Home > Community Forum > Monthly Archive

September 28, 2006

Partial Progressives

Posted by Jesus Politics

George Lakoff in his recent book, "Thinking Points: Communicating our American Values and Vision", offers some insights that may be useful for progressive Christians and their involvement in politics. In the second chapter, Lakoff discusses the idea that "centrist" voters are really biconceptual voters. He shows how some of these voters can be persuaded to vote for progressive values because they are already leaning this way in some of their thinking.

Lakoff writes about these "partial progressives":

Similarly, within the wide range of those who tend toward a conservative worldview, many are “partial progressives.” If we want to communicate with these conservatives, we’d better recognize that they may live by the progressive moral system in extremely
important areas of their lives. In fact, their progressive values may be their defining characteristics, who they most essentially are—even if they do not see themselves as progressives or liberals. Let’s
look at five of the more common types of “partially progressive conservatives” and see how their values match up with those of self-defined progressives.

Lovers of the land. A lot of conservatives may be hunters and fishermen (who want to fish in unpolluted waters so they can eat their catch); they may be cyclists, hikers, and campers who love to take their families to the national parks; they may be farmers or ranchers who are viscerally connected to their land; or they may be devout Christians who take seriously their biblical obligation to be stewards of the earth. They might never call themselves “environmentalists” or toss around words like “sustainability” or “biodiversity,” but they share many of the same values—values that are ultimately progressive.

Communitarians. There are conservatives who believe in progressive communities. Across the nation, for instance, self-styled conservatives often live in communities— rural towns or suburban neighborhoods—where leaders care about people and act responsibly, where everyone looks out for one another, cares about one another, helps others in need, provides community service, and emphasizes progressive empathy and social responsibility instead of conservative strictness and individualism. They may thus be conservative in their national voting patterns and yet progressive in their communities.

People of faith. A sizable chunk of Americans who are conservative in certain parts of their lives are also progressive in their religion. For instance, religious Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, are progressives at heart if they believe they should live
their lives according to the teachings of Christ—help the poor, feed the hungry, cure the sick, forgive the sinner, turn the other cheek. They will most likely see God as nurturant and loving, not strict and punitive. Even evangelicals (like former president Jimmy Carter) are often progressive.

Socially conscious employers. Many conservative entrepreneurs run their companies as progressive businesses—whether they see it that way or not. They treat their employees well, pay living wages and offer decent benefits, would not dream of harming the environment or their customers, and believe other businesses should also practice a morality that extends beyond just maximizing profit and following the letter of the law.

Civil libertarians. Some of the most ardent civil libertarians in America identify themselves as conservatives or simply as libertarians. They believe in the Bill of Rights and especially the Fourth Amendment. They want their privacy protected and don’t want the government spying on them or interfering with personal moral decisions or with their sex lives. They want free speech and freedom of association and want the government to stay out of religion and religion to stay out of government. They want constraints on the powers of the police and want strong protections from the courts. On
issues of personal freedom, they abide by progressive morality.

Understanding this opens up a powerful way for progressives to communicate with swing voters on the basis of real shared values.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 04:24 AM | Comments (3)

September 25, 2006

Torture: Where do you stand?

Posted by de sententia

Several weeks ago, George Bush surprised many by going on the offensive in the US political arena, asking Congress to authorize torture. Although we use the less severe sounding euphemisms of "alternative interrogation procedures" or "interrogation techniques", there can be no dispute that we are talking about torture. As Georgia Republican Congressman Lynn Westmorland boasted to a local Chamber of Commerce, he "voted for torture" before quickly redescribing his vote as one "against the anti-torture bill." The move was prompted when CIA 'interrogators' refused to conduct any more torture sessions with prisoners held in secret for fear that they might be tried for war crimes under Article Three of the Geneva Convention. As a result, Bush transferred these prisoners to prison in Guantanamo Bay and sought approval from Congress for the right to engage in torture. By the middle of last week, it looked like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner would lead a revolt against legislation authorizing torture, but they soon caved into White House pressure. A battle looms, with the US seeking to become the first nation to authorize torture. Where do you stand?

It is clear where the religious right stands. The "Traditional Values Coalition", describing the right to engage in torture as "reform of prisoner treatment policies" urged its followers to support the Bush administration plans. We are told that civil suits against interrogators 'tie their hands' and 'prevent them from obtaining information that will save lives.' Oh, the irony, of moral relativists masquerading as fundamentalists.

The sales pitch echoes republican talking points, and republicans are eager to cast the debate in this light. Why not attack anyone opposed to torture as 'tying the hands of interrogators', 'risking the lives of citizens', and being 'soft on defense'? It is a tactic that has worked to largely silence the democratic party.

Then there is the so called compromise bill, which would strip the right of Habeas Corpus from those we capture and hold as prisoner. Since the Magna Carta in 1215, the right has been enshrined in western jurisprudence, and now we seek to do away with it for the politically expedient and morally reprehensible purpose of engaging in torture.

