| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
April 28, 2006
Mission Accomplished Three Years Later
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Update:
U.S. War Toll Rises: April is the Cruelest Month
Media Matters offers this stomach-turning look back at the idiotic press coverage of the President's photo-op on the USS Lincoln three years ago. The premature victory celebration could only have been designed by people who did not know the history of military occupation--particularly in the Middle East. Three years on, and the only thing accomplished has been getting Saddam out of power--but at the expense of the destabilization of the entire region and a strategic boost to groups that support Iran. Not to mention the expense of 320 billion dollars and thousands of lives lost or damaged forever. The world urged caution and pleaded with us not to invade Iraq, but fed this non-stop diet of jingoistic nonsense, the US tragically went its own way with only one or two significant allies at our side. Until we have a serious press that asks tough questions and persists until it gets real answers, we are at constant risk of the same thing happening again.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 12:10 PM | Comments (16)
April 27, 2006
Day of Truth?
Posted by Jesus Politics
Today is the Day of Truth, an event sponsored by the Christian Right to counter the Day of Silence which was held yesterday in public schools across the US. The Day of Silence is held to help students become better aware of the problems gay and lesbians face in school. The Day of Truth is held to further the dishonest anti-gay agenda of the Christian Right. Alan Sears, the president of the Alliance Defense fund which is sponsoring this event, wrote an article to explain what the Day of Truth was about. Some excerpts:
In the California Theater of America’s growing Culture War, the advocates of homosexual behavior have opened what the old World War II movies used to call a “second front.”
Not content with their so-far stalled efforts to get "same-sex marriage" judicially imposed on America, the vanguard of sexual advocacy is now at work on a new strategy –- effacing any recognition of authentic marriage from textbooks, school materials and the minds of America’s children. [ ]
If you didn’t realize we’d come that far ... if you hadn’t reckoned with the advocates of homosexual behavior being so single-minded in their determination to crack every moral cornerstone of the country ... if it never occurred to you that they wouldn’t stop until they’d converted every child in America to their fierce distortion of human sexuality ... maybe it’s because they’ve been so quiet about it. [ ]
It’s been 10 years since the advocates of homosexual behavior launched their “Day of Silence” events in our nation’s public schools. The idea is simple enough: for an entire day, participating students (joined more and more by sympathetic teachers and administrators) go silent. If called upon to answer a question in class or around campus, they present a card, detailing their non-verbal support for allegedly oppressed “homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender” students everywhere. [ ]
Five years later, in some polls the numbers are even worse, as tax-funded education mandates more and more instruction for students in how to be pro-“tolerance” and pro-homosexual behavior. The popular culture is awash with those same messages, while a frightening number of parents, pastors and churches continue to maintain their own discreet silence on what is fast-becoming the pre-eminent social, legal and political issue of our times.
All that hush-hush from the devout leaves our young people deeply vulnerable to those with the agenda -- which is why the “Day of Truth,” sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, is such an important event on campuses all over the country.
Scheduled for April 27 (one day following the “Day of Silence”), “Day of Truth” is an ideal opportunity for young people to make a strong, thoughtful, outspoken response to the tacit lies and subtle intimidations put forth on the “Day of Silence.”
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:21 PM | Comments (47)
Oprah Opens My Eyes
Posted by Fresh Politics
I was at the gym earlier today, thinking about what I was planning to write today. I had a number of ideas earlier this week, running the spectrum from gas prices to health care. But as I was pedaling away on the bike, watching Oprah as I usually do, all of my ideas seemed rather insignificant. Oprah's show was on the plight of children in Uganda and Sudan.
I consider myself to be fairly well-informed. I try to pay attention to affairs both foreign and domestic. Yet, I must confess that the things I have heard about what is happening in African nations has seemed overwhelming, and I have had a difficult time keeping it all straight.
So I get how many people just don't seem to think about what is happening. But once your eyes are opened to the horrors in Uganda and Sudan, you can't ignore it -- and that's how I'm feeling right now. I urge you to go to Oprah's website to see for yourself: http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200604/20060426/slide_20060426_284_101.jhtml. While the atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region have been publicized, I knew very little about what was happening in northern Uganda until today. There, conflict has been present for nearly two decades as the Lord's Resistance Army ("LRA") has fought against the Ugandan government. The LRA has been accused of many atrocities, including abducting children and forcing them to be soldiers and sex slaves. Children, called "night commuters" or "night walkers," walk at night to larger towns in an effort to keep from being abducted by the LRA. Oprah's show featured interviews with survivors, and the brutality they witnessed and experienced is mind numbing.
