Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive

August 31, 2005

Where Is The Outrage?

Posted by Fresh Politics

Sadly, news that the poverty rate increased last year was not much of a surprise. According to the Census Bureau, 37 million Americans were living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million from the previous year (for more information, see http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8CABQSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db).

News reports have pointed out that the poverty rate increased despite the more than 2 million jobs added to the economy last year. I'm no economist, but I have never been particularly impressed with all of the jobs added to the economy. My question has always been, what jobs? Are they jobs with decent wages, benefits, and working conditions? Are they full time or part time jobs, permanent or temporary? The addition of more jobs is of little consequence to people's everyday lives if they need 2 or 3 simply to get by.

I don't need to do a study to see that there are many people in my community who are struggling. And when people are struggling to make ends meet, they face other difficulties. The United States Department of Agriculture defines food security as there being “access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members.” (See http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/trends/). Is it much of a surprise that families of four with an income below the poverty line had a food insecurity rate of 35.1%, well above the national average of 11.2% ? Children make up approximately one-third of Americans living in poverty; families with a female head of household had a food insecurity rate of 31.7%.

With all of the “family values” rhetoric spouted in support of their pet causes, the silence of the religious right to the plight of real families is glaring. Who is standing up for these families, who is speaking for them? On the same day that the report on the poverty rate was released, the software company Oracle announced that it paid its CEO Larry Ellison $7.5 million in salary and bonus for fiscal year 2005, which was almost twice what he was paid the prior year. Where is the justice in that...and where is the outrage?

Posted by Fresh Politics at 06:22 AM | Comments (10)

August 30, 2005

Values, Vision and the Via Media Conference

Posted by Father Jake

In October, there will be a national conference in Washington that some of you might want to consider attending. Here’s some information about it from the Values, Vision and the Via Media website;

Who speaks for "Christian Values" in America today? Does the Religious Right speak for all Christians or is there a progressive perspective on Christian Values that has been sadly lacking in the public discourse?

Since November 2004, progressive Christians across the country have been mobilizing to respond to those questions—organizing to claim their tradition, to work as a united front for social justice, and to publicly disavow the fringe radicals who have attempted to co-opt the name of the church in America.

Responding to that need "Values, Vision and the Via Media" was born. On October 13-15 at the National Cathedral in Washington DC this groundbreaking conference will reclaim the values debate from the Religious Right, exploring how Anglicans have historically made ethical decisions and take action in our Christian tradition.

"Values, Vision and the Via Media" will offer an articulate representation of progressive Christian values held by the majority of moderate Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, offering progressive Christianity a public face. Theologians, activists and lay persons will use case studies, panel discussions and plenary sessions to explore how to make a difference personally, locally and globally in the areas of: economic justice, environment, family values, peacemaking and racism/ social oppressions.

A few of the speakers scheduled are Senator John Danforth, Jim Wallis of Sojourners, journalist and Brookings fellow E.J. Dionne, American historians David Hollinger and Michael Kazin, political writer Amy Sullivan, and Kathleen LeRoy, Vice President of Operations for the Christian Alliance for Progress.

This looks like an event that we don’t want to miss. Get registered early. Spread the word. Let’s work together to do all we can do to reclaim Christianity and transform American politics!

Posted by Father Jake at 05:25 AM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2005

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Posted by Public Theologian

It wasn’t so long ago that Toby Keith was promising a "boot in [the] ass..courtesy of the red, white and blue" to anyone who messed with the US while the Dixie Chicks were banned from country music stations. Any politician who opposed the war on Iraq was a traitor interested only in coddling terrorists, while the supposedly more serious and astute politicians counseled that this was the conflict that would remake the Middle East, that it would be over quickly and at very little expense. All around us were examples of the hegemony of the Religious Right. They were poised to deliver a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2006. Their “values-driven” agenda was on the ascent and they seemed near to filling the courthouses of America with more copies of the Ten Commandments than Cecil B. de Mille on a goodwill tour and to force abstinence education on the children of America even if, well, it killed them.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the theocracy.

The year 2005 may turn out to be the year American won its soul back. The first inkling that this might be the case came with “the great overreach”: the Terri Schiavo debacle exposed the Right for the extremists that they are. Then came the revelation that Karl Rove was the traitor who exposed Valerie Plame. But the biggest shift of all has come from the disaster that has developed in Iraq.

In the past two months there has been a growing awareness despite all of the spin from the White House and the chuckleheads on right wing talk radio that the US is losing the war on Iraq and that our government does not have a clue as to how such a loss might be averted. Amazingly, a President who got 51% of the votes in 2004 has now fallen to the mid-30s in the opinion polls, which means he had sheared off at least 20 million people who had just months earlier thought he was the best person to lead the country, an almost Nixonian collapse. Rarely has any politician of international stature fallen so far so fast.

The White House is scrambling to get out front of the Presidential implosion by moving quickly to make the President seem like a moderate. Two events in the past week that progressives have long complained about miraculously cleared up this past week, no doubt due to the shift in the public's opinion of GOP and its leader. One could always get a big laugh in right wing circles about the notion that Al Gore suggested, which was that we ought to be worrying about oil consumption and not just the development of new oil sources. Well no sooner had the President rewarded his oil buddies in the pork-filled energy bill this month than the the White House called for higher fuel standards for vehicles by 2011. With oil headed towards $80 a barrrel and beginning to stifle the economy, Gore's policy suggestions now don't seem so humorous.

And the faith-based initiatve also took a hit this week as well. The Sliver Ring Thing, into which the Bushies have pumped more than a million dollars in the past few years, all of a sudden is no longer one of the favored Presidential programs. This abstinence-based program, which features an invitation for children to receive Jesus as their personal savior at the close of the program, has been howled about by progressives since it first began feeding at the public trough. But, miracle of miracles, it took a Presidential polling nosedive into the 30s for the lights to come on in the White House, as it scrambles to hang on to the half dozen independents left who still believe the nonsense that the Bushies are selling.

These are truly exciting times--the air is electric with positive change. But it is essential that the momentum not be lost. Every person who believes that a new course must be charted for the ship of state has to do their part. I have been saying for weeks that when the conversation changes around the water cooler, the family dinner table and around the supper in church basements, they will start feeling the quakes in the corridors of power. That is precisely what is happening all across America right now, but it must continue. Each of us needs to pray that God's hand will be on our country and that we will be led on a wise, biblically-grounded path. But then we have to get up off of our knees and get to work. We need to organize ourselves and mobilize others. We need to give financial resources to further those efforts. We need to write letters to the editor on issues of concern, boycott companies who will not serve the ends of justice, and demonstrate our commitment to the gospel in our local areas by changing the conversation, not just in the White House and Congress, but also in school boards and zoning commissions.

The Christian Alliance for Progress wants to lead the way in these activities and towards that end we are forming chapters all over the country. But whether there is a chapter near you or not, do not wait another minute to get involved. The time is ripe for change and everyone needs to be a part of this history-making event. So don't wait for orders from headquarters--revolt where you are with what you have.

Posted by Public Theologian at 03:07 AM | Comments (26)

August 25, 2005

Mainstream Christian Leaders Speak Out on Extremist Statements of Pat Robertson

Posted by Faithful Progressive

Rev. Pat Robertson has once again exposed Christians of all kinds to ridicule with his very un-Christian remarks advocating the murder of the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. On his TV program Robertson said: "I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop...We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." Robertson then made matters worse by lying about what he had said on his TV program, before issuing a written "apology" that directly contradicted what he had said the same day on TV.

Critics and comics had a field day. Comic commentator Andy Borowitz had a droll post headlined, PAT ROBERTSON URGES U.S. TO COVET CHAVEZ' WIFE Televangelist Breaks Second Commandment in Two Days

But for most Christians, Robertson's comments were no laughing matter. One encouraging thing was the response of many mainstream conservative Christian leaders, as the New York Times reported: "Some of Mr. Robertson's conservative Christian allies distanced themselves from his comments. Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council in Washington, released a statement calling on Mr. Robertson to "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law...The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said (Robertson had made)... "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments. "It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies," he added.

However, some of the loudest and most strident voices on the Right did not comment, as the same NYT story reported: "But other conservative Christian organizations remained silent, with leaders at the Traditional Values Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition saying through spokesmen that they were too busy to comment." It is very discouraging that these noisy groups, who are never too busy to comment on such urgent matters as their theories on the sex lives of cartoon characters, would not see fit to speak out against such an obvious blasphemy.

But I'd rather focus on the positive, so what follows is a sample of the response to Robertson's call for violence from mainstream Christian leaders on both the left and right. To their credit, nearly all mainstream Christians spoke out against Robertson's extremist views.
Christian Alliance for Progress

Rev. Pat Robertson is the founder of the Christian Coalition. He is the head of an ostensibly Christian empire that includes a television network and a university. He is also an ordained Southern Baptist minister. Yet this week Robertson has besmirched the name ‘Christian’ and embarrassed our country by calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying US Special Forces should “take him out”. We unequivocally condemn Robertson’s statements and call on the US government to investigate such hate speech being uttered under the guise of religious freedom and therefore with the subsidy of the American taxpayer. Furthermore, we call on national television networks and local affiliates who broadcast Robertson’s venom to pull the plug on his program and thus spare our children from exposure to his murderous fantasies and our citizens from any more international embarrassment.