I read an article a while ago that said "most Americans" were against torture. Perhaps for that very reason, this debate is being waged over "alternative interrogation procedures." Those who have suffered under these 'alternative procedures' call it for what it is. I am not so sure that this is the majority view anymore.

In this country, we say that we are against torture, but our collective discussion of whether or not we should engage in torture is an afterthought to a discussion of the need for information, and of 'techniques' that are designed to obtain information from suspected terrorists or 'bad people.' Pliers and fingernails, slaps, sleep deprivation, and worse, are openly discussed. The question bandied about in the press is "how far would you go" with these "techniques" which, in and of itself, suggests that our opposition to torture is suspect.

If most Americans are against torture, why are they not speaking out against its use in absolute terms? Why is the discussion governed by caveats? Why do we use euphemisms ("interrogation techniques") for torture or cruel and inhumane treatment?

Lets not pretend anymore. Why don't we stand up and cheer when Alberto Gonzales says that the Geneva Convention is a "quaint" artifact of history? Why don't we cheer when we see pictures of those abused at Abu Ghraib, knowing that these "alternative interrogation techniques' were designed 'to get information that would keep us safe'? Why don't we shout for joy when Alberto Gonzales claims the right of the executive branch to detain an individual indefinitely, without cause, and without access to family, lawyer, or court?

Lets not pretend that we stand for something that we do not actually believe in. Lets let our actions match our words. If you are opposed to torture, raise your voice now. Now may be the only time that you have to make it count.

Posted by de sententia at 03:30 PM | Comments (23)

September 22, 2006

Christian Alliance for Progress Featured in Bill Scher's New Political Bestseller

Posted by Faithful Progressive

The resurgence of groups that promote traditional progressive religious values, including the Christian Alliance for Progress, is featured in an exciting new book. The book is Wait! Don't Move to Canada: 10 Steps to a Liberal America, written by Bill Scher.

Bill is the editor of Liberal Oasis, and he has written an excellent nuts and bolts strategy guide--a more concrete follow-up to Don't Think of an Elephant. It's extremely well written and fun to read. The essential theme is inescapable: in politics, as in life, we respect people who have principles. Instead of watering down our core values, liberals (including liberal Christians) need to reconnect with the long and invaluable history of liberalism in the US. There is much overlap between traditional Christian values and liberalism. For example, as the Wisconsin Christian Alliance for Progress notes, Christians in that state have opposed the death penalty for 160 years.

For the past twenty years, the Christian Right has distorted the meaning of “Christian values” in pursuit of a partisan political agenda that focuses on casting stones at gays and preventing science-based sexual health education, contraception and (ironically given the previous two) abortion. We at the Christian Alliance for Progress have a different vision, one that springs from our deeply held belief in the Gospels as a guide for moral and political behavior. We are just one of many groups that want to restore Christian values to the broader purposes that Jesus devoted his ministry--helping the least of these, overcoming the human urge to violence and self-righteousness. This has led to a larger debate about the role of faith and politics. When it comes to this topic, Bill Scher gets it.

His analysis gets to the heart of how to defuse the phony culture war--acknowledge and respect opposing views without conceding your own principles. For example, one can accept the goal of reducing the number of abortions but stand firm on the need for science based sex education and against criminalizing abortion.

The book includes a whole chapter on issues relating to faith and politics. Unlike some other liberal bloggers, Bill understands the concerns of moderate Christian voters--who respect many core liberal values, like helping the poor. Maybe that's because the author has taken the time to interview moderate Christians in North Carolina--conservatives on some social issues, many voted for Kerry because they opposed the war and saw the need for anti-poverty programs. The people Mr. Scher interviewed don't want lots of God Bless Yous in every speech--they want sincerity and passion on issues they care about. Moderate Christians would respond to candidates of either party that speak out for the poor and for the kind of tolerance that Jesus called them to model.

Scher also highlights the efforts of groups like the Christian Alliance and Cross Left in organizing liberal Christians, and groups like the Interfaith Alliance, Talk to Action and Defcon that stand up for the separation of church and state.

He is unusually well informed and his strategy is dead on-- Express Your Faith. Or Not--just be sincere and remain true to yourself and to historic liberal values. Because these are also historic American values as well. I highly recommend this book.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 01:40 PM | Comments (9)

September 21, 2006

Love of Neighbor is Never Neutral

Posted by Jesus Politics

Rev. Ed Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California recently preached a sermon reflecting on the news that his church appears to be in some kind of trouble with the IRS. The sermon has been posted online and it is worth a read. Some excerpts:

