| Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive |
May 26, 2006
The Elite of These: Estate Tax Repeal Threatens Basic Fairness
Posted by Faithful Progressive
This Congress can't do enough for the Very Rich. After passing a $70 billion tax cut that goes mostly to the wealthiest Americans, and raising taxes on kids saving for college, Congress is already lining up to do more for the Elite of These. Congress is now debating repealing the estate tax, which affects just the richest one-quarter of one percent of the population. This makes no sense in light of the budget deficit and the cuts in human services required by previous tax cuts.
From the UCC weekly action alert:
Repeal of the estate tax is included in the President’s FY 2007 budget, despite estimates that it would cost nearly one trillion dollars in lost revenue to the federal budget over ten years. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is planning to bring the repeal vote to the Senate floor and the bill would need 60 votes to pass under Senate rules.
Currently, only estates larger than $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple are subject to the estate tax. The estate tax is the most income proportional provision of the tax code. Only about one percent of estates are assessed estate taxes and the high personal exemptions guarantee that very few family farms or family-owned and operated small businesses with most of their assets tied up in land and capital are subject to the estate tax. Repealing the tax will shift even more tax burden to the already heavily taxed middle class and working Americans. Senators in favor of repeal are supported by a $500 million lobbying coalition and advertising campaign financed by 18 of the wealthiest families in the U.S. who call the estate tax the “death tax.” This tax cut would seriously undermine our ability to fund education, meet the growing fiscal challenges of an aging population, and pay for social services to eliminate poverty.
Repealing the estate tax would also have a major impact on churches, public universities and community-based organizations by removing an important incentive in the tax code for charitable giving. Recent studies estimate that U.S. charities could lose $13 to 25 billion in donations per year or more if the estate tax is repealed.
Click here to oppose efforts to repeal the estate tax bill and to oppose any reform of the estate tax that does not preserve a major portion of the estate tax revenue for future generations.
For more information about why estate tax repeal is not good policy, visit here, the website of one of the UCC’s coalition partners
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 11:46 AM | Comments (13)
The Takeover of America’s Churches
Posted by Jesus Politics
The State of Belief radio show in conjunction with the Talk to Action blog put on a special program last Sunday focusing on the way the Christian Right has orchestrated and is orchestrating the takeover of various protestant denominations. Thanks to Renee in Ohio for transcribing the program for her Religious Left Blog. Some excerpts:
Gaddy: Let me ask all three of you. This takeover movement of Christian denominations, is this a religious movement or is it a political movement?
Weaver: There is not a grassroots movement to do this. The money overwhelmingly--and it is "follow the money"--come from people *outside* these communions.
Gaddy: What is the motivation? What do they want to do?
Weaver: It is primarily a political motivation. Just as the right wing is trying to affect the court system, the educational system-- These churches were the primary bulwark against many of the right wing causes under Reagan. And they decided after that, when they saw these United Methodist, United Church of Christ and the others being effective, they became the targets.
Welton: Dr. Dorhauer, is that the way you see it?
Dorhauer: Absolutely. I do want to say, though, that although Andrew's right about the money coming from politically motivated individuals, the truth is, about those experiencing this in the local church, many of them are unaware of that political motivation and that political connection. They're being fed material from outside sources, and they don't know where that material's coming from. But that material fuels the fire in the local church. And the other thing I want to point out is that in those local churches where those fired are being fueled by this material, the pastors all of a sudden find themselves unwilling to speak about issues that they know are going to raise this level of conflict. And so, what the politically motivated achieve is the silence of the religious-conscious voice that has historically led this country, and that has challenged some of the more strident political voices that have gone out over the edge. And those voices are being silenced today. [ ]
Gaddy: Dr. Prescott, how do you see that?
Prescott: What I think is happening is that they're keeping the mainline congregations in turmoil with wedge issues, and then that allows people that have a secular political agenda to accomplish whatever it is that they're trying to do. I think when you talk about the Institute of Religion and Democracy, you're talking about Catholic neoconservatives who've got some of the same ultimate political goals as neoconservatives in the religious right. And not even the *religious* right--they just are *right*. And they're accomplishing those objectives by keeping the mainline congregations' voices silent.
Gaddy: Some of you have written, or maybe all of you have written, about the hookup between this takeover movement and Christian Reconstructionism movement, and the Dominionist movement related to that. My guess is, a lot of listeners to State of Belief are not familiar with those terms and those organizations. Give us a very quick introduction to them.
Weaver: Well, Howard Ahmanson is at the core of this. He's a billionaire, whose wife sits on the IRD board. They are big contributors to Christian Reconstructionism. Howard Ahmanson for 23 years was on the Chalcedon Institute board. He is the primary funder. They believe that we should not have a democracy but we need to have a twisted sense of Calvinist theocracy, in which among other things, people like everyone on this radio show should be stoned to death because we don't share their religious beliefs out of literalism out of Deuteronomy. Gays should be stoned to death, and incorrigible children. [ ]
Gaddy: So there is a partisan political component to this movement, and it is Republican?
Oh, absolutely. I think that two things are going on at the same time. I think that there are those with political aspirations, who have no real theological bent whatsoever, who benefit from that kind of paranoia that is fed by those from the Religious Right, and I think they use that to their advantage. I think that those at the core of this Dominionist Christian Reconstructionist movement also use those on the political right to *their* advantage.