Such violent talk coming from someone who presents himself as a minister of the gospel of Jesus would never be appropriate. Coming as it does at a time in our national life in which we are counseling Muslim clerics against this very sort of thing, its timing could not be any more poorly calculated. Although there have been some national Republican politicians who have distanced themselves from Robertson, the silence from his cohort on the Religious Right has been predictably deafening. That these organizations who incessantly lecture the American people about ‘absolute moral truth’ cannot find their voice to condemn a public call for murder gives us a clearer picture of the ‘moral’ vision they have for our society.

Robertson succumbed to widespread pressure that he apologize for his outrageous remarks. But he chose to do so in an ambivalent manner. Rather than suggest that he was misunderstood or that his words were taken out of context, Robertson should take full responsibility for his remarks without qualification. He should stop pointing the finger at others as if they were responsible for his actions. Robertson and other leaders of the Religious Right have no hesitation about telling our President, our Congress, our courts or the public how things should operate in the United States. In return for that enormous indulgence, Americans should be able to expect, at a minimum, accountability.

"The Southern Baptist Convention does not support or endorse public statements concerning assassinations of persons, even if they are despicable despots of foreign countries, and neither do I," Southern Baptist Convention president Bobby Welch said in a Baptist Press story. "Everyone is aware that the United Stares has a military and government agencies to deal with our foreign threats in a forceful combative way. The Christian's responsibility is to pray for our leaders as well as the extremists around the world. Jesus Christ can save these people and change their lives."

National Council of Churches USA General Secretary Bob Edgar: Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez is appalling to the point of disbelief. As a former member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, I am convinced of the immorality of political violence and know its unpredictable and devastating effects on millions of people. One wonders if Robertson's premise would one day be applied to opposition candidates in this country who might be a threat to an incumbent's re-election.

It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian law, including the commandment that we are not to kill. It defies logic that this self-proclaimed Christian leader could so blithely abandon the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies and turn our cheeks against violence. It defies logic that a former candidate for the presidency could skirt the brink of international law to call for the assassination of a foreign leader on the grounds that he might some day be a danger to us. It defies logic that this so-called evangelist is using his media power not to win people to faith but to encourage them to support the murder of a foreign leader. I have no doubt that most of Pat Robertson's viewers have already rejected this idea, and that the 45-million people represented by the member communions of the National Council of Churches resolutely condemn it.

Jim Wallis

"Robertson is known for his completely irresponsible statements - that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were due to American feminists and liberals, that true Christians could vote only for George W. Bush, that the federal judiciary is a greater threat to America than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and the list goes on. Robertson even took credit once for diverting a hurricane. But his latest outburst may take the cake.

On Monday, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Robertson is worried about Chavez's critiques of American power and behavior in the world, especially because Venezuela is sitting on all that oil. We simply can't have an anti-American political leader who could raise the price of gas. So let's just kill him, the famous television preacher seriously suggested. After all, having some of our "covert operatives" take out the troublesome Venezuelan leader would be cheaper than another $200 billion war, he said.

It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian. Apparently, Robertson didn't even remember what the Ten Commandments say, though he has championed their display on the walls of every American courthouse. That irritating one about "Thou shalt not kill" seems to rule out the killing of foreign leaders. But this week, simply putting biblical ethics aside, Robertson virtually issued an American religious fatwah for the murder of a foreign leader - on national television no less. That may be a first.

Yesterday Robertson "apologized." First he denied saying what he had said, but it was on the videotape (it's tough when they record you breaking the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus). Then he said that "taking out" Chavez might not require killing him, and perhaps kidnapping a duly elected leader would do. But Robertson does now say that using the word "assassination" was wrong and that he had been frustrated by Chavez - the old "my frustration made me say that somebody should be killed" argument. But the worst thing about Robertson's apology was that he compared himself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German church leader and martyr who ultimately joined in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler.

Robertson's political and theological reasoning is simply unbelievable. Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.

This incident reveals that Robertson does not believe in democracy; he believes in theocracy. And he would like governments, including our own, to implement his theological agenda, perhaps legislate Leviticus, and "take out" those who disagree.

Robertson's American fundamentalist ideology gives a lot of good people a bad name. World evangelical leaders have already responded with alarm and disbelief. Robertson's words will taint and smear other evangelical Christians and put some in actual jeopardy, such as Venezuelan evangelicals. Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?

Robertson's words fuel both anti-Christian and anti-American sentiments around the world. It's difficult for an American government that has historically plotted against leaders in Cuba, Chile, the Congo, South Vietnam, and elsewhere to be easily believed when it disavows Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez. But George Bush must do so anyway, in the strongest terms possible.

It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion. And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.

from an article in Christianity Today

"This kind of statement, by this well known American Christian leader, is in complete contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ who evangelical Christians believe and seek to demonstrate," Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director of the World Evangelical Alliance, says in a press release. "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."

In the same press release, Venezuelan Evangelical Alliance president Sam Olson worries that the real danger is to believers, not to Chavez. "Robertson has placed our lives in jeopardy as he has completely misrepresented us and has given our government every reason to believe we would support such an action," he said.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 08:31 PM | Comments (29)

Rick Warren's Political Purpose

Posted by Jesus Politics

Is Rick Warren a member of the Christian Right? Warren complicates our set views of what a Christian Right leader should look like. The first quote is from an article where a conservative Christian is alarmed at how he perceives Warren to be reversing the conservative direction of the Southern Baptist Convention. The next quote is from a Baptist Press article where the purpose of the article seems to be that both Warren and the SBC want to deny or minimize their differences. The last quotes are from Rick Warren himself.

From an Ethics Daily article quoting a conservative Christian criticizing Rick Warren:

"Rick Warren is succeeding single-handedly where the entire liberal agenda could not--in leading Southern Baptist pastors and churches to abandon the infallible and inerrant Word of God," Michael Ramey, minister of music and youth at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Gloucester, Va., wrote in the August issue of Baptist Banner. "If we do not wake up and stop the trend immediately, our 'Conservative Resurgence' will have been nothing more than 'one last gasp.'"

From a Baptist Press article quoting Rick Warren:

"I’m Southern Baptist, our church is Southern Baptist, and we cooperate in SBC missions support at every level both in the United States and with our IMB [International Mission Board] missionaries around the world,"
----
Warren added he "love[s] the fact that historically the SBC has emphasized God’s five purposes" for the church, "as listed in the Great Commandment and Great Commission." The five purposes, Warren said, are worship, ministry, evangelism, baptizing and discipleship.
"It’s not enough to believe God’s inerrant Word -- we must obey it and act on it and live it," Warren said.

From Rick Warren:

I would echo one of the things John DiIulio said earlier, that Washington isn't that important. It's not. I'm sorry to tell you that, but it's just not. And one of the things that evangelicals have is a true view of the limitations of politics. Politics is always downstream in culture. By the time it gets to law – I'm sorry, folks – it's already in the water system.
----
There is a difference between "evangelicalism" and "fundamentalism" and "the religious right." And people use them like they are synonyms. They are not – they are very, very different. I am an evangelical. I'm not a member of the religious right and I'm not a fundamentalist.
----
The second myth is that mega-churches are politically active. In fact, you don't get to be a mega-church if you get involved in other issues. You would find that most of the churches that are politically active tend to be medium- or small-size churches. They are not the largest churches. And because they tend to get caught up in a political agenda, they don't grow to the size of others. The largest churches tend to focus on issues like the ones that we're focused on.
----
And so I began to read scripture and I came to the passage in Psalms 72 where Solomon prays for more influence. And when you read it, it sounds like a very self-centered prayer. Solomon is the wisest and wealthiest man in the world. He's the king of Israel at its apex in the United Kingdom. And he says, in Psalms 72, "I want you to make me more influential. I want you to spread my name across the nations. I want you to bless me; I want you to give me more power." It sounds like a very egotistical prayer. And yet then you read the rest of it and he says, "So that the king may support the widow and orphans, care for the oppressed, defend the defenseless, speak up for the prisoner, help the immigrant." He basically talks about all the marginalized of society.

And that was a turning point in my life two-and-a-half years ago, where God basically said to me – and I've never heard God speak audibly; it's in my mind – "The purpose of influence is to speak up for those who have no influence. The purpose of influence is to speak up for those who have no influence." And in religious terms I had to say, "God, I repent, because I can't think of the last time I thought of widows and orphans." I live in a very affluent Southern California neighborhood. There aren't any homeless people lying on the streets where I live. And I said, "I can't think of the last time I cared about the homeless."

And so I went back and I began to read scripture, and it was like blinders came off. Now, I've got three advanced degrees. I've had four years in Greek and Hebrew and I've got doctorates. And how did I miss 2,000 verses in the Bible where it talks about the poor? How did I miss that? I mean, I went to two different seminaries and a Bible school; how did I miss the 2,000 verses on the poor?
----
I believe in pluralism, and I don't think we need a God party. I really don't believe that at all. In fact, notice in my definition of evangelicals I didn't say anything about political views – I mentioned what evangelicals believe about Jesus and the Bible, but I could show you evangelicals who believe the exact opposite thing politically in my own church. Now, I'm in Orange County; what do you expect? But I'll just tell you, I am not interested in any policymaking, but as a pastor I minister to politicians on both sides of the aisle, including this last year both the president and John Kerry. Both of them.