During this next week, we will decide which course of action we will now take. One option is to present the documents and myself for testimony as the summonses dictate. On the other hand we may choose respectfully to inform the IRS that we intend not to comply with these summonses. It would then be up to the IRS to decide to take this matter into the U.S. judicial system for a hearing and ruling on whether or not the courts would enforce the summonses. A courtroom would provide a venue in the halls of justice for us to make our argument. Our argument is that there is no objective basis for the IRS to have a reasonable belief that we have indeed participated in campaign intervention. Furthermore, we would argue that this entire case has been an intrusion, in fact an attack upon this church’s First Amendment rights to the exercise of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. [ ]

With those legal details noted I want now to address what I see at stake in our religious and political lives as a result of this latest IRS action. The current administration of the IRS apparently thinks that religious organizations should stay neutral when political issues are concerned. What that thinking totally misses is that we do not have a choice about whether or not to be neutral in the face of dehumanization, injustice and violence. Our faith mandates that, always stopping short of endorsing or opposing political candidates, the church can neither be silent nor indifferent when there are public policies causing detriment to the least of these.

History is shamefully littered with the moral bankruptcy of people who were Christian in name but not behavior, who were silent or indifferent or neutral in the face of dehumanizing and destructive public policies. We remember Christians who would own slaves, expecting them to have the Sunday meal prepared when they returned from church. We remember Christians who would go to Easter services not far from death camps, brushing the ashes off their Easter finery to enter churches where their pulpits were silent in the face of the Holocaust. Neutrality and silence in the face of oppression always aid the oppressors.

Neutrality, silence and indifference are not an option for us. We must express our conscience in word and in deed or we will lose our soul in addition to losing our way. If the IRS is successful in chilling the voices in American pulpits and houses of worship, religion in America will lose all relevance and moral authority and offer nothing but impotence in the face of this war of aggression in Iraq, the genocide in Darfur, the explosive growth of terrorism, the violence of occupations in Palestine and Iraq, the global AIDS pandemic, the death of one child every three seconds in the world due to disease and poverty, torture in secret detainee camps, the shredding of the Geneva Conventions, bigotry based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation, underfunded public education, and the growth in poverty. Every human life is sacred: Iraqi, Iranian, Palestinian, Sudanese, North Korea, Israeli, Lebanese and American, and American pulpits must not cower from speaking truth to power, including any and every expression of imperial American exceptionalism that through policy and practice values American life above other life. All life is sacred to God.

For pulpits in the USA to become even more neutral than they already are will make religion even more of a problem than it is already. Jesus proclaimed that religion too frequently is not a part of the solution. Too often religion is not only a part of the problem. It is the problem. Jesus said that religious institutions can become like salt that has lost its flavor. It’s only good then is to be thrown away.

The Book of Revelation (Chapter 3) speaks of the Church of Laodicea that had become so bland, so ineffectual, so callous to human suffering, so cowering before the saber rattling of the empire of the day, so lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, that God said, “I will spew you out of my mouth.” That is exactly what happens to churches and other faith communities that do not stand up, speak up and act up when human beings are not treated with the dignity and honor due those who bear the image of God. The fundamental commandment that pulsates at the core of our being is a threefold love: to love God with all our being and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Love of neighbor is never neutral.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 06:03 AM | Comments (7)

September 18, 2006

Bishop Desmond Tutu: The Modern Successor to the Slave Trade

Posted by de sententia

Guns are big business. Sure there are treaties designed to control the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, but there are no treaties that govern the sale of conventional weapons. Reading a recent piece by Bishop Desmond Tutu I was struck by the numbers: "Every year, small arms alone kill more people than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together." He calls it, the modern successor to the slave trade.

It is easy to understand why. Germany, France, the UK, USA and Russia, prosperous "white" countries, accounted for an estimated 82% of the global arms market. An astonishing two-thirds of the value of all arms are sold to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. It is estimated that the amount these African, Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American countries spend on small arms is $22 Billion. The industrialized west has become a purveyor of a drug that no one now wants to live without. The prevalence of weapons in Africa, for example, makes it all too easy for these weapons to fall into 'the wrong hands', fuelling human rights abuses, prolonging wars and digging countries deeper into poverty.

All the while, the profits from the arms sales flow back to the rich countries of the west. For the amount spent on arms, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa, could have put every child in school and reduced infant mortality by two thirds by 2015, fulfilling two of the Millennium Development Goals. That strikes a chord with me. My family has been sponsoring a family in Africa for several years now. News came recently that Domiemme, James and Mary's two year old daughter, came down with a fever and died within a matter of hours. What if, instead of spreading guns and violence, the rich powers of the west were spreading medicine, health care, and better standards of living?

Guns are big business. Maybe it is our unquestioning support for all things capitalism that keeps us from speaking out, or maybe it is that we do not see the death and hardship that results from the weapons sales, but in either case, we must work to end this practice. As Bishop Tutu writes:

"In October, governments will vote on a resolution at the UN General Assembly to start working towards an Arms Trade Treaty. That Treaty would be based on a simple principle: no weapons for violations of international law. In other words, a ban on selling weapons if there is a clear risk they will be used to abuse human rights or fuel conflict. The UN resolution has been put forward by the governments of Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, and the UK. These governments believe the idea of an Arms Trade Treaty is one whose time has come."