Gaddy: The other problem is that there are many people saying "You're making too much of this. It's only a tempest in a teapot, it will go away." The SBC was lost, not because of those trying to take it over, but because of people arguing that it wasn't a big deal, and people came in.
Weaver: Naivite is at the core of this. All these traditions have niceness at the core, and are taught to be nice. While we've been thinking it's touch football, they've been playing tackle. [ ]
Gaddy: (after interview is over)
They represent three Protestant denominations, but they've all spoken of the same experience. And friends, I can assure you that what's going on in those three denominations is going on in other Christian denominations, and in fact in many of the historic religious traditions that call our country home. It seems like all over the world, rabid fundamentalist, literalist interpreters of scriptures are trying to claim the center of religious traditions. [ ]
If there's one thing that we've learned from all of these stories and from what we've heard on today's show, it is that ideological corruption of a house of worship *anywhere* is a threat to the integrity of houses of worship *everywhere*. [ ]
The only way to combat the push to politicize religion, is to start speaking openly about what we've experienced. I hope today's show is only the beginning of a much-needed national conversation.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 12:38 AM | Comments (57)
May 25, 2006
Abstaining From Facts
Posted by Fresh Politics
Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed a bill earlier this week that would require sex education teachers to teach abstinence as the preferred way to prevent unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. As a practical matter, this is certainly true. As such, abstinence has a crucial role in today’s American sex ed classroom.
It just shouldn’t have the only role. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 60% of teenage girls and 70% of teenage boys have had sex by the time they turn 18. Not only is it completely unrealistic to think that all teens will abstain from sex until marriage, but it does them a tremendous disservice to withhold the facts from them and promote only one method as the acceptable one.
There’s a difference between promoting abstinence as the preferred route rather than as the only route. Teaching abstinence as one option – emphasizing it as the only sure option, even – leaves room for teaching teens what to do if they choose to have sex. The rate of teen sexual activity in the United States is on par with other developed countries, such as Canada and Great Britain; yet, we have a higher rate of teenage pregnancy, primarily because US teens are less likely to use contraception. (See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html). Countries with lower rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases also had greater acceptance of teenage sexuality and provided more information about sexuality, contraception, and sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, a 1999 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute looked at the decline in the teenage pregnancy rate and found that ¾ of the decline was a result of the increase in the use of longer lasting and more effective contraception. Our teens deserve this information.
Additionally, the refusal of abstinence-only programs to provide accurate and reliable information on contraceptions smacks of sexism to me. To some degree, it is about adhering to stereotypical gender roles. This was certainly demonstrated in the report for California Representative Henry Waxman which analyzed the information in abstinence-only programs. One of the sources used helpfully informed students that “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.” (See link at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abonlyreports.htm). They also learned that men are “usually less discriminating about those to whom” they are attracted whereas “women usually have greater intuitive awareness of how to develop a loving relationship.” Such assertions distort the roles men and women play in intimate relationships, as well as what they can expect in a loving relationship. Further, in failing to provide information on contraception, teens (young women in particular) are disempowered and robbed of any real information on how to have control over their bodies in the event they choose to engage in sexual activity.
All of this started with the new Wisconsin law and, in fairness to Wisconsin, the state has not mandated an abstinence-only curriculum. Nevertheless, we should think about what we are teaching our children. If we focus heavily on abstinence and give short-shrift to alternatives, then we are not doing much better than if we ignored contraception altogether. We can, and should, promote abstinence as one option, but we need to tell the whole story. Looking at the statistics, we owe it to today’s teens to take our heads out of the sand and give them all of the facts.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 05:08 AM | Comments (24)
May 24, 2006
RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Rights and Responsibilities
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Dr. Bruce Prescott
Parental Rights and Responsibilities
1. Parents have the right to expect that instruction in public schools will maintain neutrality in regard to religion. All teaching about religion must be objective, balanced and non-devotional.
2. Parents have the right and responsibility to supervise the religious education and practices of their children.
3. Parents should not expect the public school curriculum to conform to the beliefs of any religion or sect. Those who believe that instruction in science and/or scientific methodology conflicts with their religious beliefs have a variety of options: 1) Children may be removed from public schools and placed in private schools or home schools that teach science in accord with the parent’s religious beliefs. 2) Parents may leave their children in public schools and see that their children get additional private instruction at home and/or their house of worship concerning accepted religious interpretations and understandings of science.
School Administration Rights and Responsibilities
1. School Administrators have the right to expect the respect of parents, students and the community. They have the right to expect that all will support a school system that respects the right of every parent to supervise the religious education and practices of their own children.
2. School Administrators have a responsibility to ensure that all religious exercises within a public school setting are voluntary and that no one could be singled out for disapprobation or ridicule for objecting to participating in a compulsory religious exercise. Public, communal prayers at assemblies, graduations and sporting events are prohibited. Moments for silent prayer and/or reflection are permissible.
Teacher Rights and Responsibilities
1. Teachers have the right to expect the respect of both parents and students. They have the right to expect parents to support measures to adequately compensate them in a measure that is proportional to the level of their proficiency and tenure within their profession.
2. Public school teachers represent the government when they are in the classroom. When acting in an official capacity, they have a responsibility to remain strictly neutral on matters of religion. Teachers who are on-duty are not free to lead public schools students in prayer and/or devotional Bible study.
