it has always been controversial to detractors.

But TIME reporter, David Van Biema, says "solid biblical underpinnings make [the] issue particularly promising for the resurgent religious left, and it may peel conservative Protestant Hispanics from the right." He is referring to the scriptural admonition in Leviticus 19: 33: "The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

A key historical example of sanctuary important to both Christians and Muslims is the story of the Ethiopian Negus in Aksum harboring Muslims at the time of Mohammed. The historical account says Mohammed wrote to Negus, the "king of kings" in Ethiopia (known in history and parts of the bible as Abyssinia), asking for sanctuary for these refugees from Mecca and Negus, after questioning them, agreed. The story is valued by both Islam and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Perhaps it was a controversial act, but it is remembered today as an example of interfaith respect and hospitality. In controversy about illegal immigration today in the U.S. it's inevitable that the description of the sanctuary movement is framed in polarizring language, but it's also indisputable that the biblical mandate is clear, and the historical experience puts the sanctuary movement on solid biblical and traditional grounds.

The world is more distrustful of U.S. leadership according to a survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project and the image of the United States continues to decline, a process that has been in motion for the past five years. In addition, attitudes toward President Bush continue on a downward trajectory.

Coming two days after the signing of an agreement between two of the leading humanitarian relief organizations in the world, one Muslim and one Christian, to cooperate on humanitarian service the importance of their pact stands out even more. Muslim Aid and The United Methodist Committee on Relief signed the agreement in the House of Commons on Tuesday with host MP Stephen Timms presiding.

The Pew research compliments an earlier survey about attitudes between Muslims and Westerners published last year. This survey reveals a great divide in understanding with Muslims feeling marginalized and unfairly characterized. They are frustrated that in the minds of many they are defined by the fundamentalists who capture headlines but don't represent the mainstream of Muslim society or Islamic belief.

What I find remarkable about the agreement is that it comes not from visionary thinking alone, it also comes from extraordinarily hard-won experience. The two forged this cooperation on the ground in Sri Lanka over the past several months during civil conflict that put Muslims, Christians and others at risk of life and limb. However, I wouldn't downgrade idealism. As MP Shahid Maliki said to the group, "Vision trumps division." Idealism is important. It is rooted in the faith of the two great religious traditions that have given birth to these two organizations and they express their faith traditions in practical action.

This pact was birthed in blood and guts practice. Field staff from both organizations faced death threats as they met human needs in Sri Lanka. Rather than abandon the people they were working with they chose to engage with each other and continue humanitarian service. They didn't pull back and seek safe haven when violence came. To hear the reports of the field officers of the two organizations is to hear heroic action which I don't think they fully comprehend because they were too busy meeting human needs. It's only upon reflection after the fact that the deeper significance of their actions becomes clear.

By working together they were more effective and inclusive than they would have been working alone. Their common mission--to serve--led them to collaborate in ways that identified commonalities rather than differences. Without intending it they witnessed to interfaith cooperation that opened doors and helped quell dangerous disputes among suffering people. They turned divisiveness on its head. This understanding is captured in the London agreement and the Pew research reveals how badly the world needs it.

We need to know that Christians and Muslims share belief in compassion and justice. We need to know we can work together to serve others. We need bridge the divide caused by stereotypes and mischaracterization. Of course we have our differences and we must acknowledge them, but not by neglecting what we hold in common. The Abrahamic faith traditions share many core values that lead to humanitarian service and concern for the poor. These common values can be the basis for conversation that could lead to a more tolerant global society.

I believe the agreement signed in London has the potential to start a global alliance that can led to wider action and promote peace and tolerance. It can help us see that what we have in common is powerful and healing. And we may learn that our differences need not divide us.

A landmark partnership between the United Methodist Committee on Relief and Muslim Aid was signed today at the House of Commons in London. The agreement formalizes cooperation already reflected in their operations delivering emergency assistance to victims of civil conflict in Sri Lanka.

In concrete terms, it could result in approximately $15 million additional for humanitarian assistance in Sri Lanka and Indonesia, but the history-making agreement opens the door for interfaith cooperation as part of strategic planning, not as an after-thought, according to Farooq Murad, chairman of Muslim Aid.

Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Stephen Timms, MP convened the signing ceremony in a meeting room in the Parliament building. Timms said this partnership demonstrates a better way to solve conflict than bullets and guns. He said the interfaith partnership will serve as a model for others.

After the signing ceremony MP Shahid Mahlik chaired a panel that included two dozen non-governmental organizations. Shahid said, "We've become experts at inclusiveness and that's wonderful, but it's not enough. We in this room know we must go further. We know that inclusion is wonderful but we come together because we have much in common. This (partnership) brings us closer together and holds promise for the world to see that we as a global community have more in common than we recognize."

Shahid represents a district that included one of the young men who bombed the London underground and a transport bus several months ago. Referring to this event he said, "When people do evil things we must call it evil."

He said evil challenges religious people is to uphold human dignity and assure that everyone has a voice in order to build a more tolerant community. Acts of violence betray the faith traditions partnering in this agreement, he said.

The Rev. Randy Day, General Secretary of the General Board of Global Ministries, the parent body of UMCOR, invited other religious organizations to join in similar partnerships. Rev. Day said, "I hope we will met around a similar table in the future and welcome many more partners as we work to eliminate suffering from poverty and toward a partnership for global peace."