Instead of spending the money on arms, why not spend the money on alleviating hardship? "The amount rich countries spend on fighting HIV/Aids every year represents just 18 days' global spending on arms." Eighteen days on HIV/Aids or fueling a never ending system of strife and poverty. You decide.

Posted by de sententia at 03:03 PM | Comments (5)

September 14, 2006

The Urgent Need for a New Christian Realism

Posted by Jesus Politics

Peter Laarman, of Progressive Christians Uniting, writes about the need for a new Christian Realism. Some excerpts:

I want simply to focus in on Niehbuhr’s core insight that Christians should see the world as it is and act ethically in the light of a clear-sighted realism. For the neoconservatives and for most other Right ideologues, “realism” means understanding how bad they are–all the “enemies of freedom,” “Islamo-fascists,” etc.; yet surely a major part of Niebuhr’s realism entailed understanding our own propensity to sinning, our own capacity for self-deception and hubris. It’s this kind of Christian Realism that is in critically short supply right now.[ ]

Consumerism pits me against other consuming monads. It invites me to think about how well I will fare when I’m ready for retirement, how I am going to cope with outrageous health care costs, how I will finesse getting the education I need in order to compete for material success; it definitely does not invite us to think collectively about how we will fare in retirement, maintain our health, or gain education for the enhancement of life itself rather than for purposes of workplace competition. [ ]

But aren’t Christians supposed to be about the “we”? Did not Jesus teach us to pray, ”Our Father, who art in Heaven” and “give us this day our daily bread”? Did he not warn us not to “store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt and where thieves break through and steal”? Did he not say, “whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant” and “woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation”?

For more than three centuries of the North American experience, a very significant number of Christians did in fact concern themselves with matters of citizenship–with the defense of the commonweal–and did not attend only to their private thriving. As Randall Balmer has demonstrated convincingly in his new book, evangelical Christians were among the staunchest agitators for a godly commonwealth in which all would have access to the good things of life: food and drink, rest and recreation, good public schools, decent housing and health care, and a secure and dignified old age. [ ]

When and how this shifted decisively–when and how North American Christians ceased to believe in the importance of the commonweal–is a matter for dispute and debate, but it does certainly seem that the seeds for the final ascendancy a false consumerist paradise– and for the manufacturing of consent–were sown in the period of unparalleled prosperity that followed the Second World War. Even then, however, there were powerful voices–voices like Niebuhr’s–asking not just whether the consumerist paradise is the best of all possible worlds but quite specifically whether it is a paradise that Christians should find themselves celebrating. [ ]

The paramount challenge facing progressive Christians, I believe, is developing the courage and the tools needed to puncture the mysification bubble–is finding the capacity open the eyes and awaken the consciences of our fellow Christians and of the body politic as a whole to the suffering and danger all around us.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:06 PM | Comments (5)

September 12, 2006

Baylor Religion Study Raises Interesting Questions

Posted by Faithful Progressive

What view of God--if any-- do you hold? This USA Today analysis of a big Baylor study raises very interesting questions about what this implies for your values and politics. This in some ways coincides with Lakofff's description of nurturing and authoritarian parent models. But the Baylor study fleshes out greater detail and more categories. Personally, I think that God is all of the above and below and more--far greater than our ideas about God.

View of God can predict values, politics:

The survey asked respondents to agree or disagree with any of 10 descriptions of their "personal understanding of what God is like," including phrases such as "angered by my sins" or "removed from worldly affairs." They could check off 16 adjectives they believe describe God, including words such as "absolute," "wrathful," "forgiving," "friendly" or "distant." (snip)

Highlights of Baylor's analysis:

• The Authoritarian God (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.3% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," Bader says.

Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," Bader says.

"(They) want an active, Christian-values-based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools."

They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32.1% vs. 18.6% overall).

•The Benevolent God (23% overall, 28.7% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8%) want the government to advocate Christian values.

But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, Froese says.

They're inclined (68.1%) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.

This is the group in which the Rev. Jeremy Johnston, executive pastor and communications director for his father's 5,000-member Southern Baptist congregation in Overland Park, Kan., places himself.

"God is in control of everything. He's grieved by the sin of the world, by any created person who doesn't follow him. But I see (a) God ... who loves us, who sees us for who we really are. We serve a God of the second, third, fourth and fifth chance," Johnston says.

•The Critical God (16% overall, 21.3% in the East) has his judgmental eye on the world, but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort.

"This group is more paradoxical," Bader says. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world. Their politics are definitely not liberal, but they're not quite conservative, either."

Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research.

For example, 57% overall say gay marriage is always wrong compared with 80.6% for those who see an authoritarian God, and 65.8% for those who see God as benevolent. For those who believe in a critical God, it was 54.7%.