In comparison, complaining about having to pay $3.00 a gallon for gas seems a bit trivial. After all, when we tuck our children into bed at night, we don't have to worry about someone taking them to fight in their insurrection.
Yet, as a nation, we seem to be doing nothing. The logic behind our invasion of Iraq has undergone many makeovers, and the current meme is that we were bringing democracy to the Iraqi people and saving them from the evils of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was certainly a brutal man, but he certainly was not alone. Where is our voice for the people of northern Uganda and Darfur?
One of Oprah's guests, who founded "Invisible Children" with his friends, contends that this would never be allowed to happen in America. When he shared this with others, however, he was told that "this is Africa" and you can't compare America and Africa.
I contend that the essence of America is that people are not doomed to suffer a particular fate simply because of where they were born or what family they were born to. Further, Christianity teaches us to have love and compassion for all. We cannot -- and should not -- allow this to continue.
Our politicians have said little and done less, but it is because we have been voiceless. America can be a leader in this crisis and a voice for the silenced. Let us not forget that they answer to us, and if enough of us demand action, they will take it.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:42 AM | Comments (8)
April 21, 2006
Calling All Fiscal Conservatives: If You Want to Stay the Course, Pay as You Go: Raise Taxes $10 Billion a Month for Iraq War
Posted by Faithful Progressive
What a waste! There is so much that needs to be done in the U.S. and abroad, but instead our money has been wasted on a failed policy in Iraq and a lack of will to see the job though in Afghanistan . Here's my solution: put it to the voters. Let's have an up or down vote in the Congress on raising taxes 100 billion dollars to actually pay for these costs rather than sticking it to the next generation. Up or down: if you want to stay the course, pay as you go! Come on, fiscal conservatives, what do you say?
Unforeseen Spending on Materiel Pumps Up Iraq War Bill:
With the expected passage this spring of the largest emergency spending bill in history, annual war expenditures in Iraq will have nearly doubled since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.
The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.
Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected.
"We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many [heavily] armored vehicles that we have, nor did we have a good prediction about what our battle losses would be," Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Steven M. Kosiak, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' director of budget studies, said, "If you look at the earlier estimates of anticipated costs, this war is a lot more expensive than it should be, based on past conflicts."
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:14 AM | Comments (13)
April 20, 2006
A Greener Faith
Posted by Jesus Politics
Roger Gottlieb, author of A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future, talks about the growing movement of environmental activism based on faith. One of the best outcomes of this movement is that it has the very real potential of uniting Christians who are often polarized by other more intractable cultural and political divisions. Some excerpts from an interview Roger Gottlieb gave to The American Prospect:
[interviewer] How did a desire for environmental protection get left off the so-called “culture-of-life” agenda of the religious right?
[Roger Gottlieb] Well, it may have been left off that of the religious right, but not that of the religious thinker who developed the idea: Pope Jean Paul II. He addressed environmental issues in many of his writings, along with capitalism, abortion, social justice, and other matters. The central idea in much of his work is that modern advanced society is really a culture of death.
I personally would disagree with him on the abortion question, but much of what he says outside of abortion would make good sense to a lot of people on the left. In 2000, he wrote that unspoiled nature can return to being “the sister of humanity,” That is a radical change from the history of Christianity, which often expressed contempt for people who viewed the earth as in any way sacred. But environmentalism moves religions to much greater ecumenism, as well as to the left politically.
You should remember that the entire environmental justice movement owes much to the United Church of Christ, which published the landmark study Toxic Wastes in the United States, organized the first national meeting on environmental racism, and thus helped bridge the gap between conservationists and people interested in more familiar social justice issues. The whole idea of environmental racism and environmental justice permeates global environmentalism now. President Clinton even passed an executive order requiring the federal government to take the issue seriously in policy decisions. This is just one of the ways in which religious groups have furthered environmentalism.
Of course, many on the right think environmentalists are a bunch of liberals or radicals. And for the most part they’re right! Yet since the environmental crisis threatens everyone, some people who are otherwise conservative are coming around. While you’ve got guys like [Focus on the Family head] James Dobson who oppose the idea of global warming, 87 other evangelical leaders recently came out in a full-page N.Y. Times ad saying we all have to “take this very seriously”—and then founded the Evangelical Climate Initiative to pursue the issue. [ ]
[interviewer] One major schism in the religious community seems to center on differing interpretations of the Bible verse proclaiming that man shall “have dominion” over the Earth. How do you reach those who see this clause as a license to exploit the Earth to our maximal benefit?