And so, I'm not interested in trying to play policymaker; I'm trying to play pastor, which means asking questions like "How's your life doing?" In my own church I would imagine almost none of those people – maybe 15 percent – voted for Kerry.
----
A lot of political issues are really what I call heart projection. That is, in the book, I talk about how we're all wired different ways to care about different things. If we all cared about the same thing, a lot would get undone in the world. For instance, I don't know anybody who doesn't believe that the environment isn't important, but some people really care about the environment – it's like they're rabid about it. Well, fine. I think it's important to take care of the environment; it's just not my passion. Some people are really rabid about protecting the rights of the unborn. I happen to believe the rights of the unborn need to be protected, but I'm just not rabid about it. I happen to be rabid about some other things. Why? Because we're all passionate about different things.

Now, what happens is, when I force you to say you must feel as passionate as I do about this particular issue, whether you're a believer or not, then that's going to create political conflict.
----
What I worry about is the tyranny of activist judges, who completely keep throwing out what the majority says. Are we a democracy or not? Do we have a right to vote? And do my votes not count? Or can any single judge just consistently throw out what a majority of people have voted? Is this a democracy or not? I believe in a pluralistic America, and you know what? A lot of times in a pluralistic America, I lose. I lose because I don't get my way all the time. And you know what? That's okay. I'm willing to put up with the fact that I often lose in a pluralistic America because it grants me the freedom. And I believe that everybody has a right to be at the table. I think a gay person has the right to make their case and I think I have a right to make my case. And I think that in a democracy, we have a right to vote on it. I do not believe in judges who go out and find all kinds of excuses to thwart the will of the majority.
----
God called me to be a pastor, not a politician. If I believed you could change the world through politics, I'd run for government. But I don't think you ultimately change people's hearts through legislation. I think you change people's hearts through personal transformation.
----
We would not do a "Justice Sunday." Why? Because I have to shepherd everybody. I have a church full of both Republicans and Democrats. And you know what, I love them all. And I don't care how they vote; I still love them. And that's my job – I'm not a politician, I'm a pastor.
----
I happen to agree with the liberals on many of their goals. I just happen to disagree with their solutions. For instance, I agree with a lot of the goals that liberals have for justice and for poverty; I just happen to believe that the answer is the church, not the government. I think that throwing money after it in the government fashion has proven ineffective.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:04 PM | Comments (16)

The Ultimate Punishment

Posted by Fresh Politics

Prosecutors in Idaho have announced that they intend to seek the death penalty for Joseph Duncan III. Duncan is alleged to have kidnapped 8 year old Shasta Groene and her 9 year old brother, but is being charged by state authorities for the beating death of 3 individuals, including Shasta's mother and another brother (for more information, go to http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/23/idaho.death/index.html).

It is cases like this one where I forget that I am opposed to capital punishment. I was at the airport on the day that Shasta was recovered alive and I, like the others waiting at the airport with me, was elated that she had been found. At the same time, particularly as more information was disclosed about her ordeal and her brother's death, I was shocked and angered that someone could inflict such cruelty on other human beings. Shasta will have to live the rest of her life with the horror of the ordeal inflicted upon her and her loved ones. As I was in this emotional state, I found myself thinking that I would not lose any sleep if Duncan was executed for these crimes.

My feelings on capital punishment have evolved over the years. I used to wholeheartedly support it, but as I learned more I realized that I could not do so any longer. The trick for me is not to get sucked into the emotions of a crime when I think about whether the death penalty is appropriate. As a rational person, I am painfully aware of the mistakes that have been made, of the people who have lost years of their lives while serving time in prisons or on death row for crimes they did not commit. If a person has not been wrongfully executed already, I fear that it will happen soon, and fear more that we will never know. I also believe that capital punishment has no place in a civilized society -- a state should not execute its own people, regardless of how heinous the crime. Also quite troubling is the racial disparity of death row inmates, where minorities are disproportionately more likely to be sentenced to death than caucasians.

In this case, innocent lives have been tragically taken and destroyed. This issue is particularly difficult because I know that if we were talking about my child, it would be a lot harder for me to adopt the rational approach. However, it is precisely because of the emotions involved that mistakes get made. There are no easy answers to these cases, but to base a punishment on the need for vengeance does not seem to me to be a step in the right direction. In cases like Shasta's, there is no satisfactory result, and I can only hope that she one day recovers from her ordeal so that her spirit will not have been destroyed too.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 12:11 AM | Comments (11)

August 23, 2005

This Unjust War

Posted by Father Jake

We have a mother of a fallen soldier camping outside the President’s ranch in Texas demanding an answer to her question, “Why did my son die?” We have a Republican Senator comparing the situation in Iraq to Vietnam. We have the mayor of Salt Lake City, which is in the reddest state in the nation, encouraging citizens to turn out to protest this war. Over 2,000 people heeded his call yesterday. These, and other signs give me hope that Americans are beginning to awaken from their apathetic slumber and give voice to their outrage over this immoral war which has cost the lives of at least 23,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and over 1,800 American soldiers.

It amazes me that any Christian, of any tradition, could possibly argue that this is not an immoral war. On what do they base this? What criteria do Christians use to decide if a war is moral or not?

The argument can certainly be made that all war is immoral. But, in an effort to understand the Christian perspective that supports President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, let’s set aside the pacifist’s position, and consider another set of criteria that is accepted in most circles when considering Christian ethics. Let’s consider the Just War Principles. They have a solid pedigree, having come to us by way of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. As a refresher, here’s a summary of these principles;

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Does the war in Iraq meet these requirements?

Regarding #1…Most people would agree that we had not arrived at the point of “last resort” in Iraq. Some would suggest that Iraq posed no threat, and that sanctions would have eventually contained Hussein.

#2…It could be argued that the President and Congress were the legitimate authority, if this was a matter of national security. It was not. But, we invaded anyway. The Bush administration ignored the reality of the world today. Unilateral actions cause repercussions that affect the entire world. The authority of the United Nations was not behind this invasion.

#3…What was the wrong suffered? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no terrorists in Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 may meet this principle, but Iraq does not. The evidence of a potential threat from Iraq has been proven to be mostly false. There were no WMD. There was no nuclear program. As it turned out, there wasn’t even much of a standing army. I’m still waiting to hear what the President’s “right intention” was.

#4…It seems obvious that little planning went in to what to do with the country once it had been “liberated.” I would think that “success” would include rebuilding the country once you have toppled it’s leadership. According to secret documents released by the British, this was one of their greatest concerns; the lack of planning on the part of the Bush administration of what to do after the invasion.

#5…There are more terrorists in Iraq today than there ever was under Hussein. There seems little hope of any “re-establishment of peace” any time soon, once again due to poor planning.

#6…Since no injury was suffered, the use of any violence should at least be questioned by Christians. The tons of bombs dropped on Iraq, which started prior to any authority given to the president for such bombings, are but one example of the Commander and Chief’s blatant disregard for human life.

#7…The most accurate number we have of civilian deaths estimates at least 23,000 innocent Iraqis have died as a result of this invasion. The bombing of Fallujah alone resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties.

It seems clear to me that President Bush's invasion does not follow these Christian principles. He cannot plead ignorance of this fact, either. In 2002, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory wrote to the President on the behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and carefully explained why an invasion of Iraq would not fit into the principles of Just War. I encourage you to take a moment to look at Bishop Gregory's letter.

As a Christian, I cannot see any way, even if I stretch my imagination, to justify what my country has done in Iraq. If for no other reason, the innocent deaths of civilians should give us reason to pause and reflect. There is no question in my mind that these deaths grieve the heart of God.

If you feel inclined to support this war, I’d be interested in hearing of the Christian principles you use to justify such support.

Posted by Father Jake at 07:50 AM | Comments (22)

August 22, 2005

The Nagging Problem of Racial Discrimination

Posted by Public Theologian

Three studies in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine present strong evidence that our nation’s racial problem has not gone away. Looking at a range of procedures and programs, each of the studies sought to measure the ways in which blacks and whites receive health care in America, and the results that they reveal are not pretty. When presenting with similar symptoms and complaints, white patients consistently receive more aggressive and costly treatment than blacks, a result that was true from coast-to-coast and not just in the South. As one of the studies starkly concluded: “For the decade of the 1990s, we found no evidence, either nationally or locally, that efforts to eliminate racial disparities in the use of high-cost surgical procedures were successful.”

The implications of these studies have consequences far beyond the field of healthcare, for the data demonstrates that the national scourge of racism, while perhaps having gone underground, is still leaving its mark all across our country. And it is data that we’re working with here, not simply mere anecdote, so it cannot be easily dismissed. Moreover, the data is drawn from one of the most highly educated professions in our society, and one that has explicitly made repeated attempts to make colorblind each of its practitioners. These are not illiterate dregs of society , but rather our nation’s best and brightest, presenting us with evidence of their own bias. Furthermore, the outcome of this racial bias is by no means negligible, but rather has a materially deleterious effect on the lives and health of the recipients of this discrimination. It makes a big difference if Kwame got sent home with an aspirin after having a heart attack and Tamika was trundled off with a prescription for painkillers for aching joints , when Bill got a heart bypass and Sue got a hip replacement for the same problems.

The reality of these disparities is compounded by the fact that African-Americans are more likely not to have health insurance than the average white person, which means that, viewed aggregately, the African-American population suffers disproportionately from treatable disease as compared with whites, and thus in the end, it is no surprise that they die sooner than do whites.

Conservatives have been trying to tell us for years that racism is no longer a problem, that it only exists as a form of harmless private distaste which cannot be legislated against and thus ameliorated, and that therefore we should dismantle government attempts at restoring balance and equity as restitution for four hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow. Yet here is incontrovertible evidence that racism is not simply private dislike and that it is anything but harmless. So what will the conservatives do?