•The Distant God (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," Bader says. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own.

This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, Bader says.

Only 3.8% of this group say embryonic stem cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5% of those who see an authoritarian God, 22.7% for those who see God as benevolent and 13.2% who see God as critical but disengaged.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 02:26 PM | Comments (5)

September 11, 2006

Fear, Five Years On

Posted by de sententia

Today marks the five year anniversary of September 11, 2001. If you watch television, you may have seen the numerous shows that have aired, capitalizing on the free publicity that surrounds the anniversary. Five years since that fateful day. Five years, but a lifetime of damage. For those who lost loved ones, many will have a void in their life that will span generations. Those who did not lose a loved one, however, have been impacted just as deeply, albeit in a somewhat different way. The made for television movies have sensationalized the events, and our so called leaders are capitalizing on the events as well. Maybe it is time to reflect upon some of the more sobering impacts of what has happened as a result of September 11, 2001.

Just under 2,900 people died in the bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Just under 2,900 too many. But following the deaths of those 2,900 people, the United States sought revenge for being 'attacked.' In a sense, we were attacked, but the way that that word has been infused with justifications for all that we have done since, makes me avoid using the word. Its as if 'we were attacked' gives us a license to kill. We wage a 'war on terror', pretending that we are accomplishing some greater good. War poisons the moral fiber of every individual and destroys the fabric of life. So before we start believing the lies we tell ourselves to ease our own conscience, take a longer look at what we have accomplished in the past five years.

Just under 2,900 people died on September 11, 2001. A recent study has estimated that at least 62,000 people have been killed in the 'war on terror' over the last five years. The actual number is far higher, as the figure does not include those we call "insurgents." And lets not forget the 4.5 million refugees that have been created by this war, and the countless permanently scarred by bombs and acts of violence. Then there is the cost, in purely monetary amounts. In July of this year, the US Congress approved $437 BILLION in financing for this war in this year alone. According to the group "Make Poverty History", that is more than the amount required to eliminate the debt of all of the world's poorest nations. We choose our own safety at the expense of others. We choose our own lives of luxury over the lives of the poor.

But perhaps the greatest cost surrounding September 11 is the one most difficult to measure: fear. In the days and weeks following September 11, we were filled with fear and suspicion of anyone or anything that was different or foreign from "us". In our ignorance of other lives and cultures, the United States began arresting and holding men of Middle Eastern descent, just on the chance that they could be involved with some plot, somewhere, to do something illegal. Many of them were chronicled in the documentary, Persons of Interest. The suspicion continues, with recent reports of airlines diverting for emergency landings when 'foreigners' are heard speaking a foreign language while walking in the aisle of an airplane.

Fear has come to dominate our mindset. We are told every day that there is much to fear, that there may be more attacks, that our ports are not safe, and that our airlines are in need of additional security measures. We are told that many are plotting to do us harm, and but for an aggressive investigation or questioning of suspects, they would have succeeded. We are reminded by our leaders that a threat is always present and it is our leaders who are keeping us safe. Our so called leaders are not leading, but teaching us to follow. "Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be." Like sheep being led astray, we blindly give up the freedoms that we claim to hold so dear.

Maybe it is easy for me to discount the fear that has gripped the rest of the United States. I live nearly 3,000 miles from New York City in Seattle Washington. The CBC profiled a woman whose husband died in the World Trade Center on September 11, and she spoke of the fear that gripped the city. She came to Seattle for a visit and ended up moving here. "There is an innocence here that does not exist in New York" she explained. My distance from New York may play a part, but I am sure my faith played a role as well. Perfect love drives out fear. If we were focused on a message of love, instead of a message of fear, things might be different.

I am fairly sure that I will be called naive by some for believing that a message of love will conquer fear. So be it. I have been called much worse. When Christ called to Peter to walk with Him on the waters, Peter followed. When Peter noticed the wind and the waves, he became afraid, his faith in Christ diminished, and he began to sink. Perfect love drives out fear. We are reminded of fear every day. The time has come to let love conquer fear. We have allowed fear to dominate our minds. It is time to conquer our fear, to follow the message of Christ instead of the message of fear preached by others.

Given the costs of the policies of fear, we can't afford any other alternative.

Posted by de sententia at 03:37 PM | Comments (6)

September 07, 2006

Chuck Baldwin Responds to Jerry Falwell

Posted by Jesus Politics

What is the Christian Right thinking about the 2008 presidential elections? Two articles are revealing. In the first one, Jerry Falwell lists his priorities. In the second one, Chuck Baldwin, a lesser known Christian Right leader, lists the reasons he thinks Falwell has all the wrong priorities. The Christian-Republican coalition seems to be breaking up. The hard right conservative Christians may abandon the Republican party and stay home or vote for a third party and the soft right conservative Christians may be tempted to vote for a Democratic candidate.