[Roger Gottlieb] Anybody who wants to hang a political position on one verse in the Bible is not reading it seriously. You have to take a more inclusive view of the text. It’s clear from the Bible that the Earth belongs to God, not Exxon. It’s clear that vast accumulation of wealth is not what religions are supposed to be about. Certain psalms portray nature as having spiritual subjectivity. The second creation story, where Adam is put in the garden to tend and serve, could be viewed as a model of stewardship. Religious environmentalists tend to read these texts in a new way, one that portrays people as God’s representatives on Earth and which sees the many ways in which God is described as valuing the Earth and says that’s what we should be doing as well. [ ]
[interviewer] Where do you see this movement going in the future, and what are the implications of an increasingly globalized world for the religious environmental movement?
[Roger Gottlieb] Globalization poses a basic question: are people only consumers, and is the Earth only a cache of resources to be consumed? Religious values say no, we aren’t and it isn’t! And I think religious environmentalism helps people wonder whether things like subsistence labor or local production can sometimes be may be more rational than the dominant commodity export model, better for the well being of humans and the planet as a whole. It’s clear that the current globalization benefits a relatively small percentage of people, and it’s clear that another world is possible. But whether we can make it happen, well … God alone knows.
And I think that people of different faiths as well as secularists will find basic agreements in environmentalism, and in the anti-globalization movement. Most environmentalists have a sense of reverence about the Earth, a sense that something here is priceless. That kind of response gives us all some common ground.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:56 PM | Comments (7)
Crashing the Gate and Sounding the Alarm
Posted by Fresh Politics
I'm an avid fan of Daily Kos, so I was looking forward to reading Crashing the Gate, the book by founder Markos Moulitsas and MyDD.com founder Jerome Armstrong. If you don't have it yet, get it and read it (go to: http://www.chelseagreen.com/2005/items/crashingthegate). The book takes a good hard look at the Democratic party -- where it has gone wrong and where it needs to go in the future. It is highly critical of the Democratic establishment, which is stuck in another time and has failed to adapt, or even recognize, today's reality.
Reading the book, it is hard not to become overwhelmingly depressed at the state of our nation. And not just at the corruption of many Republican leaders and their obsessive focus on their own interests, which never seem to mesh with what's good for the rest of the country. But the way they have been able to sell their message to so many people who don't recognize that they are voting against their interests. They have cleverly funded organizations and mentored their young leaders, providing a network and support that has worked so well for them.
As brilliant as the right's success is, the left's inability to recognize their failings and adapt to today's times is destructive and frustrating. One issue in particular struck a chord -- the lack of mentorship and reasonable pay for those working for progressive organizations. The authors write:
"Without a doubt, there is very little mentorship in progressive organizations, because the money and the attitude are both lacking. They treat employees as though they should be happy to working something 'meaningful,' even if it means living in poverty. There is an institutional hostility toward paying professionals -- activists, writers, researchers, organizers, PR staffers, fundraisers, and so on -- market rates for their work."
This is not an issue for the right: "The pay is good, ensuring they keep their brightest and best, and creates a draw for talent from outside the conservative movement. No one ever failed to pay their rent or gave up eating out because they worked at a conservative organization."
This distaste for adequate compensation in progressive circles is pervasive. There is an almost self-congratulatory air that we have sacrificed in order to work for the greater good. But what does it get us? There are many bright and motivated people who would love to put their talents to use for progressive causes, but they can't afford to do so. We limit our talent pool by refusing to pay people what they are worth, and institutionalize the devaluation of our talent and energy. Feeling good doesn't feed a family. It's time to change the way we operate.
Crashing the Gate encourages us to think differently about how to advance progressive issues. And despite the incredible frustration I felt with the Democratic party while reading the book, I also came away feeling hopeful for the future. I think most people in this country care about the same things progressives care about, and the book suggests this as well. It's not a question of changing people's minds about the issues but rather a question of getting the right people to address the issues (like the environment) that most of us care about. It's about whether progressive organizations and activists can work together, even when they don't agree on every issue, because progressives in office advance all of our causes.