This is an even more acute problem for religious conservatives, who need to justify their actions in terms of their theological commitments. I am not sure how this is done by them exactly on the matter of health care. If you have health care, as most of the fundamentalists do, how do you justify the fact that your neighbor doesn’t? When the founder of your religion was a notorious healer, how do you explain your insistence that the government not provide coverage for everyone? When the health care system that you have costs 14% of GDP (while the other Western industrial democracies only spend 9%) and leaves 45 million of your fellows uncovered (while other nations cover everyone), all the while providing worse health outcomes than the Europeans, Canadians and Japanese, how can you possibly defend such a system even on cost-benefit grounds? None of this makes much sense beyond simple human greed. It certainly bears no resemblance to anything connected to the gospel.

But if the health care angle fails to rouse the fundamentalists running our budding theocracy, wouldn’t you think that the issue of discrimination would stir them to action? I mean, as we discussed in this space several weeks ago, these are the folks who cry “Persecution” at the drop of a hat. Remember the “Death of Christmas”? Have you forgotten all of the holiday parades in which they were not allowed to participate? And surely these African-Americans, who are almost all their evangelical co-religionists, are greatly suffering discrimination and mistreatment by others, aren’t they?

But it seems that the religious conservatives' concern for the persecuted only comprehends a very small circle. They will scream their heads off at you for trying to inhibit Bill’s attempts to evangelize at one of our nation’s service academies or for trying to stop Sue from inviting children to accept Jesus as their personal savior at the close of a government paid-for abstinence-based sex-ed program, but they won’t make a sound about Kwame’s aspirin or Tamika’s painkillers. Strange, isn’t it?

As Christians, we believe that we have a special responsibility towards those at the margins of society, particularly if that marginalization was a product of gross injustice; as the sins perpetrated against blacks in this country unquestionably have been. We cannot evade our responsibilities as if all that was locked in a hermetically sealed time capsule that was shut when the Civil Rights Act was passed in the mid-1960s. When the neighbors of Christians are suffering and dying prematurely, we cannot blithely go on our suburban way as if this was of no concern for us. Jesus calls us to care for the needs of Kwame and Tamika as if it were Jesus himself who needed a hip replacement or a heart bypass. What Christian of any stripe would not sacrifice everything to see to it that Jesus had a cup of cold water, adequate food, clothing, and shelter, and yes even healthcare if he needed it? Is not the call of Matthew 25 the marching orders to the church in this situation?

Posted by Public Theologian at 03:01 AM | Comments (14)

August 18, 2005

So-Called Pro-Life Group Attacks Deceased Iraq Marine, His Family & Care-Givers

Posted by Faithful Progressive

As my local CBS Station reported this week, the group that calls itself Pro-Life Wisconsin recently issued a press release that it had to retract under threat of legal action from the Hospice care provider to a Marine who died from wounds suffered in the War in Iraq.

MADISON, Wis. -- Pro-Life Wisconsin is backing off some controversial comments made in a press release concerning the death of Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Jerome Simon, 32, of Monona. Simon suffered severe head injuries in a bombing in Iraq last November and died Aug. 4 at a HospiceCare facility. His feeding tube was removed about two weeks before he died. His wife said she was carrying out the wishes of his living will.

Lawyers for HospiceCare, Inc. notified Pro-Life Wisconsin Friday, objecting to what they consider defamatory statements in the release -- specifically a statement saying, "Simon was rendered handicapped by the bomb in Iraq ... he was murdered by those who were in charge of his medical care." The hospice care lawyers said if a retraction wasn't made by Friday, they would pursue other remedies. Pro-Life Wisconsin took the release off its Web site and released a revised press release Friday afternoon, deleting the reference to murder, saying instead, "Sgt. Simon ... died as a result of having food and water intentionally withheld."

HospiceCare officials told News 3 Monday the changed statement is "tasteless and an unfounded attack on the grieving widow of a war hero," but it is not defamatory. HospiceCare officials said they will not bring legal action out of respect for Chad Simon and his family.

I was looking for the right word to describe the wanton arrogance, callousness and unmitigated gall that this group had demonstrated in presuming to comment on the end-of-life choices made by the Marine and his family. I thought of Immanuel Kant's famous statement that one of the keys to moral behavior involved always seeing another individual human being as an end unto itself and never as merely a means to an end...

For all of its self-righteousness, Pro-Life Wisconsin could not see Mr. Simon’s grieving family or their care-givers as people (as souls given the breath of life by the Creator). It could see these suffering people only as a means to their usual end-- yet another occasion to rail against what they perceive as the Immorality of the Other.

Pro-Life Wisconsin self-righteously believes it has all the answers on end-of-life questions, and, as usual, they set no boundaries in their loud shouting about why They Are Right and All Others Are Wrong. We saw the same thing in Florida and in our Congress earlier this year. They tried to demonize those who disagreed with their take on the Terri Schiavo matter, even to the point of trumping up "charges" against her husband. They will stop at nothing in their belief that they are right and have a direct line to God, and that all others must necessarily be wrong. This type of sociopathic psychology often leads to extreme and self-serving behavior, the inability to empathize with others, or to recognize or feel remorse for pain caused to others. And in this instance, they have caused a lot of pain.

As Susan Lampert Smith reported, these included "Hospice workers, who wrote and talked about being moved by the devotion of his family during the long eight months between when the roadside bomb exploded in Iraq in November and his death on Aug. 4."The love we saw from his family touched us all," one worker wrote. "We will long remember and never forget him. He is burned in our hearts forever." A high school friend of Chad Simon's wrote: "Chad made his wishes known before he left, and knowing Chad, he never would have wanted to exist in the condition he was in. . . . he trusted that Regina (his wife) would have the strength and love for him to carry out his wishes if the day ever came, and she did." I heard from Regina Simon, too, and the pain in her voice is indescribable.

Ms. Lampert Smith concludes, "Despite what Pro-Life Wisconsin would have you believe, no one makes end-of-life decisions lightly. The people charged with legal power- of-attorney are saying goodbye to the loves of their lives, to their parents, to their best friends. Many families, like the Simons, are deeply religious and make these choices only after much prayer. As hard as it is, most of want someone who loves us and knows us making those choices."

Unfortunately, this type of outrageous behavior is all too typical of groups who somewhat smugly call themselves Pro Life. Many of the leaders of these groups are male--self-righteous men who arrogantly presume to know how a fifteen year old girl who has been raped feels about carrying such a brutality to term. Beyond this arrogance, though, is something even more callous. The so-called pro-life groups not only want to deny women this deeply personal choice, they also want to impose their own ignorant and anti-scientific view of sex education and family planning on others by denying them access to information and products that could prevent un-wanted pregnancies.

As long as they continue to deny access to information and choices about birth control, they are not "pro-life" so much as they are "anti-prevention." They are not "pro-life" so much as they are "pro-birth," as Sister Joan Chittister said in a November, 2004, interview with Bill Moyers: "I'm opposed to abortion. But I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Clearly, as it relates to end-of-life decisions, it must recognize that this is a matter for the person facing death, their closest family members and God--and that all others should simply butt-out. As it relates to abortion, this broader conversation should include a discussion of the morality of effective prevention strategies versus the morality of blocking access to birth control information and products and the morality of criminalizing abortion. To me, it is clear that the strategy of effective prevention is a more pro-life, and a more moral and Christian choice. And, as Sister Chittister urges us, this broader discussion should extend to the needs of children after they are born as well as before.

But perhaps it can even extend beyond this to a conversation about listening to the Other and being slow to condemn them, as Jesus has taught us to do.

We are all prone to dividing the world between the self and the other, and assigning moral good to the former and seeing moral flaws only in the other. Even Jesus was prone to this tendency, as last week's standard lectionary Gospel story (Matthew 15:21-28) demonstrated. When the Canaanite woman called out to him, Jesus at first saw her as the other and essentially called her a dog. But then he let himself be changed by her, he grew, and in this act his own life purpose was revealed. His ministry was extended to all, it excluded not even those many saw as little more than dogs. The words of Jesus go from scorn to honoring the Canaanite woman for her faith and this promise to her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.”

In my own church last week, our Pastor compared the Canaanite woman to another grieving mother, Iraq War opponent Cindy Sheehan. And he noted the difference in the response of Jesus and the response of President Bush--who seems incapable of seeing her suffering or even her common humanity.

As Sister Chittister says, we need a much broader conversation about what it really means to be pro-life.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 09:38 PM | Comments (14)

A Global, Ecumenical Council to Address Biblical Literalism

Posted by Jesus Politics

The presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Mark Hanson, recently proposed a council to address the problem of biblical literalism:

"Now is the time for Pope Benedict [XVI], the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul, and the Anglican and Lutheran Communions to convene a global, ecumenical council on the Christian interpretation of Scripture" in order to address "a global identity crisis ... due to the dominance today of a fundamentialist-millenialist-apacolypticist reading of Scripture,"

This is an inspired idea because the root problem of the Christian Right is the misguided and literalistic way they read the Bible.

Albert Mohler responds to Hanson's idea by writing:

Christianity certainly is "in the midst of a global identity crisis," but that crisis is the result of theological accommodation and confusion -- not biblical literalism. In this context, biblical literalism is code language for any assertion of biblical authority or biblical inerrancy.

The RNS report also included this: "Although Hanson did not elaborate, mainline churches traditionally are uneasy with literal readings of Scripture, particularly in fundamentalist churches, regarding the end of the world and political unrest in the Middle East. In addition, mainline churches have been divided over what the Bible says about hot-button issues such as homosexuality and women's ordination."