3. Those teaching the scientific method and the natural sciences must do so without advocating any metaphysical understanding of ultimate reality.
4. Those teaching art, history, literature, music and the social sciences have a responsibility to incorporate information about the role of religion within their field of study in an objective, balanced and non-devotional way. Students should not feel pressured to accept or conform to any religion.
5. Whenever religious beliefs are discussed in the classroom, teachers have a responsibility to ensure that dialogue is conducted with civility and in a manner that respects the consciences of all participants.
6. When off-campus, out of the classroom, and not acting in an official capacity, public school teachers are free to pray publicly, lead Bible studies, speak about their faith, and engage in proselytizing activities.
Student Rights and Responsibilities
1. Students have the right to a free conscience. No one has the right to ridicule their religious beliefs.
2. Students have the responsibility to respect the consciences of others. Students may question, but not ridicule, the religious beliefs of others.
3. Students have the right to learn about the role of religion in art, literature, music, social sciences and in the history of civilizations without being pressured to accept or conform to any religion.
4. Students have the right to express their religious beliefs at appropriate times in a respectful manner. Within the classroom, students are not free to pressure others to accept or conform to religious beliefs or practices.
5. Students have the right to silently pray throughout the day as their class schedules permit.
6. Students have the right to pray, read the Bible, or read any other religious book of their choosing on a voluntary basis during their free time.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 12:40 PM | Comments (56)
Another 'milestone', same old story
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By r. Johnson
George Bush plans to announce another 'major milestone' in Iraq today, the inauguration of Iraq's new Cabinet. Exactly how this 'milestone' can be distinguished from the many 'milestones' that have preceded it is uncertain. With each 'milestone', we are presented with a glowing report of success in Iraq. Yet despite all of the 'success', the violence continues. The capture of Saddam? The handover of sovereignty from the CPA to Iraq? The elections of a transitional government? The drafting of the Iraqi constitution? The voting on the Iraqi constitution? The most recent elections? With each 'milestone' we are told that we are one step closer to "establishing democracy" in Iraq, and implicit in that statement is the notion that we are one step closer to an end to the armed conflict, and one step closer to bringing our troops home.
It is a politically expedient lie. I wish it were not so. I would be happy if the violence and bloodshed in Iraq ended with the adoption of a constitution or the naming of a cabinet, but I am a realist. Those waging an armed war are not engaging in a political resolution of this conflict. Even then, many of the 'political resolutions' have only increased the prospects of violence. In reality, a low level civil war has been on-going in Iraq for some time, and the government has been crippled by infighting. Our military projects a US presence in Iraq for at least another decade, and with conflict looming with Iraq's next door neighbor Iran, that projection may be extended.
These 'milestones' are designed to convince the American people of progress in Iraq, and the need to 'stay the course' and 'finish what we have started.' This milestone will pass, bringing about little change in Iraq, and in just a few short months, a new 'milestone' will be touted. Meanwhile, the same projection is made, again and again, by those on the right and on the 'left' : "we will see positive changes in the next six months." One step closer to 'victory' in a never ending war, or another six months of bloodshed with no end in sight? Six months from now, when the violence is still on-going, ask yourself how many more have died since the last 'milestone' was reached.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 12:38 PM | Comments (21)
May 18, 2006
Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy
Posted by Jesus Politics
Esther Kaplan, author of "With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right" and contributor to Talk to Action, has recently posted her thoughts about evangelicals and U.S. foreign policy. These thoughts come from her opening remarks at a debate with Richard Cizik, vice-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, sponsored by Bard College. Some excerpts:
On human rights issues, such as the genocide in Darfur, it's true that evangelicals have played a salutary role by joining with other people of faith to form a united front in calling for stronger international intervention. That said, I'd like to point to a few key areas where the conservative evangelical influence on U.S. foreign policy has been particularly toxic. [ ]
The problem is, while Bush may have cultivated the idea of a Holy War against Islam because it played so well among evangelicals at home--and it has--that message has been absorbed all too well by Muslims abroad. We see it in the Ahmadinejad letter. We see it in the recorded messages from Osama bin Laden. Bush's evangelical rhetoric is not only providing an alibi for an increasingly unjustifiable war, it is also, in effect, helping to mobilize attacks on the United States.