The Democratic party as a whole, but progressives too, need to wake up to today's reality. Crashing the Gate sounds the alarm that we should all be waking up to.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 03:16 AM | Comments (7)
April 19, 2006
A Voice for Missions
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Guest Blogger r. Johnson:
Easter is a reminder of the resurrection. With Easter so fresh on our minds, I have been thinking not just of Easter and all of its meaning, but also of the of the events that followed Jesus' resurrection. I am not a theologian or a historian of the time of Christ, but it is said that following the resurrection, the apostles remained in Palestine for some time preaching the Gospel. After a few years of preaching in Palestine, they were persecuted under Herod and they then spread out through the Roman Empire: Simon Peter went to Antioch and Corinth; Andrew to Asia Minor, James reportedly to the Iberian Peninsula, and Matthew reportedly to Turkey. The list goes on. For Evangelical Christians, the travels of the apostles and the spreading of the gospel stands as a model for spreading the word of God.
My great grandfather followed that model. Thomas Johannes Bach immigrated to the United States from Denmark and became a missionary in South America. Today marks the 100 year anniversary of the start of his work in Venezuela and Columbia on behalf of the Scandinavian and Alliance Mission, now TEAM. He never wasted an opportunity to tell others of his beliefs. These days, the notion of witnessing to others and the term 'Evangelical Christian' have become synonymous with the Religious Right and Pat Robertson or televangelists. To some, the word 'Christian' raises a negative connotation. The Religious Right has seemingly stolen the name 'Christian' in the public arena. Perhaps it is fitting that these events, Easter and the anniversary of my great grandfather's work in South America, coincide with my post here today. Just as Jesus Christ faced a 'religious establishment' in the Pharisees and the Sadducees, we face the Religious Right. Just as the apostles and missionaries have spread the word, so too must we spread the word of God.
We must stand and bear witness to a God of love, compassion and forgiveness. We must bear witness to the message of Jesus of ministering to the needs of the poor, the sick and the powerless. We must bear witness to a God who welcomes all. When the Religious Right preaches war, we must bear witness to Christ's message of non-violence. Today, bearing witness to a God of love and forgiveness, a God who cares for the sick and the poor, in many cases means countering the image of the Religious Right. In many ways, that is our mission today.
I am thankful for the Christian Alliance for Progress and all of its work undertaken to 'reclaim Christianity.' Today, the day after Easter, is a reminder that we are all missionaries, one way or another.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 09:48 PM | Comments (11)
April 14, 2006
War Games Urge Caution on Any Military Move Against Iran
Posted by Faithful Progressive
As the war in Iraq was just starting to unfold in March of 2003, Fred Kaplan at Slate wrote a great piece setting forth how the Iraq insurgency had been predicted in official US military war games. But, true to form, the Pentagon brass didn't want to hear these discouraging results. War-Gamed: Why the Army shouldn't be so surprised by Saddam's moves:
(Lt. Gen. William) Wallace said, "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against." In fact, however, militia fighters did play a crucial role in a major war game designed to simulate combat in Iraq—but the Pentagon officials who managed the game simply disregarded or overruled the militias' most devastating moves.
Now, writing in the May Atlantic, James Fallows has a piece about the war games associated with a potential military action against Iran. The results are similarly daunting for those who are rattling sabers in that direction. Let's hope the Pentagon is listening this time--neither our beloved US troops nor the rest of the world can not afford another misguided American military action.
The Nuclear Power Beside Iraq:
The experts disagreed on some details but were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy. When exposed to “What then?” analysis, this plan (or a variant in which the United States looked the other way while Israel did the job) held more dangers than rewards for the United States. How could this be, given America’s crushing strength and wealth relative to Iran’s? There were three main problems:
* The United States was too late. Iran’s leaders had learned from what happened to Saddam Hussein in 1981, when Israeli F-16s destroyed a facility at Osirak where most of his nuclear projects were concentrated. Iran spread its research to at least a dozen sites—exactly how many, and where, the U.S. government could not be sure.
* The United States was too vulnerable. Iran, until now relatively restrained in using its influence among the Iraqi Shiites, “could make Iraq hell,” in the words of one of our experts, Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution. It could use its influence on the world’s oil markets to shock Western economies—most of all, that of the world’s largest oil importer, the United States.
* The plan was likely to backfire, in a grand-strategy sense. At best, it would slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. But the cost of buying that time would likely be a redoubling of Iran’s determination to get a bomb—and an increase in its bitterness toward the United States.