Some excerpts from the Jerry Falwell article:

With that in mind, I decided to break down what type of presidential candidate could win the energetic support of the evangelical vote, which is a significant bloc that has greatly figured in many elections since the 1970s. In my opinion, no Republican candidate can win the primaries and the general election without that energetic support. [ ]

First, any presidential candidate who wishes to secure the evangelical vote, which is essential to victory for a Republican, must be a social and fiscal conservative. That's a given. While the mushy middle of the Republican Party will want a candidate to be nebulous on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and religious freedom, no Republican candidate can survive the primaries who is afraid of taking a stand on these critical social issues.

Fiscally, evangelicals will be looking for a president who will intrepidly seek to rein in the out-of-control federal spending. We also seek after a leader who will unite government with the private sector and religious institutions in mending the American family, which is being torn to shreds.

And we will not accept a candidate who is soft on the war on terror, whether here at home (the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, etc.) or in Iraq, or wherever. [ ]

But there are two other burning issues that will probably decide the 2008 election. Those two issues are immigration and energy independence.

Chuck Baldwin responds:

Dr. Falwell's column is entitled, "The candidate who can win in 2008." He begins his column by saying, "First, any presidential candidate who wishes to secure the evangelical vote, which is essential to victory for a Republican, must be a social and fiscal conservative."

I must respond by saying, I only wish that were true! However, the fact is, evangelicals across the country (including Jerry Falwell) have enthusiastically supported George W. Bush, and Bush is anything but a conservative. [ ]

The truth is, President Bush has done nothing to stop legalized abortion. [ ]

In addition, President Bush has repeatedly expressed his support for homosexual unions. [ ]

Furthermore, to call George W. Bush a fiscal conservative is a misnomer, to say the least. President Bush has increased federal spending and federal deficits to levels never seen before. His spending habits rival those of the most liberal Democrats. In nearly six years as President, George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill. Not one.

To say that a Republican must be a social and fiscal conservative in order to obtain the evangelical vote just isn't true. George W. Bush has proven that Evangelicals are willing to support Republican administrations (and candidates) no matter how liberal they behave. All that seems to be necessary for Republicans to obtain the evangelical vote is for them to profess Christianity and talk conservative. [ ]

As to the war in Iraq, do we Christians really desire that our young men and women continue to die in another non-declared, no-win war? Is it wrong to wonder whether this never-ending "war on terror" really serves the cause of national security or rather the commercial interests of globalists? Do Evangelicals really have a litmus test whereby any future president must be determined to continue and perhaps expand constant interventionist policies, nation-building, and preemptive invasions of foreign countries? Must we be equally determined to turn the United States into an Orwellian nightmare until life in America looks like one giant airport terminal? None of this reflects historic Christian conservatism as I ever understood it! [ ]

In fact, Bush has done everything he can to encourage illegal immigration! [ ]

For the record, however, I believe evangelical Christians for too long have been unduly wedded to the Republican Party. In my opinion, this has seriously hampered and compromised their ability to stand courageously and independently for critical principles affecting our liberty and national autonomy.

Instead of playing politics and trying to figure out who can win, Christian conservatives need to circle the wagons around truth and constitutional government and let God determine the winner. We need to remember the sage counsel of John Quincy Adams who said, "Duty is ours; results are God's." Besides, we haven't done a very good job of picking winners; why don't we let the Lord do it for a change?
-------------

Thanks to Bruce Gourley at Mainstream Baptists for the links.

Posted by Jesus Politics at 05:24 AM | Comments (11)

September 05, 2006

The Practices of Just Peacemaking

Posted by ChristianAlliance

by Michael the Leveller

In preparing for an extended defense of gospel nonviolence, I first reminded readers of basic principles of Just War Theory, the major ethic of Western civilization on war and peace issues for the last 16 centuries. I then pointed to internal weaknesses of JWT as noticed by proponents of the tradition themselves. Those weaknesses were noticed by several church groups during the 1980s and 1990s who called for a "positive ethic of peace." We need an ethic, many voices said, that not only tells when it is permissable to go to war and under what conditions wars may be fought justly, but tells us how to make peace without appeasement, how to pursue peace justly. Pacifists agreed. So, with my mentor, Glen Stassen, taking the lead, a group of theologians, biblical scholars, international relations experts, and people with much experience in peacemaking, developed a new ethic, "just peacemaking," whose practices are catching on because they combine moral seriousness with pragmatic realism. The new tradition is spreading despite the setbacks of global terrorism and preemptive war doctrines in the 21st C.