The claim that the ELCA, along with most other liberal Protestant denominations, is deeply divided over issues like homosexuality is truly an understatement. The liberal denominations long ago liberated themselves from anything close to a literal interpretation of Scripture. Over the past half-century, various heresies, aberrant beliefs systems, and theological movements have found a safe home under the umbrella of the "mainline" denominations. Now, Bishop Hansen want to convene a global council to combat literalist interpretations of the Bible.

There once was a time when the great councils of the church defended theological orthodoxy. Whatever happened to Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Ephesus? We can only imagine where this bizarre council might meet. The Council of Greenwich Village? Harvard Yard? Riverside Drive? I suggest the Council of Laodicea. The possibilities are endless.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:50 PM | Comments (18)

August 17, 2005

A Noble Cause

Posted by Fresh Politics

Cindy Sheehan has been camping outside of President Bush's Crawford ranch since August 6th. She has been joined by supporters, including other families who lost children in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan, and the others at "Camp Casey" (named for Ms. Sheehan's son who died in Iraq in April 2004) plan to remain in Crawford until President Bush speaks to her or until his five week vacation is over.

Much has been said about Ms. Sheehan's motives, but what I see is a woman who lost a child and wants to know why. She wants to know what her son's sacrifice accomplished. Whether or not one supports the war in Iraq, this is a question that she is entitled to have answered, as are the other families who have lost a loved one.

This seems to me to be a simple, and quite understandable, request. Yet, the reaction to Ms. Sheehan's effort only underscores the division in this country. Some people send flowers and food or offer the demonstrators a place to camp. Others shoot bullets into the air (in preparation for dove hunting, of course...how ironic) or drive over the rows of crosses representing the soldiers killed in Iraq.

Is this an alternate universe or something? Stories like these are enough to make me start questioning my sanity. Wanting our troops to be safe and demanding a reason for why so many have lost their lives is nothing short of patriotic. How have things become so warped and divided in this country that simply questioning the President's policies is treacherous? This is the saddest result of the right-wing hold on this county. When a mother who lost a child in a war cannot get the President to tell her why, and is instead treated to gun shots and a runaway pick-up truck mowing down crosses and flags, we have to ask ourselves where things went wrong. And how to make them right again.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 04:35 PM | Comments (32)

August 16, 2005

"Just Us" Sunday II; A Review

Posted by Father Jake

Justice Sunday II was held in Nashville this last weekend. The subtitle for this event was "God Save the United States and This Honorable Court." Speakers included , Tony Perkins, Bill Donahue, Chuck Colson, Phyllis Shlafly, Zell Miller, and Jim Dobson, who made an appearance by video.

A few conservative bloggers were given press passes. From their "live blogging" accounts, we can get at least a glimpse of this event. The backdrop for the podium was was a cross flanked by two American flags, and a plaster statue of the ten commandments. I really don't need to say any more, do I? That image captures it all.

Tom Delay hits "partial birth abortion" and gay marriage; the two issues that rally the troops. No mention of Iraq, from what I am reading. Tony Perkins offered "Save The Court" kits, which included “Ten Commandment book covers” for school textbooks. Bizarre stuff. And they tell us not to worry about the coming theocracy.

It sounds like Bill Donahue didn't change his style for this event. No rants about the Jews who run Hollywood and hate Christians this time. Just jabs at Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, a few other "liberal" Catholics, and everyone who thinks "monkeys fell out of trees, lost their hair, and became Adam and Eve."

Seminarian Chuck Curry offers more info on the specific content of some of the speeches. The New York Times ran a couple of stories regarding the event.

Across town, at the Cathedral of Praise, another group of Christians gathered to challenge the message of "Justice Sunday." You can read more about this alternative event; "Freedom and Faith," here. Of special interest to visitors of this site, please note that our own Patrick Mrotek, President of Christian Alliance for Progress, was one of the speakers.

Justice Sunday II was advertised as a gathering of conservative Christians to "take back the courts," and to "end judicial activism." What this boils down to is "get John Roberts on the Supreme Court." The claim is made that they reached 70 million people with their message. The difficulty I have with that message is that it really offered nothing new, and instead continued to beat the same drum against abortion and gay marriage. Maybe that's because this entire event was really just a pep rally, and had little to do with the real reason the Bush administration wants Roberts on the court. What is that reason? Consider this commentary from Bruce Shapiro;

To understand Judge Roberts's unique appeal, forget for a moment "conservative," "textualist," "original intent" and the other shorthand with which get-ahead Republican law school grads watermark their résumés. Look instead at a single case decided by Judge Roberts and two other members of the DC Court of Appeals less than a week ago. As it happened, the day before that ruling was released, President Bush interviewed Judge Roberts at the White House. Judge Roberts, it is widely reported, aced his interview; but his appeals court decision due for publication just twenty-four hours later--about the rights of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay--was, in effect, the essay question...

Whatever Judge Roberts's performance in his interview with the President, whatever his sterling report card as litigator and jurist, we can be sure there was only one acceptable answer to the Guantánamo essay question, and the judge gave it. He voted, along with his two appeals court colleagues, all three of them Reagan or Bush appointees, against Geneva Convention protections for Guantánamo captives, in scathing language ordering the military tribunals forward, empowering the President, and the President alone, to determine those prisoners' fate.

This nomination was never about abortion or gay marriage. It is about power, specifically, granting this President the power to lock up whoever he chooses, for however long he wants, with even the courts being denied the keys of release. Judge Roberts will work to grant this President that power. Bush is counting on those 70 million who bought the propaganda flowing out of Nashville last weekend to help him grab that power by pushing for Robert's confirmation. Most likely, they will succeed.

May God have mercy on us all.

Posted by Father Jake at 05:10 PM | Comments (6)

August 14, 2005

"Shedding the Unreality": The Bush Administration Climbs Back Out of the Rabbit Hole

Posted by Public Theologian

Well the truth is finally dawning on the White House about its disastrous war on Iraq. With the civil war about to break out of the simmer stage to a full, rolling boil, it has become clear even inside the administration that the neo con fantasy of a modern democracy is in a shambles. From yesterday’s Washington Post:

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Oh what a candid admission—shedding the unreality. There were many of us who pointed out this unreality before the war, but we were accused of being unpatriotic, supporters of terrorists, not living in the “real” post 911 world, and the like. Well now who’s living in the “real” world? The fact is that the people running this war—Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz et al, were all Cold War retreads, who could give you lots of detail about Europe and the Russians, but who sadly didn’t know jack about Islam. The one person on the team with serious experience in dealing with Islam, Colin Powell, was, as we all know the very ineffective brake for this out of control locomotive (remember the Pottery Barn?). Moreover, as Frank Rich reminded us in his scathing op-ed yesterday in the New York Times, the most significant pre-war brush off of “reality” came when the Bushies ignored and then dismissed General Eric Shinseki who told them the truth that they did not want to hear, which was that Iraq would need at least double the planned force in order to be adequately secured in a post war environment. Perhaps President Bush can explain the finer points of that decision to Cindy Sheehan, the mother of the dead soldier camped outside his ranch in Crawford, once he’s finished chopping wood.

The administration professes shock at the Kurdish and Shiite demands in the constitutional process. How naïve can these people possibly be? Do they think they are dealing with Madison and Jefferson here? What in the world do you think would make the 70,000 armed Kurds in the northern part of the country want to join up in a government with the Sunnis who had been oppressing them for years? And what in the world would make the Shiites, who have an insurmountable majority of the population, simply cede power to these other groups rather than demanding their own Islamic Republic, in the name of democratic self-determination, which is supposedly what Bush is always preaching? And what in the world possessed the Bush administration to think that in a region that had had to be subdued by force that everything was going to be sweetness and light once the dictator was gone? Didn’t these European experts learn anything from the death of Tito in Yugoslavia? The Bushies are finding out now exactly WHY Saddam was a brutal dictator—it was the only way to keep the state intact. And now, after having promised the world that they would not allow the creation of three or even two states, they may just have to give way to reality on that score as well, assuming they don’t want another strong man or a civil war.

Yet even with this disaster on its hands, the Bush administration is already shopping its next war—with Iran. The President made that point in his remarks this week, between cords of wood, when he said that “all options are on the table” with respect to Iran. Whether they actually go through with it or not, W is well aware that the saber rattling, though destructive internationally, has the desired effect on American politics. As Iraq becomes more dire day by day and as the 2006 mid-term elections near we should not be surprised to hear more out of the right wing spin machine of the clear and present danger which the Iranians pose to American security. Polls show, however, that the right has gone to that well too often, cried “wolf” one too many times, and that the American people are not buying it. The electorate, it seems, has already shed its “unreality” and is now staring at the cold hard facts of the debacle that Iraq has become.

Posted by Public Theologian at 09:57 PM | Comments (10)

August 12, 2005

From the Grass Roots: Remarks by Jackie Muehl, One of Our 10,000 Members

Posted by Faithful Progressive

The Christian Alliance for Progress came to Madison, Wisconsin this past week. FP and other Wisconsin members enjoyed meeting Founder Patrick Mrotek, Rev. Tim Simpson and V.P. Kathleen LeRoy. A group of about 50 made their way to the second floor rotunda where the capitol police relocated them after a much-needed rain drove them inside. Here's a link to a Capital Times piece about the event.

All of the speakers were very impressive, but one speech stood out.
This Movement started just 2 months ago, and we already have around 10,000 members. Jackie Muehl, an ELCA Lutheran and friend to local refugees, speaks for many of us.