That was the situation nearly two years ago. Everything that has changed since then increases the pressure on the United States to choose the “military option” of a pre-emptive strike—and makes that option more ruinously self-defeating.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 12:18 PM | Comments (17)
April 13, 2006
Remembering William Sloane Coffin
Posted by Jesus Politics
Rev. William Sloane Coffin was a Christian minister who applied his faith in a very direct way in the cause of social justice. Coffin's voice is very much needed today. Coffin has left a legacy worth exploring and emulating. Some Coffin quotes from an interview he gave with PBS in 2004:
And now, of course, fear has taken hold, and in life you can either follow your fears or be led by your values, by your passions. Now we have an administration which sponsors fear -- of immigrants, homosexuals, crime, terrorists particularly.
Unfortunately the churches now are pretty much down to therapy and management. There's very little prophetic fire in the churches.
I think most people prefer certainty to truth, and when they feel insecure and want to secure themselves against a sense of insecurity, they engage in what psychiatrists call "premature closure." They close off too early. I'm often asked what I think of the Christianity of President Bush. I think his God is too small. After all, it's a profound Christian conviction that we all belong one to another, every one of us on the face of the Earth -- from the pope to the loneliest wino, and that's the way God made us.
How, for instance, can the president call Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the axis of evil when all of humanity suffers immeasurably more from environmental degradation, pandemic poverty, and a world awash with weapons? Our God is too small, and then our God is much too nationalistic. A good patriot is not a nationalist. What really puzzles me about the Christian Right is how they can applaud the messianic militarism of the president, a kind of divinely ordained cleansing fire of violence, all in the name of Jesus Christ, the mirror opposite of the Jesus we find in the four Gospels.
I would like to say that for the president to offer a constitutional amendment is very painful. He believes that all people are not created equal, not if they're gays and lesbians. And he wants a constitutional amendment to reinforce the inequality. That's a cruel, cruel thing to do. If he had any more feel for what the suffering of the gay and lesbian crowd is all about, if he'd just be available to the suffering, he'd understand that it's not their outward expression, it's the inner connection that really counts. And he ought to know that straights have not cornered the market on life-sustaining, deep-caring love. Gays can do that just as well as straights. It's like Christians and Jews. They are different -- not different up, not different down, just different. Gays and straights, they're different. Not different up, not different down, just different. And what the world needs is a pluralistic vision of love, if we're going to survive.
Justice is at the heart of religious faith. It's not something that is tacked on. And justice is not charity. Charity tries to alleviate the effects of injustice. Justice tries to eliminate the causes of injustice. Charity is a personal disposition. Justice is public policy. What this country needs, what I think God wants us to do, is not practice piecemeal charity but engage in wholesale justice. And that's not only to erase or greatly reduce the wage gap and the living standards in America, but really to be committed to doing something about the horrible, really horrible poverty of at least one third of the people on the planet. If you want to do something good for national security, and every American should, take billions of dollars and wage war against world poverty. That would have a very sobering effect on terrorism. Terrorism now has a wonderful recruitment policy supplied by the United States foreign policy. If we were serious, with other nations, to engage the war on poverty around the world, that would stem the flow of recruits to the ranks of terrorists.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:18 PM | Comments (3)
Give Him A Slap On The Wrist
Posted by Fresh Politics
The man in the audience at President Bush's question and answer session in Charlotte, North Carolina said it all. So why is it so hard for our senators to support something as mild as censure?
I know that Senator Feingold's censure resolution applies only to the illegal wiretapping program. But let's consider the context. For sure, any president engaged in an illegal activity should face the appropriate consequence. Yet, I could see how it would be difficult to support punishing a popular president who has otherwise been a successful leader (though perhaps even this, too, is a departure from reality -- several Democratic senators supported the censure of President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky debacle, but have been frustratingly silent when it comes to censuring President Bush on the wiretapping issue).
My question is -- why?
This is a president who has disregarded the Constitution to do what he wants. He has lied to the American people to get support for the war he wanted. He has used deeply personal issues to drive a wedge through the people and divide the country, for the gain of his party. He has authorized the selective leaking of false information to perpetuate his version of Iraq. He does not go to military funerals for those who have put themselves in harm's way. He has not renounced the torture of prisoners. He has refused to recognize any mistakes he has made, and in doing so, has not tried to rectify those mistakes and make things better.
He has not protected us.