Even more disturbing, this evangelical view of the war has filtered into the conduct of the war itself. Inside military academies we have evangelical commanding officers forcibly proselytizing cadets. We have military chaplains in Iraq forcing soldiers to get baptized if they want a bath. We have missionaries such as Franklin Graham coming in behind the barrel of a gun and distributing Christianity with food aid. American evangelicals have already set up at least seven new evangelical churches in Iraq, whose proselytizing has inflamed tensions between Iraqi Christians and Muslims. We have a general, Gerry Boykin, overseeing intelligence-collecting operations in the war on terror, who has said publicly and repeatedly that the war on terror is a war against Satan--a war being fought by a Christian army. And given all this, not so surprisingly, we have military police torturing detainees not only with electroshock, stress positions, and waterboarding, but by using Christianity as a weapon against Islam, forcing devout Muslims to eat pork and drink alcohol, or in the words of one Abu Ghraib detainee, "They ordered me to curse Islam, and because they started to hit my broken leg, I cursed my religion. They ordered me to thank Jesus I'm alive. And I did what they ordered me." [ ]
While the majority of American Jews and the majority of Israelis support some kind of land-for-peace deal, conservative evangelicals have, on the whole, fought tooth and nail against Palestinian control over any portion of what they call Judea and Samaria. It is fair to call this influence disastrously obstructionist of any possibility for Israeli/Palestinian peace. [ ]
The problem, again, is not that Americans who are evangelicals are seeking to shape U.S. foreign policy. It is the nature of that influence, which is working to inflame Muslims in Iraq and beyond by sending the message that the U.S. is involved in a war on Islam, which is working to obstruct any peace between Israelis and Palestinians and prolonging a painful and deadly conflict there, which is working to exacerbate one of the worst epidemics in world history by placing religious values and ideology above saving human lives. Most importantly, the evangelical worldview has undermined our ability, as a nation, to have an open debate about the costs and consequences of these policies, because their stances, based in an inflexible reading of the Bible, are intransigent.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 08:37 AM | Comments (27)
Distant Relatives
Posted by Fresh Politics
My cousin and I were pretty close when we were growing up. He’s six months older than I am; as children, we spent many many weekends with our grandmother. Our personalities are pretty different – he’s an amazing schmoozer (he comes by it honestly, as anyone who knows that side of my family would agree) and loves team sports whereas I’m pretty introverted and could care less about college football scores – but we’ve always been able to connect on a lot of levels. In general, I think he’s a pretty decent guy.
So much so, that I almost forget our main area of contention: politics. He’s a Republican, I’m a progressive who votes Democratic. We’re both extremely political – we both couldn’t wait to vote in our first presidential election in 1992, and he called that November 3rd to offer his congratulations when Bill Clinton won. That started a tradition – he made the call in 1996, I made it in 2000. Our grandmother’s funeral was the day after the 2004 election, so I was excused.
When he called on Sunday to wish me a happy mother’s day, we had a pleasant conversation until it turned to politics. He started it with a “you liberals” rant on how high California state taxes are. I said that he’d find no sympathy from me since we just had to write a nice fat check to the federal government – money that I wouldn’t mind paying if I thought it was going to help the needy, but money I resent paying when it goes to tax cuts for the top one per cent. It went downhill from there, and we soon got off the phone.
After hanging up, though, I was left wondering: here is someone who I generally respect and get along well with, yet how have we come to have completely different political views? It seems unfathomable to me that he would care more about tax cuts than providing services to the neediest among us. Our differences were sharper to me than ever before, and I left the conversation thinking he had changed completely.
A few days later, I think that’s wrong. Rather, I believe that we approach politics from our own life perspectives. He works for an investment company and spends a large chuck of his time talking to fairly wealthy people who want to invest their money. I work with poor people all day – people at rock bottom who are faced with losing their housing. People who walk into my office worried that they won’t be able to put a roof over their children’s heads. People who sometimes walk out having lost their housing. I see the effects of poverty every day, and see the real people who are impacted by it. It can’t help but color my thinking.
A few weeks ago, a commenter mocked a line in my posting where I said I was watching Oprah as I usually do when I exercise at my gym. I purposefully said that because I meant to create the stark contrast between the issue I was writing about – the children in Uganda – and my comfortable suburban life. Similarly, every day I speak with people who are faced with a housing crisis who I may or may not be able to help. But at the end of the day, regardless of what I was able to do for them, I can go back to my home. It’s impossible for that not to make an impact – and so when I pay money to the federal government, I want it to go to the people I see every single day who need it. They’re not all trying to bilk the system or the mythical welfare queen driving a BMW. They are simply poor.
That’s my reality. For my cousin, it’s golf courses and the capital gains tax. I don’t know how, or even if, that could ever be changed. We both agree that President Bush is a poor leader, we both love our country and want things to improve. But we don’t agree on what that means, so in November, he’ll probably vote Republican and I’ll probably vote Democratic. He is a good person, and I do not believe he wants people to suffer. Yet, if he doesn’t see the effects of poverty, he doesn’t have to acknowledge that it exists. So the question remains: how do we reach people to see beyond their own reality and to do something meaningful to help those in need?
Posted by Fresh Politics at 05:54 AM | Comments (23)
May 16, 2006
Christian Aid: Climate change a 'deadly threat' /Action Opportunity
Posted by Faithful Progressive
The scale of the threat of global warming was set forth in a recent report from the group Christian Aid. c/o BBC News: Climate change a 'deadly threat'
The Christian Aid charity has warned that 184 million people in Africa alone could die as a result of climate change before the end of the century.
Climate-induced floods, famine, drought and conflict could reverse recent gains in reducing poverty, it says. Its report says rich nations must aid poorer ones to adopt non-fossil-fuel energy sources such as solar power.
The report comes as almost 190 states gather in Bonn, Germany, to discuss climate change.
The Christian Aid report, entitled The Climate of Poverty: Facts, Fears and Hopes, says rich countries must end their dependence on fossil fuels and aid poorer nations to switch to wind, solar and wave energies. "Climate change is taking place and will inevitably continue," the report says.
"Poor people will take the brunt, so we are calling on rich countries to help them adjust as the seas rise, the deserts expand, and floods and hurricanes become more frequent and intense."
The author of the report, John McGhie, said that for $50bn (£26bn) the whole of sub-Saharan Africa could be turned into a solar-generated economy.