Remarks by Jackie Muehl, Christian Alliance for Progress
Wisconsin Organizing Task Force

"Like many progressive people of faith, I have felt hopeless and helpless watching as our beloved country moved further away from Biblical values, such as those of the Hebrew prophet, Micah:-- Do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God—and the life and teachings of Jesus.

I am appalled at the increased concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few at the expense of the poor and hungry, the very young, the sick, and elderly—those Christ called “the least of these”. I believe in progressive taxation and in generously sharing our resources.

I am ashamed of my country’s actions in waging a preemptive war based on distorted information and selfish motives. We are paying a terrible spiritual and tangible price: the lost lives of men and women in the military, our devastated federal budget and lost opportunities, and our reputation as a nation of principle.

I am angry that the extremists of the religious right have nearly succeeded in hijacking the cross, the flag, and even the word “evangelical”. I want them back. The Christ of the cross is the Prince of Peace, the Great Physician, and the Suffering Servant; he commands and empowers us to love and care for others. The stars and stripes in the flag proclaim “liberty and justice for all”—not just for a chosen few who would prefer to establish a theocracy on their own terms. And “Evangelical”—literally, “good news”— means that the people of God are called to lives of love, service, and inclusiveness in response to God’s abundant grace and infinite generosity.

Today I am happy to participate in this gathering to celebrate The Christian Alliance for Progress. My progressive political stance arises out of my understanding of the Gospel and in response to Christ’s call to discipleship. It is time to join forces and be intentional, organized, and politically powerful in sharing our values and transforming our country. I pray that God will bless, guide, and unite us. Together we are neither hopeless nor helpless."

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 03:31 AM | Comments (33)

August 11, 2005

What does the Christian Right think of Cindy Sheehan?

Posted by Jesus Politics

So far there seems to be mostly silence from the Christian Right. Some quotes from other voices:

Anthony Wade:

A mother of a slain soldier is sitting in a ditch outside the ranch of George W. Bush. Where is our moral president? Where is the president of family values? This is the persona that has been packaged and sold to Christians across this country and they bought it. Where is the Christianity of George W. Bush? It is one thing to say that Jesus Christ is your favorite philosopher during a photo op, but quite another thing to actually adhere to the philosophy of Christ on a daily basis.

Would Jesus Christ leave the mother of a murdered soldier sitting in a ditch in the summer heat of Texas, while he vacationed? I would think not. There is a stark difference between someone claiming to be Christian, and someone walking with Christ.

Faithful America:

Celeste, along with Sheehan, co-founded Gold Star Families for Peace, and now joins the effort to see the President as an act of her faith. President Bush is also a United Methodist Christian. We are proud that Celeste is among our community of FaithfulAmericans. She takes this courageous stand to honor her son, Sherwood, and her God, knowing well that her position is not universally held; yet her faith compels her to speak out to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home swiftly.

Ralph Nader in a letter to Cindy Sheehan:

From your grief over the loss of your son, Casey, in Iraq has come the courage to spotlight nationally the cowardly character trait of a President who refuses to meet with anyone or any group critical of his illegal, fabricated, deceptive war and occupation of that ravaged country. As a messianic militarist, Mr. Bush turned aside his own father's major advisers who warned him of the terroristic, political, and diplomatic perils to the United States from an invasion of Iraq. He refused to listen.

Ray McGovern in a letter to Cindy Sheehan:

You are, in biblical terms, salt that has not lost its flavor...or its ability to catalyze! You certainly have catalyzed me.
----
A passage from Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail:
"So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our bodies as a means of laying our cause before the conscience of the local and national community."

Leutisha Stills in a letter to President Bush:

Is it because you are a coward and bereft of any moral decency? If so, then I know I need to be praying for you to gain the courage to face the American people and admit to what you have done in our names. I know I need to be on my knees interceding for your soul to convince you to do what's right. People are saying not to waste a prayer on you - but I write this as a concerned Christian, and as such, not only am I charged to pray for you, but to call you out when you are doing heinous things that contradict God's Word and telling the public that Jesus told you to do it.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:36 AM | Comments (46)

August 09, 2005

Sustaining the Unsustainable: The Energy Bill

Posted by Fresh Politics

Earlier this week, President Bush signed the much-discussed Energy Bill. Noting that it will do nothing to alleviate the record-high prices Americans are paying for gas at this time, the President still contends that it is a much needed first step.

I have been doing a lot of thinking on this issue lately. All of the evidence I see indicates that this is indeed a crisis, yet our leaders in Washington are too busy trying to brush away the real problems we face by making sweetheart deals with oil companies. I feel incredibly frustrated by the total refusal for our leadership to really think about what we are doing and how we can make intelligent and responsible changes to adapt to the bottom line fact: oil will run out.

We have tax cuts for the least fuel efficient vehicles. We have a President and Congressional leadership who see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ("ANWR") as part of the solution. The solution? Are you kidding me? We can drill in ANWR, we can drill off the coast of California, we can suck all of the oil out of Saudi Arabia. But when the well runs dry, then what?

Think about it. Think about how dependent we are on oil. The tomatoes we get in December are only available to us because they can be easily transported from regions where they are in season to regions where they are not. Discount stores like Wal-Mart can offer cheap products in part because they can transport them from countries with minimal labor and environmental standards to countries with money to burn. Modern cities are built to the scale of cars, not pedestrians.

There has been little real progress in thinking about alternative sources of energy. We bury our heads in the sand at our -- and our children's -- peril. Eventually we are going to have to face the music and make some hard choices. The key is whether we will be prepared for those changes and can adapt accordingly. This Energy Bill is more of the same, and will do nothing to move us forward.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 11:02 PM | Comments (9)

Seeking a Savior

Posted by Father Jake

One of the most unique attributes of a Christian is that we know we need a Savior. We know that we cannot always pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

Many people think they can make it on their own. They carefully structure their lives so they feel safe and in control. But then some catastrophe strikes, and they realize that they were never really in control at all. They need a Savior, but don’t know where to find one.

Sometimes Christians act the same way, don’t we? We live our lives as if we are in control, until we get in a jam, and then we remember to seek a Savior. “We live in sheer dread of giving up control and abandoning ourselves to God,” writes Larry Crabb in Shattered Dreams. “Only when we discover a desire for him that is stronger than our desire for relief from pain will we pay the price necessary to find him.”

That’s a powerful statement, isn’t it? It’s one that I think we need to hear, however. I don’t think we can ignore the fact any longer that this world is in desperate need of a Savior. I think it is time that we humans gave up control. We haven’t exactly done a very good job on our own. I think it’s time that we become willing to pay the price; to be humbled, to confess our sin, to amend our lives, so that we might find a Savior.

Saturday, August 6, was the Feast of the Transfiguration. To remind you of that story, here’s the Gospel lesson appointed for that day;

About eight days after Jesus had foretold his death and resurrection, Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah"--not knowing what he said. While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!" When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen. - Luke 9:28-38

There was another commemoration that occurred Saturday; one that calls us to remember another important moment in the history of humanity. Here is the lead story from the BBC on August 6, 1945;

The first atomic bomb has been dropped by a United States aircraft on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

President Harry S Truman, announcing the news from the cruiser, Augusta, in the mid-Atlantic, said the device contained 20,000 tons of TNT and was more than 2,000 times more powerful than the largest bomb used to date.

Saturday we commemorated Jesus Christ being revealed in glory as the Incarnation of God. We also remembered the unleashing of the most destructive force humanity has ever created.

We desperately need a Savior. We need to be saved from ourselves.

There are many folks in this world who believe they have nowhere to turn when natural or man made disaster strikes. As Christians, this is our mission; to point beyond ourselves to the Savior, not only with our words, but with our actions.

Sometimes it seems to me that the Church often functions as a group of people standing on the beach shouting to another group who are out in the deep water, “Hey, you’re drowning!” They know that! What they need is for us to go out to them, and offer them our hand, and lead them back to the shore. They need a Savior.

We are the hands of Christ in the world today. We are the ones who are called to witness to God’s saving power through our actions; by being Christ for a world that is in desperate need of a Savior.

Posted by Father Jake at 04:54 AM | Comments (21)

August 08, 2005

Torture: The Word You Won't Hear Discussed on Justice Sunday II

Posted by Public Theologian

At my in-laws church this Sunday night, the Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, located just across the street from Opryland, the Religious Right will be hosting Justice Sunday II. This is the follow-up event to the first Justice Sunday, held earlier this spring in Louisville, around the issue of what was thought would be the Democratic filibuster by the Senate of the extremist judges nominated by President Bush. At both of these events, the leading lights of American fundamentalism were and will be on hand in order to give America the fundamentalist version of “justice”—all except for Bill Frist who went over to the dark side of the Force and was thus not invited, even though the event is happening in his home state in one of the churches that catapulted him onto the national political stage.

At this meeting there will doubtless be lots of talk about things like how to ensure that the next generation of women are forced to resort to coat hangers to terminate unplanned pregnancies, how to make sure that blind, paralyzed and dying people can’t get their hands on stem cells that are about to be tossed in the garbage, as well as other crucial matters like how to continue the oppression of gays and lesbians and how to sneak the Ten Commandments back into Alabama courthouses.