With all of these problems, censuring President Bush for his illegal wiretapping program seems basically like a slap on the wrist. It's just the tip of the iceberg of things we could be complaining about. Why, then, are Democratic leaders so afraid to hold him accountable?
Posted by Fresh Politics at 05:46 AM | Comments (10)
April 10, 2006
Dear Mr. President
Posted by Public Theologian
Well, I hate to do two columns in a row about a similar topic but I can’t help myself. My prayer for more hard-hitting politically-charged music has already been heard. Listen to the new song by The Indigo Girls and Pink. "Dear Mr. President.".
This actually makes the Dixie Chicks look like pikers, but then Pink and the IG have long been known for telling it like it is. There are so many conglomerates who run the radio industry these days that this will not get much airplay on its own. But that might change if we all got together and started calling our local top 40 radio stations and began requesting the song. I would be very interested to hear from readers who do this. You might have to get several friends to join you in this effort and it might take you a little bit of time to get through as the teeny-boppers trying to get the latest P. Diddy song played for the billionth time may clog the lines. But stick with it and let’s see if we can get it to go. This is a song America is ready—and desperately needs-- to hear.
Posted by Public Theologian at 01:07 AM | Comments (4)
April 06, 2006
"To Whom Much is Given, Much is Required:" Christians Challenge Unethical Tax Cuts
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Over the last five years, taxes were slashed for the top two percent of Americans--this is the major reason that the Clinton Budget Surplus is now the huge Bush Budget Deficit. The Me Generation of wealthy Republicans feel no need to pay taxes to contribute to the public good. The tax debate needs to be re-framed to expose the selfish ethic that guides the low taxes for the rich mentality that will force our kids to pay the debts of the Me First Bush Presidency. Does the Bible offer a values-based rationale for progressive taxation? This article in the most recent issue of the Milwaukee weekly the Shepherd Express suggests that it does. And law prof Susan Pace Hamill of the University of Alabama has already shown that this ethic has the power to change policy. (Scroll down below Walker story.)
How Would Jesus Tax and Spend? Christian perspectives on taxes and wealth:
By Lisa Kaiser
Budget making is usually left to politicians, economists, tax analysts and policy wonks. But another group wants to participate—Christians.
“I believe, personally, that only a spiritual, faith-based approach has a chance of challenging the sin of greed,” said Professor Susan Pace Hamill of the University of Alabama, a tax expert with a degree in theology who attempted to change Alabama’s tax code so that it would be more in line with Judeo-Christian principles. Hamill will be in Milwaukee on April 7 to speak about her Christian-based critique of tax cuts that favor the wealthy as part of a forum on the proposed Taxpayers Protection Amendment.
"Taxes as a Moral Obligation
Hamill has developed a devastating critique of Bush’s tax cuts from both fiscal and theological perspectives. She argues that based on the principles of biblical justice, all citizens—not just those who were born to wealthy families—deserve a reasonable opportunity to develop their potential. She feels that it’s immoral to cut taxes for the wealthy while slashing funding for education, health care and basic social services.
Hamill explained that paying taxes is a moral obligation, especially for the wealthy.
“Taxes are essential because of our greed,” she said. “Under the biblical principles of ‘to whom much is given, much is required’ there must be a moderately progressive sharing of that burden.”
Hamill said charity isn’t enough. “I believe that with a few exceptions, the wealthier you get, the more of a problem greed is,” she said. “You don’t get naturally more generous, you get naturally more stingy.”
She said that even though Bush is an evangelical Christian, his tax policy is based on an atheistic set of values—Ayn Rand’s objectivism, which favors the individual over the community.
“This whole business of ‘what’s mine is mine’—where’s God in that picture?” she said.
“On the other hand, there is a mysterious balance of individuality and communal obligation in the biblical imperatives of justice.”
The article also mentions the story that we broke here first: the Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress letter to the state's US House delegation:
The proposed federal budget for 2007 is getting a Christian critique, too...(T)he Wisconsin chapter of Christian Alliance for Progress..was so disturbed by President Bush’s proposed cuts to the federal budget that it sent a letter to Wisconsin’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. In the letter, the group urges our lawmakers to protect programs such as Head Start and housing assistance for the elderly and disabled, and to reject Bush’s proposal to kick 300,000 people off of food stamps.
“These cuts have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility,” the letter states. “They are being made so that Congress can enact more tax breaks that are very heavily tilted toward the wealthy and that actually increase the federal deficit.”