The 10 Practices of Just Peacemaking:

1.) Support nonviolent direct action. First coming to global attention in the campaigns of Gandhi and King, this practice has spread globally in many contexts. Nonviolent direct action is a strategy that lances the festering boil of violence and injustifce and often produces healing without the resort to war. Boycotts, strikes, citizen embargoes, marches, mass civil disobedience, shunnings or (by contrast), actively fraternizing with enemy soldiers, accompaniment, are just some of the nearly 200 methods so far catalogued in the menu of interventions and defensive strategies being developed by nonviolent direct action campaigns. Support for such campaigns, studying when they work and when they fail and finding ways to make them stronger naturally reduces the numbers of wars and violent revolutions.

2.) Take independent initiatives to reduce threats. In situations of conflict, an arms buildup or any form of escalation can lead to or expand a war. But so can unilateral disarmaments or appeasements. What is needed is a series of surprising, independent initiatives that reduce threat levels and act as "confidence building measures" that often open up new possibilities of peacemaking. It is important that such actions are public, visible, happen at the times announced, and invite reciprocation.

3.) Talk with the adversary using proven methods of cooperative conflict resolution. Some politicians have refused to negotiate, claiming that speaking with party x should be a reward for good behavior. This is ridiculous. Strong leaders are not afraid to talk. One has to talk to make peace. Conflict resolution methods have developed which enable smart negotiators to be tough on the problem, rather than tough on the people involved. In every field, from business to foreign policy, principled negotiation techniques are making proven headway. Ignoring these practices for ultimatums or, by contrast, appeasements, is foolish.

4.) Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness. Seldom is all the blame for a war or conflict only on one side. Acknowledge the wrongs your side has done and repent and seek forgiveness. This invites reciprocation and healing. It used to be believed that only individuals can repent or forgive; groups and nations could not, nor ever acknowledge any wrongdoing without appearing weak. To the contrary, such repentance has often led to healing and failure to do so has led to resentments and future wars. The experience of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committee greatly strengthened this practice and many nations are using it as a model.

5.) Advance Democracy, Human Rights, and Religious Liberty. It should go without saying, but recent years have proven otherwise: One cannot and should not try to "advance democracy" by means of military invasion or coercion. Democratic movements must arise indigenously. Established democracies seldom go to war with other democracies and, not needing to fear uprisings from repressed peoples, can spend much less on military budgets. (The U.S. is a glaring exception here, but is thereby becoming less democratic; more a plutocratic oligarchy.) As Roger Williams, Richard Overton and others knew long ago, the lack of human rights and religious liberty is a major cause of war. Protecting and spreading these norms works for just and lasting peace.

6.) Foster Just and Sustainable Economic Development. Patterns of economic hardship and exploitation can lead to "resource wars," and poor people become desperate and are thus vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist fanatics (or power-mad government demagogues) offering cheap and easy solutions through violence. Fair trade, development that works with rather than against healthy eco-systems, these things are not only just in themselves, but win "hearts and minds" that can otherwise be seduced into violence.

7.) Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system. Everything which works to connect nations makes wars more difficult. Actions which weaken international institutions and cooperative forces make wars more frequent and more likely.

8.) Strengthen the United Nations and International Efforts for Cooperation and Human Rights. Goes with # 7. The UN is far from perfect. It needs internal reform. But its efforts to promote global health, end poverty, spread human rights norms, and make peace have, despite all this often proven successful in its 50 year existence. Those efforts, and similar developments such as the International Criminal Court, need to be strengthened. "Lone wolf" foreign policies which undermine the UN and the international system are perceived by others as imperial and sow the seeds for future wars.

9.) Reduce offensive weapons and the weapons trade. Okay, to a pacifist like myself, all weapons are "offensive," but this refers to weapons whose nature makes them more useful for attack than defense. Work to eliminate "weapons of mass destruction," (chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) are vital--and no nation can simultaneously work to prevent the spread of these weapons, and insist on its own right to possess them and develop more. Further, some "conventional" weapons are, by nature, more offensive, such as cluster bombs which do much more damage to civilians than combat troops and landmines which, long after wars are over, continue to kill and maim civilian populations. Efforts to ban these weapons, often supported by prominent military figures, must be supported. The same goes for the weapons trade. The more people one sells weapons to, the more likely one is fomenting war. The U.S. is the largest dealer of arms--leading to its troops often facing weapons "made in the U.S.A."

10.) Encourage Grassroots Peacemaking Groups and Voluntary Associations. Many of the above practices must become common among diplomats and policy elites, but some, such as nonviolent direct action, can be done by anyone. Also, peacemaking cannot be left to elites and experts. Grassroots groups can often take independent actions for peace before governments and they can and must pressure governments to make their own efforts for peace.

People often ask me as a pacifist, "If you are against war, what are you for?" It's a fair question and the above practices are a large part of my answer. They also help Just War folk. After all, if war is to be a "last resort," then one needs concrete ideas of what "resorts" can and must be tried first.

Michael L. Westmoreland-White, Ph.D.

Posted by ChristianAlliance at 01:44 PM | Comments (9)

September 01, 2006

A scientist's plea for Christian environmentalism

Posted by Faithful Progressive

The eminent Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, winner of the National Medal of Science and two Pulitzer Prizes, writes to a Baptist pastor in the New Republic: A scientist's plea for Christian environmentalism.