What we are not likely to hear much about however, is the greatest miscarriage of justice that has occurred in a generation in this country, a blight which has made the world question our values and which has undermined our national security. I’m speaking of course of the torture of detainees from the War on Terror or the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremists or whatever else the PR firms controlling the White House message are calling it this week. A great example that everyone can see for themselves is the Family Research Council, whose President Tony Perkins will be in Nashville this weekend for the justice-fest. These people have an opinion about everything—this man was on TV 24/7 awhile back howling about the split-second sight of a black woman’s breast on the Super Bowl halftime show. They fashion themselves as a conservative watchdog group that provides its supporters the facts they need on their website to make the right decisions on the issues of the day, from abortion to women in the military. But these folks down at the FRC all of a sudden become mute when it comes to the torture and killing of detainees. The same silence on this issue can be found over at Concerned Women of America, the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association.

You would think that perhaps some of the large fundamentalist legal outfits would be coming to the aid of the detainees, right? I mean, since Messiah’s role in scripture is so closely tied to freeing the prisoner, surely the followers of Messiah should be most solicitous of how the prisoners are faring shouldn’t they? But over at Pat Robertson’s Center for Law and Justice they don’t seem to care that much. Nor do they over at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Counsel, or at D. James Kennedy’s and James Dobson’s Alliance Defense Fund. Of course you have to understand these folks have the important work like trying to save “Merry Christmas” from the secularists that are trying to turn it into “Happy Holidays” so they don’t really have the time at this point in the year to worry about a little torture, what with only about 120 shopping days left. And don’t forget they also have the high school football games this fall that they have to protect from the humanists who don’t want them to begin with a word of prayer. So they are quite busy just now—the Lord’s work is never done.

In short, these supposedly moral do-gooders can’t be bothered with the real moral affliction that is damaging our country. They can’t because they looked the other way last year when they returned Bush to office, so admitting that there was a problem would be tantamount to admitting their complicity in it, because they know just as well as the rest of the world what is going on with the detainees, yet they fixate on other issues that give them a sheen of morality while the proverbial 800 pound gorilla sits right there in their front room.

These are the people that want to outlaw a couple of lesbians living together quietly in suburbia but can’t find their voices to criticize the sodomizing of children at Abu Ghraib, according to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, the videos of which the Pentagon is keeping from the American people under the guise of “national security.” They will sue every government body in the land in order to see to it that a high school valedictorian can preach a sermon rather than give an address at his high school graduation, but they don’t have anything to say about the muzzling of prisoners who have been held now for years without an attorney or any contact with their families. They complain about the smut in our culture but had no comment when it was revealed to the world that female US interrogators were questioning devout Muslim prisoners clad in bras and panties, during which they would smear fake menstrual blood on detainees’ faces. The fundamentalists are outraged over the mistreatment of Christians in nations around the world, and rightly so I might add, but don’t seem to have much of a problem with the beatings and murders of Muslims in our own care, such as the murder of an Iraqi General detailed in the Washington Post last week, who was zipped up inside a sleeping bag and beaten to death.

To be sure there are some conservatives who still have a conscience and who are fighting to do what is right for both the detainees and our country. In the past couple of weeks we have learned that there were some courageous lawyers in the military who vehemently objected to what soldiers were being told to do by our government and who spoke out forcefully against it. We also learned last week that two prosecuting military lawyers charged with convicting detainees at Guantanamo quit in protest over the kangaroo court that had been set up by the government to try the prisoners. And yes I said PROSECUTING attorneys—these men had the character to recognize that what they were being asked to do was a sham and refused to cooperate. So we should be thankful that some in our armed forces who are being placed in the awful position of having to carry out these immoral acts are speaking out. We should never forget that it was our own soldiers whose consciences were pricked who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib in the first place.

The pangs of conscience have also begun to strike conservative legislators. Republican Senators Graham, John McCain and John Warner—each a military veteran-- are all pushing hard to include language in a bill currently before Congress which would prohibit torture and would limit tactics used by interrogators to those outlined in the Pentagon’s most recent training manual. The Bush White House is out trying to twist Congressional arms to keep the language from passing, because the Bushies strongly favor torture, as was evidenced by the elevation earlier this of Alberto “Torture Memo” Gonzalez to the position of Attorney General. But again we may ask, where is the moral leadership of the Justice-mongers on the Religious Right? Are they supporting the language to end torture?Will they be featuring this in their confab this weekend in an attempt to show the world the true depth of America’s “family values”? Right now there is nothing but silence from these people, and I would not expect that to change this Sunday night.

In reality, what Justice Sunday II is about is not justice as one would commonly understand it in the sense of fair and equitable treatment for everyone. Instead it is about protecting and extending the power and privilege of some Republican elites who already control all three branches of government but who will not rest until they control everyone and everything. The Scripture teaches, however, that failure to care for the vulnerable is the virtual guarantee that any base of power will be devoid of the blessings of God and will ultimately collapse. How one treats the helpless is the spiritual barometer of one’s ethics in biblical faith. So if the fundamentalists want to continue to hold the reins of power they would do well to revise their agenda and make the torture of prisoners their primary focus for the night’s discussion. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Posted by Public Theologian at 02:52 PM | Comments (31)

August 04, 2005

Building a Movement: Lessons from the Civil Rights Era in the Deep South

Posted by Faithful Progressive

This year my family took a spring break trip that was spent mostly in the very Deep South-- the Mississippi Gulf Coast, New Orleans and a side trip to visit relatives in Montgomery, Alabama. Montgomery happens to be the hometown of the Founder of the Christian Alliance for Progress, Patrick Mrotek. I have heard Patrick speak passionately about how inspired he was growing up there as Dr. King and others articulated a stirring Vision of a better America and world. And it is Montgomery, the birth place of the Civil Rights Movement, that sticks with me from our spring break trip-- particularly visits to both the Rosa Parks Museum and a private tour of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott is probably known by most of our readers, but there are a number of lessons from those struggles that call out to us today as we try to build a Movement to reclaim Christianity and transform American politics. I hope that we can have a discussion with Patrick about how these two movements are related in an Interview I'm planning to do with him over the next weeks. But for now, I’ll just list some of the things that jump out at me after the inspiring and challenging experience of being at the birth place of the greatest Movement for human rights in American history.

1.) Foot Soldiers Stand Tall

The Movement had great leadership, but it was the foot soldiers like Ms. Parks (and thousands of others) who found creative, courageous and co-operative ways to make themselves the catalysts of change; foot soldiers will walk tall if they have a real stake in political outcomes; as we form our Movement we need to make sure that we are open to the ideas and inspiration of all our members.

2.) Include & Inspire All

A Movement of Hope and Aspiration brings people together from all parts of the country and therefore it is dumb to write off areas as hopelessly Red States that are not worth organizing and fighting for--we owe it to the millions of poor in those areas to include them, and they just might know how to help us find our own way; maybe the way forward won't come from a think-tank in Washington D.C., but from a seamstress in Montgomery or children in Birmingham.

3.) The Extreme Right is still with us

It was not many years ago that Extreme Right elements terrorized huge sections of our country in defense of Segregation--they largely did so in the name of a distorted and dangerous view of Christianity; they quoted the Bible chapter and verse to support this reign of terror in the South; these elements are still a force to be feared and one that needs to be confronted if real change is to again come to this country; Middle America is turned off by extremism and will reject it in favor of its better angels when given a clear choice.

4.) Religious Leaders can be a Potent Force.

The moral authority of Movement activists was enhanced and inspired by the leadership of hundreds of progressive religious leaders, black and white, Christians, Jews, and Muslims--religious leaders of many faiths who literally put their lives on the line for what was right; secular progressives & moderates and religious leaders worked well together and did so from a position of mutual trust and respect.

5.) Vision & Action

The African American church leaders in Montgomery put their own egos aside to defer to a 27 year old newcomer Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who was able to articulate a compelling Vision and who was also willing to put that vision into Direct Action; Dr. King did not spend all of his energy bashing the Right (he did not have to tell people how evil they were-it was well understood), his speeches are filled with a hopeful Vision that inspired hope that together we could make America a better place.

6.) Don't just Visit Black Churches in October & November.

Moderate, liberal and progressive leaders need to listen to African American church leaders and members on a year round basis; the recent and historic coming together of Black Baptist leaders to develop a common Progressive Agenda is a model and inspiration for all religious and progressive Americans and yet it received little coverage and even less discussion; (see our post: Black Baptist Leaders Unite on Progressive Agenda

7.) Get Kids Involved

One of the key fights of the Civil Rights Movement was the so-called
Children's March in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. There is an inspiring film about this incredible event that started when Dr. King asked all those who would volunteer to go to jail with him to stand up--and mostly just children offered themselves. When your cause is just, its message will inspire people of all ages, including children. Boiling your message down to one word--say, Freedom, then or perhaps Fairness, today--makes it understandable to even small children.

8.) Aim High.

Reflecting himself on the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Dr. King noted that the group’s original list of demands did not include an end to legal segregation. It was only when the opposition failed to compromise on the modest original goals of the group that the greater change became possible. For his part, Dr. King recognized that real change required a new vision of social relationships-the end of segregation- to provide real freedom and hope. From that point on, Dr. King would be satisfied with nothing less than that his Dream of a better America.

These are just a few of the many ways the Civil Rights Movement still resonates today, and Faithful Progressive is inspired and challenged by people like Ms. Parks, who made America a better place. While she inspires us, she also challenges us because there is still so much more to be done. This movement that we are building can be an important part of delivering the Dream to millions of Americans.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 10:01 PM | Comments (5)

The Bible in Public Schools

Posted by Jesus Politics

The Christian Right is apparently using the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools to push its agenda. The Texas Freedom Network has a useful report.