"And $50bn is exactly the same amount as actually the continent would have to pay on extra fuel bills from oil," he said.
Take action c/o ELCA Advocacy:
The House Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, meanwhile, takes an important first step by calling for “a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.” Although Americans make up just 4 percent of the world's population, we produce 25 percent of the carbon dioxide pollution from fossil-fuel burning - by far the largest share of any country. In order for the United States to take a leading role in addressing climate change, Congress must pass legislation that places mandatory caps on U.S. emissions. This Wednesday, there will be a vote to strike this provision from the bill. Urge your Members of Congress to vote against striking the climate provision from the Interior and Environment bill.
Tell Congress to Protect Our Water and Reduce Greenhouse Gases!
Key Votes Expected on Interior Bill This Week
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:57 PM | Comments (9)
May 15, 2006
The Meaning of Mother’s Day
Posted by ChristianAlliance
by Guest Blogger r. Johnson
Mother's Day is a day in which we celebrate our mothers for bearing us, raising us, and loving us. We celebrate our spouses, the mothers of our children, and our grandmothers as well. While we recognize the common bonds that mothers everywhere share with their children, we tend to focus on our own mothers and our own loved ones when we celebrate this day. This day of celebration, however, was never intended to be so narrowly defined.
Following the Civil War, American abolitionist and social activist Julia Ward Howe proposed a day of peace. Howe protesting the carnage wrought by the Civil War, issued her Mother's Day Proclamation:
Mother's Day ProclamationMother's Day is about 'taking counsel with each other so that the great human family can live in peace, each learning after his own time, the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.' It is about mothers getting together and reinforcing bonds, so that there children do not 'unlearn' all that they have been taught of charity, mercy and patience. Maybe those values are not shared as widely as they once were, but the message still resonates today. Mothers hold their childrens hands for a short time, but their influence can last a lifetime.
Arise all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be that of water or of tears! Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says "Disarm, disarm! The Sword of murder is not the balance of justice." Blood does not wipe out dishonor nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead. Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each learning after his own time, the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.
In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.
- Julia Ward Howe, 1870
"Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience." When I think of my own mother, my wife, our children, all of my siblings and all of my nieces, nephews and relatives, I often think of this message. I think of mothers who stand firm .
To Julia Ward Howe and to the mothers of the world, happy Mother's Day
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 10:52 AM | Comments (2)
May 11, 2006
Our Godless Constitution
Posted by Jesus Politics
William Martin, a professor at Rice University, has written a paper on religion and politics in the United States. It is a nice defense of the principle of the separation of church and state. Many Christians in the US are attacking this principle and it is good to be reminded of its importance. Thanks to Mainstream Baptist for the link. Some excerpts from Martin's paper:
Almost everywhere in the world where people are at war, religion plays a role, usually a negative one. In this country, religion contributes to a growing and disturbing polarization. Still, though
not perfect in its record of religious tolerance, America has been remarkable in its success at avoiding faith-flavored wars and, overall, at granting freedom to a wide variety of religious expressions and practices over the past two centuries and a little more. [ ]
In an attempt to give some kind of official recognition to Christianity, some assemblymen tried to insert an acknowledgment of “Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” Though Jefferson
himself was in Paris at the time, he followed the progress of the debate closely in correspondence with Madison and, in his autobiography, he took retrospective pleasure in the fact that “the
insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination.” [ ]
That the Constitution was godless and opened the door for non-Christians to serve in government did not go unnoticed. Indeed, it was bitterly attacked for its failure to honor God and to give
Christianity a favored place. To abandon the ideal of a Christian Commonwealth was to invite God’s wrath or, at best, the withdrawal of his favor. A group of Massachusetts and New Hampshire ministers complained to George Washington that no “explicit acknowledgment of THE TRUE ONLY GOD AND JESUS CHRIST who he sent” had been “inserted somewhere in the Magna Carta of our country.” In newspapers, pamphlets, sermons, letters, and arguments in the ratification debates, troubled citizens complained that "pagans, deists (“abominable wretches”), and Mahometans [who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity] might obtain offices among us." “A Turk, a Jew, [a papist], and what is worse than all, a Universalist, may be
President of the United States.” A Quaker president could “deprive us of the means of defence” And since the Constitution stupidly gives command of the whole militia to the president, "should [the president] hereafter be a Jew, our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem." [ ]
In recent years, there has been a concerted effort on the part of many Christians, particularly those we commonly refer to as the Religious Right—mostly White Evangelical Christians involved in political activity on the right side of the spectrum—to claim that America was founded as a Christian Nation, that separation of church and state is a gross misreading of the Constitution and the intentions of the Founders, and that the First Amendment prohibition of a religious establishment refers solely to the governmental founding and support of a national church.
Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, James Dobson, David Barton and a host of others regularly claim that the Constitution was written to establish, promote, and perpetuate a Christian order, and that
secular humanists and other liberals, aided by activist courts, have subverted it, trying to turn America into a secular state. As a corollary, they call on Christians to retake governance and
return the nation to its intended nature as a Christian Commonwealth. (There are harder and softer versions of this view, but I believe the general characterization is fair.) [ ]
As they had since the ratification debates, many Christians continued to lament the dissociation between religion and government, particularly so in times of crisis. During perhaps the greatest of all national crises, the Civil War, a group of prominent churchmen
calling themselves the National Reform Association began pushing for a Constitutional amendment that would amount to rewriting the preamble “acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, The Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor
among the Nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government....etc.” A delegation of prominent members of the association visited President Lincoln in 1864 and asked him to support it in Congress. Lincoln said he needed to study the matter further, but he never got around to it.