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:26 PM | Comments (12)
Defining Wetlands to Death
Posted by Fresh Politics
Good to know how great the Bush Administration has been for the environment. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, and Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, celebrated the historic increase in our nation's wetlands in a press conference last week. This was the first net increase since 1954, when the government started tracking the information. From the press release available on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
"This report, prepared as part of President Bush's initiative to stem the loss of wetlands, is good news not only for biologists but for all of us. We all depend on wetlands as the nurseries of life," Norton said. "Although the overall state of our wetlands is still precarious, this report suggests that nationwide efforts to curb losses and restore wetland habitats are on the right track. A multitude of government, private and corporate cooperative conservation efforts helped the nation reach this milestone. We hope it will become a turning point."http://news.fws.gov/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=4BFAFC6A-FA42-FEC1-2BE06F34FC1C81E2
Sounds pretty good...did we get on the right track while I wasn't looking? Maybe I was a little hard on the Bush Administration, thinking it cared more about the super rich and corporations than the average American or protecting our nation's resources. The press release notes that the report does not include wetland loss from Hurricane Katrina. OK. Where did the good news come from?
The report details a smaller loss of natural vegetated wetlands than in previous periods and substantial acreage gains in wetlands that include man-made ponds such as water traps on golf courses recreational or decorative ponds in residential areas, and storm water retention ponds. The shallow-water category also includes fish ponds and similar water areas.
Wow! Who knew? Golf courses and McMansion subdivisions are good for the environment after all.
What's not so cheery is that there are two very important cases before the United States Supreme Court that could have a significant impact on wetlands protection under the Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on these cases -- Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- on February 21st. In a nutshell (please note, this is a quick summary -- for more detailed information, go to www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=1120"), these cases deal with the issue of whether wetlands are "navigable waters of the United States." This has been rather broadly defined in the past, but the issue raised in these cases goes directly to the heart of the government's authority under the Clean Water Act. If the Supreme Court narrows the definition, then it would limit the power and scope of the Clean Water Act. Rapanos and Carabell are important cases: four former EPA Administrators and over 30 state Attorneys General filed amicus briefs supporting the the interpretation that wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act.
Even taking the Administration's loose definition of wetlands with a grain of salt, these cases remind us that there is a lot at stake, and we need to take the health of our nation's wetlands seriously. For most of us, a golf course water trap isn't what first comes to mind when we think of a wetland. Depending on what happens at the Supreme Court, next year's press conference may not be quite as celebratory. We may dig ourselves into a pit that a few thousand golf courses won't be able to fix.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 04:29 AM | Comments (2)
April 05, 2006
The Religious Left
Posted by Jesus Politics
Steven Waldman at Slate Magazine writes about the religious left. He divides the religious left into Bible thumping liberals, pious peaceniks, ethnic churchgoers, conflicted Catholics, and religious feminists. Waldman believes the religious left is getting better organized and may help the democrats win back the White House in 2008.
Some excerpts:
Lo and behold, there is a religious left. The Catholic Church is helping to lead the fight against immigration restrictions. A week doesn't seem to pass without some group convening a conference on religion and liberalism. Last year, Rev. Jim Wallis' progressive manifesto, God's Politics, became a best seller; now Jimmy Carter's book attacking the religious right is on the list.
According to research by professor John Green, white religious voters made up 21 percent of Kerry's tally, compared to 11 percent for Al Gore in 2000. If you add African-Americans and Latinos, who as a group are also very religious and liberal, the religious left amounted to about 40 percent of the Kerry vote. Not surprisingly, the religious lefties are seething over the religious right's political dominance. But they're also frustrated by their secular ideological comrades. The political left "often sees religion not merely as mistaken but as fundamentally irrational, and it gives the impression that one of the most important elements in the lives of ordinary Americans is actually deserving of ridicule," complains Rabbi Michael Lerner in his new book, The Left Hand of God. "The Left's hostility to religion is one of the main reasons people who otherwise might be involved with progressive politics get turned off." [ ]
In sum, though, after years of being fractured and relatively impotent, the religious left now seems organized and energized. Where abortion and gay marriage threatened to divide them a few years ago, opposition to the Iraq war and immigration restrictions now unite them. This is not necessarily good news for secular liberals, who tend to think that all the religious mumbo-jumbo entails a dangerous mixing of church and state. But they may swallow their distaste if they think it will help them win elections.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:35 PM | Comments (16)