"What keeps us going?" Farooq Murad, Chairperson of Muslim Aid, asked a group of United Methodist Christians and Muslims at a meeting in London today.

"Our faith," he answered.

The group, representing the United Methodist Committee on Relief and Muslim Aid, is meeting to sign an agreement to cooperate on emergency relief and long-term development to combat poverty. They have already successfully worked together to provide emergency assistance and long-term reconstruction to those affected by the tsunami in Sri Lanka. They intend to build upon their experience to create a global alliance.

Mr. Murad told the group, "We share a common faith tradition that includes Abraham, Jesus, Moses; each taught us that caring and serving humanity are central. We risk having lost this central value today but it is what living faith is all about.

Unfortunately, our world isn't getting much better. Conflict and poverty are increasing. There is no reason a child should go to bed hungry or without shelter. We are working together to serve and care. I hope all who would see this-staff, leaders, trustees-see it as affirmation of our faith, not as compromise.

I am sure we will face difficult issues but I hope we can address them. Our faith traditions stand for truth, justice and caring for humanity. In the next life the great prophet will say, "I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was ill and you did not heal me. If you had gone [with the hungry and the ill] you would have found me there." These are the questions we will be asked.

The United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) and Muslim Aid will announce an agreement on Tuesday in London to partner in relief and development. The agreement recognizes work on the ground that is already benefitting tsunami-affected people in Sri Lanka.

UMCOR is the arm of The United Methodist Church that provides humanitarian service for relief, rehabilitation, long-term development and refugee services. The two organizations have similar mandates and serve people regardless of their faith.

The agreement will be announced in the House of Parliament between officials of the two organizations and the British government. I will be part of the delegation from The United Methodist Church and intend to blog from London if time permits.

I'll be interested in U.S. media coverage of this agreement, if any. It represents an historic step toward Christian-Musim cooperation around humanitarian service that stands in sharp contrast to the divisive remarks of some evangelical Christian and fundamentalist Muslim leaders. It will be revealing to learn if U.S. news media regard an agreement to cooperate newsworthy.

The agreement is covered in the News section of the denominational website, umc.org.

They wrap them in white linen and lower them into the ground. The small white clumps look like loaves of bread, innocent, clean and lifeless. I've stood by and watched as the dead children of Africa are covered with earth. Mothers weep. Fathers hang their heads. Surviving children cling to the legs of adults, their eyes quizzical, sad and filled with fear. I've seen it more times than I can count. More hurt than I want to remember. Malaria alone takes a life every 30 seconds. The conditions bred by extreme poverty--malnutrition, water-borne diseases, infections--kill even faster. And it's the kids who go first. Promise stolen, laid in the ground wrapped in white cloth.

These images filled my mind as I read Joe Nocera's column today in the New York Times. Nocera discusses the pros and cons of the attempt to end malaria and the vision of Dr. Jeffrey Sachs to end extreme poverty. Nocera asks, "Can A Vision Save All of Africa?" He concludes, probably not. Or, more accurately, he closes his column by asking when the current interest in malaria has run its course and malaria is no longer the "pet cause" in American corporate boardrooms--Nocera is a business columnist--what then?

I've heard all the reasons why the vision to end malaria is not possible. In a recent meeting I heard one individual say about ending extreme poverty, "That's just stupid." I think for every vision that's put forth there are ten reasons why it won't work and twenty people lined up to present them. And then there are those who say we should take care of our own first, and others who say this is not our problem we should be concentrating on something else, and the something else is their pet agenda.

So maybe Dr. Sachs is tilting at windmills. Maybe the world can't partner with Africa to save the lives of the next generation of children. Maybe mosquitos will adapt to the insecticide and another will need to be created. Maybe the bednet will rip. And maybe it's impossible to cover the whole continent of Africa. And maybe...well, you fill in your reason this visionary idea of saving lives is doomed from the start, I've run out.

I'd rather tilt at Dr. Sachs' windmills than stand in the back of the room and point out why these things can't be done. At least the worst that can happen is public embarrassment for being hopeful and optimistic.

Oh yes, and one more thing. I wish those who think we can't end malaria and reduce extreme poverty would get their reasons together, stand at the edge of a hole in the ground where a mother has just laid a white-shrouded body, look her in the eye and tell her why.

My first reaction to the Media Matters survey of religious coverage in the media, Left Behind: The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media, is Wow! I have long thought conservative voices were getting more media time, but never had the data to prove it. Now we do.

I recall a Larry King program that featured three religious conservatives and nary a voice from mainstream, moderate or progressive religious perspectives. Viewers might understandably think these were the voices of the Christian community. But so far as we know, they were the merely the only religious voices invited. So it goes. The media have given exposure to the evangelical right for so long it appears this is the sole Christian voice. It isn't. It isn't even a majority voice. But you couldn't tell it from the guests on the talk shows and the quotes in the print media.

Here are three key findings from the Media Matters survey:

• Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.
• On television news -- the three major television networks, the three major cable new channels, and PBS -- conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.
• In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

Media Matters concludes, "Despite the fact most religious Americans are moderate or progressive, in the news media it is overwhelmingly conservative leaders who are presented as the voice of religion. This represents a particularly meaningful distortion since progressive religious leaders tend to focus on different issues and offer an entirely different perspective than their conservative counterparts."

This study could be a landmark. For years mainline voices have been left out. If this study results in an attempt to achieve balance in the media, it could start a change that more accurately reflects the diversity of the religious voices in the country. Let's hope so.