Congress ignored it in 1864 and again in 1869. Major, but losing, efforts to insert Christ into the Constitution were made in 1894 and 1910, and in 1947 and 1954, the National Association of Evangelicals campaigned for such a measure. They have all failed, so far.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:48 PM | Comments (38)
Southern Baptist Seminary President calls for “Exit Strategy” from Public Schools
Posted by ChristianAlliance
By Dr. Bruce Prescott, Mainstream Baptist
Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and architect of the 2000 Baptist Creed (BF&M), has weighed in again with some Christian Dominionists clamoring for Christians to pull their children out of public schools. Here's a quote from Mohler’s previous call for an “exit strategy” from public schools:
I believe that now is the time for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools. This strategy would affirm the basic and ultimate responsibility of Christian parents to take charge of the education of their own children. The strategy would also affirm the responsibility of churches to equip parents, support families, and offer alternatives.
Those who know the history of the Religious Right might well perceive this as a logical outcome of a takeover movement that began simultaneously with the Religious Right's reaction to a 1978 IRS decision to deny tax exemptions to segregated Christian schools.
Bill Martin, in his book With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, documented an interview with Paul Weyrich, a key organizer of the Religious Right:
Paul Weyrich emphatically asserted that "what galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation." . . . The IRS threat "enraged the Christian community and they looked upon it as interference from the government, and suddenly it dawned on them that they were not going to be left alone to teach their children as they pleased. It was at that moment that conservatives made the linkage between their opposition to government interference and the interests of the evangelical movement, which now saw itself on the defensive and under attack by the government. That was what brought those people into the political process. It was not the other things."
Martin added corroboration from an interview with the son of another Religious Right organizer who said,
"If the Christian schools were to lose their tax-exempt status, Billings explained, "their tuition could conceivably double. When it becomes not just a moral or a conservative/liberal issue, but a pocketbook issue, you definitely take an interest. And they did. I don't know if I was really surprised. I knew that somewhere there was going to be something that would jolt these people into action. We'd been trying to encourage that."
Perhaps the SBC's attack on public schools will help jolt some more Baptists out of their lethargy about confronting the takeover of the Convention. It was never "just a preacher fight," it has always had undertones that can be traced back to the fundamentalists' dissatisfaction with the leadership of SBC moderates during the civil rights era.
It is not hard to discern the ultimate goal behind SBC takeover leaders' criticism of the public schools. The intention is to replace the public schools with a balkanized system of private, religious schools funded at taxpayer expense. The threat to democracy posed by such a system has long been recognized. In 1952 James Conant, then president of Harvard University, said:
A dual system of schools with tax money going in some form to private schools, would be harmful to our democratic traditions. Some critics of the public schools are not honest in their attacks -- they want to weaken public school education and sponsor privately controlled schools. We do not have and never had an established church. To my mind, our schools should serve all creeds. The greater the proportion of our youth who attend independent schools, the greater the threat to our democratic unity. Therefore, to use taxpayers' money to assist such a move is, for me, to suggest that American society use its own hands to destroy itself.
Using "our own hands" to destroy democracy, that is precisely what SBC Dominionists desire. To them, democracy is heresy. They are determined to create a Christian theocracy.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 04:46 PM | Comments (18)
Powering Corruption
Posted by Fresh Politics
Things are bad when three of the “Latest News” stories on mainstream news websites raise issues of questionable ethics among some of the most powerful people in our country. We have the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Alphonso Jackson, apologizing for remarks he made last month suggesting that he would refuse to award a contract to a critic of President Bush. There’s the ongoing trial of Jeffrey Skilling and Ken “Kenny Boy” Lay; today the judge said he would instruct jurors that deliberate ignorance of fraud is not a defense, giving prosecutors a nice victory in their quest to put away those two poster children of corporate slime. We can all breathe a huge sigh of relief now that the tax cuts have passed the House, keeping the bill on track to ensuring that the wealthiest 1% of the country won’t have to pay their share in the immediate future, while the poorest among us continue to struggle just to have their most basic needs met. And if the day is feeling a little slow, we can always look to the latest news in the Jack Abramoff scandal, Patrick Fitzgerald investigation, or even “Hookergate.”
And while all of this makes the current administration look bad – very bad, indeed – it is certainly no time of celebration for Democrats. Democratic politicians have evaded the stain of corruption tainting their Republican counterparts not because they have the moral high ground but because they have no power. What incentive would anyone have to bribe a Democratic politician – his or her vote would be unnecessary on a party-line vote and there’s little the Democrat could do to push legislation when in the minority party. This whole “Oh my goodness, would you look at those corrupt Republicans” thing is nonsense. Republicans are not inherently corrupt. It’s power that corrupts Republicans and Democrats alike. There have been scandals when Democrats were in power and now there are scandals when Republicans are in power.