From the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools:

The curriculum for the program shows a concern to convey the content of the Bible as compared to literature and history. The program is concerned with education rather than indoctrination of students. The central approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a foundation document of society, and that approach is altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of secular education.
The world is watching to see if we will be motivated to impact our culture, to deal with the moral crises in our society, and reclaim our families and children. Please help us to restore our religious and civil liberties in this nation.

From a Texas Freedom Network report on the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools:

In my professional judgment as a biblical scholar, however, this curriculum on the whole is a sectarian document, and I cannot recommend it for usage in a public school setting. It attempts
to persuade students to adopt views that are held primarily within certain conservative Protestant circles but not within the scholarly community, and it presents Christian faith claims as history
----
Furthermore, much of the course appears designed to persuade students and teachers that America is a distinctively Christian nation
----
None of the NCBCPS board members is known to be a biblical scholar.
----
the curriculum attempts to persuade teachers and students to adopt views of the Bible that are common in some conservative Protestant
circles but are rejected by most scholars (Christian and non-Christian), other branches of Christianity, and Jews.
----
Not only does the curriculum treat the Bible as an inspired book and as literal history, it implies that the Bible is completely accurate in its historical claims, claims that this accuracy is confirmed by
archaeology and the hard sciences, and argues that the words of the biblical books have been transmitted from the original authors to the present day without error or change. It is thus advocating a specific view of inspiration called “inerrancy,” in which the Bible is believed to be without error.34 Though inerrancy is a very important theological doctrine within some conservative Christian circles, it is not held by other Christian groups or in nonsectarian scholarly circles.
----
Visually, the curriculum seems to Americanize the Bible and
Christianize American symbols.
----
Unit 6, “Hebrew Law,” not only provides an overview of the Ten Commandments but also presents them as the primary source of American
law and implies that biblical laws should be more fully implemented in American society. Its emphasis on the possibility of adopting biblical law has strong points of contact with the sectarian
Dominion theology movement.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 02:43 AM | Comments (28)

August 03, 2005

Seeing Red: Two Blue State Governors Take Another Look At Abortion

Posted by Fresh Politics

There has been a lot of speculation lately that New York Governor George Pataki and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are going to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Certainly Governor Pataki's announcement last week that he was not going to run for a fourth term as governor added to the rumors.

They have also managed to fan the flames themselves by the somewhat peculiar decisions they have made recently. Governor Pataki has stated that he will veto a bill that would allow the morning-after pill to be available over the counter (for details, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/nyregion/02pataki.html); Governor Romney recently vetoed a similar bill and seems to be rapidly stepping away from his previously asserted support for legal abortion (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/national/02romney.html?pagewanted=2).

I characterize these decisions as “peculiar” only because of the context in which they were made. Both are governors of decisively blue states, and these are decisions not particularly likely to swell the ranks of their supporters in their respective states. Further, the reasoning behind their decisions is, well, lame. Governor Pataki asserts that he is concerned that minors would be able to get the emergency contraception, apparently untroubled by the fact that the state covers abortions for minors with low incomes. And in a splendid recharacterization of the flip-flopping meme, Governor Romney has explained that his position on abortion has “evolved.” With a little luck, it might evolve right into a nice endorsement just in time for the winter 2008 primaries.

These positions don't play as well in New York and Massachusetts as they do in South Carolina and Kansas. But you also don't need New York and Massachusetts to win the big presidential prize, either, which is why it strikes me as incredibly obvious that these are two men who are testing the national waters.

Testing the waters, they are, at the expense of women. Abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade seems to be on the lips and fingertips of many a pundit or blogger. Conversations have ranged from whether Roe will be overturned to whether the Democratic party should drop abortion rights from its platform. There was an excellent blog on this website last week on the issue, and “Morning Sedition” on Air America Radio was taking calls on it earlier this week.

Rather than re-hash what has just recently been discussed on this website, I think it is important to focus on the effect of the governors' ambitions on women. By deciding to veto legislation to make the morning-after pill available without a prescription (incredibly important due to the time-sensitive nature of the pill and the unavailability of many doctors on the weekends), these governors have restricted women's access to a method that can be used to prevent pregnancy, which would in turn prevent an abortion. This seems like a good thing to me. Certainly there are many women for whom this is emotionally and physically a better option. Yet, for the women in these states, their governor's refusal to sign legislation broadening their access to the morning-after pill means that in some cases it will be a meaningless alternative. That women should be sacrificed because of the political ambitions of an individual governor is an outrage that should not be forgotten.

Posted by Fresh Politics at 09:13 PM | Comments (14)

August 02, 2005

A Moderate Voice Speaks the Truth

Posted by Father Jake

Can you identify the author of these words?

I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Who does this sound like? John Kerry? Howard Dean? Not even close. Let me give you one more sampling of his writing as a clue;

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

Need more clues? The author was the Republican Senator from Missouri from 1976 to 1995. He served as ambassador to the United Nations. He is also an ordained Episcopal priest. He was the officiant for the burial of former president Ronald Reagan.

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the man who wrote these editorials that appeared in the New York Times on March 30, 2005 and June 17, 2005 is former Senator John Danforth. I hope you’ll take a moment to read and reflect on his words.

I offer Senator’s Danforth’s perspective as but one example of a Republican man of faith, who knows government service well, that has the courage to tell us plainly that what the religious right is doing is not only wrong, it is potentially harmful to our nation.

This is a man who cannot be discounted as “just another liberal.” This is a man who no one can accuse of not being a Christian. And, this is a man who a terribly concerned about our government’s leaders making alliances with religious extremists.

“…the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. “ Well said, Senator Danforth. Now, let us get on with the work before us; to take back this nation from the extremists who are determined to force into law their own oppressive brand of morality.

Posted by Father Jake at 03:43 AM | Comments (27)

August 01, 2005

The Fake Crisis: The Right Wing's Propaganda Tool of Choice

Posted by Public Theologian

One of the most irritating aspects of the current culture wars is the fake outrage of the right wing. I’m not talking about areas where there is honest disagreement—abortion, gay rights, the war on Iraq—all of these are substantive issues that get everybody in a lather because the disagreement is so sharp. But what I am talking about are the phony issues, the stuff that the right wing regularly manufactures in order to get people riled up. Last fall, for instance, the right wing pundits were daily bewailing the “death of Christmas.” A department store chain changed its holiday signage from “Merry Christmas” to “Season’s Greetings” and a couple of municipalities wouldn’t let the fundamentalists do their Christmas displays in a public forum. But from the howling that went up day after day from the right-wing punditocracy you would have thought someone had blocked the way of Joseph and the Virgin Mary from getting into Bethlehem itself. But of course this was a lot of claptrap, as all who lived through the harrowing ordeal of “the Christmas that almost wasn’t” can attest. For instance, I celebrated the sacrament of communion at two packed Christmas Eve worship services at my former church with a raft of worshippers who apparently had not gotten the word as to how close they had really come to disaster!

This is the kind of thing that the right wing panders on a regular basis, portraying the very people who are in the majority and who have the reins of power as if they are really victims of the left and are about to be overrun or even exterminated. David Limbaugh, who just couldn’t allow brother Rush to hoard all the profit from the new victimhood, wrote a book two years ago entitled Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity which of course sold about four copies, since the liberals did everything they could to suppress the truth about what is “really” going on, right? Wrong. It sold like hotcakes for weeks and made the New York Times bestseller list, although not on the fiction list, which is where it should have been. Ask your local Imam or the president of your local chapter of the Humanist Society about the persecution of American Christians and I am sure they will give you some stories about what is really going on in America.

We have seen a couple of examples in public life this past week which illustrate this same old inflammatory device that is wielded by the right wing to incite its base. One was Sean Hannity’s claim that a Nexis search had shown that Democrats were inappropriately attacking Supreme Court nominee John Roberts because of his Catholic faith. How dare the liberals attack a Catholic Christian as unfit to serve on the Supreme Court! The watchdog group Media Matter for America ran that same search, however, and found that while there were, in fact, three Democrats who had asked whether Roberts’ faith would unduly affect his decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, there were twenty five supporters of Roberts who were either “touting his Catholic faith or baselessly attacking Democrats for alleged anti-Catholicism.” Of course, Hannity didn’t bother to give that eight to one ratio of media supporters to questioners when he made this outlandish charge, for the actual numbers would have blunted the animosity he wanted to stir in his listeners. If it were true he would be right to be outraged of course, but that the evidence demonstrated that it was not says something about the man.

The next trip into the bizarre world of right-wing faux crises came about as a joke regarding Judge Roberts’ sexuality. First, someone found a photo from him in the 70s wearing plaid pants. Then came the references in his bio to his background in an all-boys school, his days as a wrestler, and as a member of the high school chorus and drama team, for which he starred as “Peppermint Patty” in his school’s production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” Some liberal bloggers put that together and began jesting that all of this surely was evidence that Judge Roberts was a closeted gay man. Granted, this was not high-brow humor by any means, but it was simply a joke, one which has been had at the expense of any person who has spent more than five minutes in the limelight in the last quarter century who did anything remotely approaching any of the usual gay or lesbian stereotypes. But how did the conservatives react? Why you would have thought that the left had just sacrificed Roberts’ mother on an altar to hear the rightwing blogosphere tell it. For example, the super blog Powerline, which laid claim to bringing down Dan Rather last year by exposing the purported Bush memo as a forgery, was frothing at the mouth with a post entitled “They Were Already Beneath Contempt.” Here’s just a bit of what they had to say.

“Throughout American history, until now, there have been limits. There have been depths beneath which Americans would not sink for the sake of partisan