Dear Pastor,

We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you a friend. First of all, we grew up in the same faith. As a boy, I, too, answered the altar call; I went under the water. Although I no longer belong to that faith, I am confident that, if we met and spoke privately of our deepest beliefs, it would be in a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill. I know we share many precepts of moral behavior. Perhaps it also matters that we are both Americans and, insofar as it might still affect civility and good manners, we are both Southerners.

I write to you now for your counsel and help. Of course, in doing so, I see no way to avoid the fundamental differences in our worldviews. You are a strict interpreter of Christian Holy Scripture; I am a secular humanist. You believe that each person's soul is immortal, making this planet a waystation to a second, eternal life; I think heaven and hell are what we create for ourselves, on this planet. For you, the belief in God made flesh to save mankind; for me, the belief in Promethean fire seized to set men free. You have found your final truth; I am still searching. You may be wrong; I may be wrong. We both may be partly right...(snip)

Indeed, despite all that divides science from religion, there is good reason to hope that an alliance on environmental issues is possible. The spiritual reach of evangelical Christianity is nowadays increasingly extended to the environment. While the Old Testament God commands humanity to take dominion over the earth, the decree is not (as one evangelical leader recently affirmed) an excuse to trash the planet. The dominant theme in scripture as interpreted by many evangelicals is instead stewardship. Organizations like the Green Cross and the Evangelical Environmental Network (the latter a coalition of evangelical Christian agencies and institutions) are expanding their magisterium to include conservation--in religious terms, protection of the living Creation.

This evangelical interest in the environment is part of a worldwide trend among religions. In the United States, the umbrella National Religious Partnership for the Environment works with evangelical groups and other prominent organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches of Christ, and the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. In 2001, the Archbishop of Canterbury urged that "it may not be time to build an Ark like Noah, but it is high time to take better care of God's creation." Three years earlier, Bartholomew I, Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church, had gone further: "For humans to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation ... these are sins." He and Pope John Paul II later issued a "Common Declaration" that "God has not abandoned the world. It is His will that His Design and our hope for it will be realized through our co-operation in restoring its original harmony. In our own time we are witnessing a growth of an ecological awareness which needs to be encouraged, so that it will lead to practical programs and initiatives." Unfortunately, a corresponding magnitude of engagement has not yet occurred in Islam or the Eastern religions.

Every great religion offers mercy and charity to the poor. The poor of the world, of whom nearly a billion exist in the "poverty trap" of absolute destitution, are concentrated in the developing countries--the home of 80 percent of the world's population and most of Earth's biodiversity. The solution to the problems of both depends on the recognition that each depends on the other. The desperately poor have little chance to improve their lives in a devastated environment. Conversely, natural environments, where most of the Creation hangs on, cannot survive the press of land-hungry people who have nowhere else to go.

To be sure, some leaders of the religious right are reluctant to support biological conservation, an opposition sufficient to create a wedge within the evangelical movement. They may be partly afraid of paganism, by which worship of nature supplants worship of God. More realistically and importantly, opposition rises from the perceived association of environmental activism with the political left. For decades, conservatives have defined environmentalism as a movement bent on strangling the United States with regulations and bureaucratic power. This canard has dogged the U.S. environmental movement and helped keep it off the agenda of the past two presidential campaigns.

Finally, however, opinion may be changing. The mostly evangelical religious right, which, along with big business, has been the decisive source of power in the Republican Party, has begun to move care of the Creation back into the mainstream of conservative discourse. The opportunity exists to make the environment a universal concern and to render it politically nonpartisan.

Meanwhile, California passes greenhouse gas bill:

By Mary MillikenThu Aug 31, 9:08 PM ET

California made a bold move to curb global warming by passing on Thursday the first bill in the United States to cap man-made greenhouse gas emissions, an action state leaders hope will be copied across the country.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, frustrated by lack of action from fellow Republican President George W. Bush on reducing heat-trapping gases, teamed up with the state's Democratic majority on the landmark bill.

The bill cleared its last legislative hurdle in the State Assembly in a 46-31 vote, with opposition from Schwarzenegger's own Republican Party. The Senate voted to pass it 23-14 late on Wednesday. Schwarzenegger plans to sign it next month.

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 puts California at the forefront of the fight against climate change along with the European Union, and increases pressure on Washington to impose mandatory caps rather than the voluntary measures favored by Bush.

California aims to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a cut of around 25 percent. The biggest sources of heat-trapping gases, such as power plants and cement makers, will be required to report their emissions.

Bush pulled the United States out of the 160-nation Kyoto Protocol in 2001 on the grounds that the mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would hurt the economy and wrongly excluded developing nations.

Posted by Faithful Progressive at 12:00 PM | Comments (7)