All of this hurts our country, and I have no confidence that a Democratic majority will end corruption once and for all. I’d like to see a Democratic majority because I think they are the party that will most support the issues that are important to me, but I hold no illusions about their ethical purity. Remember Joe Biden and the Bankruptcy bill – Democrats voted for that bill because they were beholden to corporate interests, in this case the credit card companies, and sold out their constituents to make their meal-ticket friends happy. What’s needed is not a different title for more of the same old same old, but a change in how things work. At a minimum, we need to put an end to the sorry system where the person with the most money wins, which feeds and perpetuates the corruption. It’s no wonder, with the constant wrongdoing on both sides of the aisle, that people are disillusioned and apathetic. Without real change, we’ll be walking down the same road twelve years from now.
Posted by Fresh Politics at 04:24 AM | Comments (2)
May 10, 2006
Divide and Conquer
Posted by ChristianAlliance
Guest Blogger r.Johnson
There are some ominous clouds on the horizon. No, I am not talking about the view from my window or the gray Seattle skies. I am talking about the fall elections as the harbinger of the discord that will be sown amongst us for some perceived political gain. As the election cycle heats up, and as Karl Rove shifts his focus from White House advisor to strategist for fall election issues, the clouds will only build. Some may welcome the gray clouds as a prelude to a later day of sunshine. 'Sunshine' however has two very different meanings to the two main political parties, but it is the darkening sky that troubles me and about which I write. This year's election cycle is taking on the same familiar look as the last election cycle. From the Weekly Standard:
There's another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues.The 'Federal Marriage Amendment' serves as a perfect example. In the summer before the 2004 elections, few gave the matter much chance of passing, but it came up for a vote anyway. In the Senate, the amendment gained 48 votes, well shy of the 67 votes needed for passage. In the House, the measure was rejected on a 227-186 vote, again well shy of the 2/3 majority needed for passage. That fall, the vote on the amendment was used as a rallying cry, with the cries echoing from the pulpits of countless churches.House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion.
And just as the Weekly Standard reported, that agenda is being carried out as we speak. The Senate Judiciary committee has approved of a flag burning amendment, bringing it closer to a floor vote. The 'Federal Marriage Amendment', which seeks to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, looks like it will again be taken up by the House and Senate. Here we are two years after it was first proposed, with proponents of the bill saying that they may have picked up four votes in the Senate. Four votes, and right or wrong, still well short of the votes needed for passage. Yet the matter will be brought up again for a floor vote soon. In Missouri, a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot this fall 'protecting the rights of students to pray in schools.' U.S. Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., is reportedly going to introduce a resolution reaffirming the motto "In God We Trust" to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of that phrase being added to our currency. The resolution, however, goes beyond simply commemorating the day, and seeks to establish that the "God" referred to in the phrase is a Christian God, as defined by the Religious Right. It’s a move that is sure to draw objections and criticism. Meanwhile, Charles Colson has tried to link 'problems' with immigration to abortion.
Wedge issues. Religion, instead of being used as a tool to bring people together, to show love and compassion and forgiveness, is being used as a tool to break us apart. In the last election, these wedge issues had many on the Religious Right lining up behind republican candidates. Whether the Religious Right was driving the political agenda or was a pawn in the political game is subject to debate, but there can be no dispute that these issues sowed discord among Christians. In the aftermath, progressive Christians stood up and spoke out. In this election, we can't wait until the republican party is waiving these 'moral values' before the public's eye before we speak out. We may never 'convert' the Religious Right to a more open and accepting belief, but we can work to make sure that our voices as Progressive Christians are heard.
Now is the time to take action to make sure that the face of Christianity reflects our beliefs, and not those of the Religious Right.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 04:15 PM | Comments (9)
May 08, 2006
The New Iraq Looks A Lot Like Lebanon: "Hezbollah on the Tigris?"
Posted by Faithful Progressive
Salon has an excellent piece describing how "like the militant Lebanese group, fiery cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr is using both guns and butter to seize power in Iraq." Americans, especially Christians called to be peacemakers, have a perfect right to ask--we spent 320 billion dollars for this? We violated our own principles and attacked first to beget this? Did we really want to create a new Hezbollah on the Tigris?
The mosque episode is just one example of the way the Sadrieen, as Muqtada al-Sadr's followers are known, are steadily gaining power. In Iraq's constantly shifting political landscape, the fiery young cleric whose militia fought the U.S. twice in 2004 is bidding to become a key player. Al-Sadr has a two-pronged strategy: vehemently resisting the U.S. occupation, while providing social services for the poor and assisting the thousands of Shiite families displaced by sectarian attacks. It's a tactic that reminds many of that employed by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group that is credited with driving the Israeli Army out of south Lebanon and is now a powerful Lebanese political party. Indeed, if anything, al-Sadr is on a faster track -- Hezbollah did not enter the Lebanese government until 1996.
To be sure, al-Sadr and his followers face significant challenges that Hezbollah did not, notably a vicious retaliatory war with Sunni insurgents and a Shiite population that is not unified. Al-Sadr is locked in a power struggle with the powerful Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Party, the leading Shiite organization. Al-Sadr's followers may be devoted, but the young leader does not have the prestige or the respect of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric who has an uneasy relationship with al-Sadr and could clip his wings. Unlike Hezbollah, al-Sadr's movement does not enjoy the support of Iran. And the election of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who replaced Sadr's ally Ibrahim Jaafari, leaves Iraq's political future undecided. Key issues like federalism, the role of militias, the fate of Kirkuk, how to deal with escalating tit-for-tat killings, attempts to bring Sunni insurgents into the political process and, of course, the future of the American occupation could play out in ways that could diminish (or enhance) al-Sadr's power.
However, in Iraq facts on the ground are usually decisive. And al-Sadr is moving more quickly than any other leader to fill the void left by the barely functioning Iraqi government. At the very least, it seems certain that al-Sadr and his followers -- nationalist, militant, vehemently anti-American and anti-Israeli, and strongly religious -- will be significant players in the new Iraq, whatever form it takes.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:56 PM | Comments (7)
May 04, 2006
Are Southern Baptists Breaking Up Again?
Posted by Jesus Politics
It is interesting to observe a recent dissenting movement within the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest protestant denomination. Since the 1980's the Southern Baptist Convention has been known for their fundamentalist leadership, but what is little known is that there is a growing number of leaders who are not satisfied with the direction that the Convention has been taking. These dissenting leaders question the Convention's too close association with partisan politics and they are also uncomfortable with the Convention's arrogant and judgmental attitudes. These leaders have just released what they call the "Memphis Declaration". Some excerpts:
We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ. [ ]
1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture. [ ]
2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion. [ ]
3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them. [ ]
We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.
Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:38 AM | Comments (37)
Just Punishments
Posted by Fresh Politics
A federal jury decided that Zacarias Moussaoui should spend his life in prison, refusing to recommend the death sentence. It’s a decision that has surprised many, and the reaction that has followed really underscores the debate about capital punishment.
The attacks on September 11th were horrific acts that have no doubt left lasting scars on the survivors and the nation. I am not a supporter of capital punishment, but in cases such as this one – where the crime committed is so heinous – I am conflicted by the part of me that believes that the death penalty is riddled with errors and disproportionately ordered, and the very human desire for vengeance. So I did not envy those on the jury, who surely must have felt the weight of the nation watching; they, the twelve people chosen to punish the only person brought up on charges in the United States for his role in the September 11th attacks. They had to make a decision where there is no clearly “right” answer -- arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate have merit and no matter which decision is made, there will undoubtedly be many who are unhappy with the decision.
Whether the jury chose life imprisonment or death, I think I could have understood why they reached the decision they made. Certainly I would have respected the decision to sentence him to death, had they done so, given that they have spent the countless hours in the courtroom listening to testimony. Those who disagree with the jury’s verdict seem mostly to respectfully disagree, while expressing their disgust with Moussaoui. Family members of September 11th victims are split on the verdict, though it seems that at the heart of it all, the question really boils down to what one views as the most severe punishment.
In the sadness one can feel when reading the reactions of the family members, I am left with a nagging thought: this is the best we can do? All we could do – four and a half years after the attacks – is offer up someone who was sitting in jail at the time of the attacks and hold them accountable for the horrors of September 11th? Where are the masterminds – what have we done to hold those who created, financed, and inspired the Moussaouis of the world? Imprisoning, or executing for that matter, one of the minions does very little when we have done practically nothing to bring the leaders to justice. On a night when Moussaoui is spending one of the many, many nights to come in prison, those who have sought others like him and allowed the hate to fester are free to continue to spread their message. Where is the justice in that?
Posted by Fresh Politics at 04:28 AM | Comments (15)
May 01, 2006
A Day Without Immigrants; A Day for Building Bridges
Posted by ChristianAlliance
Guest Blogger r.Johnson
In what many are calling "A Day Without Immigrants", the streets of many cities across the United States will be filled today with pro-migrant worker marches. The marches are designed to show the strength of the estimated 12 million undocumented workers working here in the United States, and to put pressure on Congress for legalization. Many will boycott schools, work, and stores, to show how their presence in the community would be missed. Fair warning has been given to many employers. Tyson Foods, for example, will shutter its meat processing plants for lack of workers. In my state, many other businesses have noted possible closures.
And the boycott has spread south of the border, with Mexican unions, political groups, community groups, and others, calling upon Mexicans to boycott American businesses as well.
In some circles, the protest and show of strength may lead to feelings of resentment and generate backlash. ' What rights do these people have- they don't belong here' is a refrain I hear regularly. Even some migrants are questioning whether the march will generate more backlash than support. I only hope that the marches and boycotts succeed. Migrants and undocumented workers should not be treated as second class citizens, but welcomed with open arms.
"The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:34).Not long ago, I was commenting on immigration on a more conservative blog. Shortly thereafter, I started receiving newsletters from conservative congressmen who advocate fences on the border and the criminalization of 'illegal alien' status. I have heard the immigration issues described as 'important to our national security.' The 'immigration issue' is often cast in terms of national security, economics, or sovereignty, and conservatives are pushing those frames. Few, if any, are noting the moral or religious issues involved. While Hillary Clinton called conservative proposals "un-Christian", she quickly backpedaled and now calls for a fence on the border with Mexico. We need bridges with the immigrant community, not fences. Its time for progressives to stand up and support the 'aliens who reside with us.' Join in the protest and march with your neighbors. Most importantly of all, speak out so that we do not create divisions in society based upon the color of our skin. Speak out so that we do not create another class of 'separate but equal citizens. Today should not be called 'a day without immigrants.' Today should be a day of building bridges with those who should be treated as neighbors and fellow citizens.
Posted by ChristianAlliance at 04:33 PM | Comments (12)
