To Hear Good News

.
GOP blogger (and sex symbol) Mary Katherine Ham's humorous take on Senator Harry Reid's refusal to hear ANY good news from Iraq. It's a little overlong but very creative. MKH's mom is reading the text. Keep an eye out for JFK's favorite poet.

Monumental stem cell breakthrough

.
AP - Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos

CNN - All sides in stem cell debate claim vindication
But the only video they provide is of one side of the debate. Guess which one?.

NRL - Stem cell breakthrough uses no human embryos
Here's some equal time.

At any rate, this is certainly cause for thanksgiving from both a sanctity of life perspective and a medical one.

So I'm a Huckabee supporter?

These are my results from a quiz given by a Minnesota TV station (and originally developed by Minnesota Public Radio). It takes your opinions on 12 topics and the emphasis you think each deserves, then ranks the current presidential candidates according to how much they agree with you.

They didn't agree with me much. The most anyone agreed with me was on 6 of the 12 issues.

1. Mike Huckabee (R)
2. John Edwards (D)
3. Ron Paul (R)
4. Chris Dodd (D)
5. Dennis Kucinich (D)
6. John McCain (R)
7. Bill Richardson (D)
8. Hillary Clinton (D)
9. Barack Obama (D)
10. Mike Gravel (D)
11. Joe Biden (D)
12. Tom Tancredo (R)
13. Duncan Hunter (R)
14. Fred Thompson (R)
15. Rudy Giuliani (R)
16. Mitt Romney (R)

-- Take the Quiz! --

Here are my responses. Please note that it was multiple choice and these are the quiz's answers. I don't like the way they are phrased and many are oversimplified.

Iraq: What is your opinion on the war in Iraq?
D. There should be a timetable for the removal of U.S. troops. Very important.
Explanation: It's our mess and we must help clean it up and we can't just pull out in the next year. But we must leave sooner rather than later. Make sure the Iraqi government knows we will. Set incremental timetables for their compliance and stand by them. Their military will not be corruption- or infiltrator-free. The different factions will never join hands and sing Kumbaya in our lifetime. We can't wait for those conditions before we leave.

Immigration: What is your position on immigration in the United States?
B. Tighten security first, but I also believe we should provide a mandatory path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here. Very important.
Explanation: Mass deportation of 12 million people would be a logistical impossibility and an ethical quagmire.

Taxes: Do you believe the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be made permanent?
B. No. Important.
Explanation: Especially not for the top 1%. I'm also against a national sales tax. It is regressive beyond imagining.

Stem-Cell Research: Should federal funding of embryonic stem cell research be expanded?
B. No. Important.
Explanation: I am pro-life, down to the embryo. See next question.

Abortion: Do you favor or oppose legalized abortion in the United States?
B. Oppose. Very important.
Explanation: I am pro-life. I am, however, also pro-sex education, pro-prevention, and pro-support networks. So I am not going to raise a ruckus about condom distribution in schools but I will about opposing abortion and then not supporting the mothers who keep their children.

Health Care: Do you favor or oppose the concept of universal health care in America?
B. Favor. Important.
Explanation: Not really but I am not for the status quo. The current system is a racket for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Social Security: Do you favor the concept of privatization of Social Security to any degree?
B. No position. Somewhat important.
Explanation: I haven't studied it enough.

Line-Item Veto: Do you favor or oppose giving the president a "line-item" veto; that is, the ability to remove parts of a spending bill without needing to veto the entire bill?
A. Favor. Somewhat important.
Explanation: Great tool against pork-barrel spending. Can be abused, however.

Energy: Do you support federal assistance for the production of ethanol and/or biofuel as an alternative to oil?
B. No. Important.
Explanation: This isn't really a yes or no answer. Alternative fuels are paramount but the problem with ethanol is it requires more oil to produce than it would save! It's a sop to the corn lobby - the largest agricultural lobby on the planet. We have the technology to produce fantastic electric cars but they are squelched by the auto and oil industries because they last forever and don't have as much long-term profit.

Marriage: Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?
A. Oppose. Somewhat important.
Explanation: I am opposed to gay marriage in principle. I think legal partnerships shouldn't be off the table, though, and have often toyed with the idea of C.S. Lewis' suggestion of a two-tiered marriage system. I don't think this is a large enough issue to warrant amending the constitution. Let the states decide.

Death Penalty: Do you favor or oppose the use of the death penalty for certain crimes?
A. Oppose. Important.
Explanation: This is a hard choice. But I think we have to respect Jesus' admonition against eye-for-eye justice and his promise of mercy to the merciful. I also feel it may be a more consistent approach to sanctity of life. And the death penalty is far too unfairly applied in this country.

***

Of course, this quiz is riddled with problems. It doesn't ask for your reason for giving an answer. I had answers that could sound conservative in a yes-or-no context but I had liberal or populist reasons. And this quiz leaves out dozens of other issues that may be far more important to certain voters. What about poverty, the environment, outsourcing, gun control, corruption and lobbying, domestic spying, disaster preparedness, and foreign aid?

I invite readers to submit more comprehensive quizzes if they find any.

Huckabee, huh? Fine. Here goes.

The Government's Job

I have heard many, many pundits and private individuals go on about how taking care of the poor and the sick are not the government's job, that it's the private sector's place to handle such things. Government messes up everything it touches and does everything inefficiently. It would be the least reliable arbiter of who should and should not receive health care or food and shelter. Or so the story goes.

Fair enough. So then it should stand to reason that these same folks would have no problem with the government staying out of people's morality as well, seeing as how it would be the least reliable arbiter of such things. By that logic, Americans should be free to marry whom they want to marry (regardless of gender), burn whatever objects they wish (including the national flag), sleep with their students, put their chronically ill loved ones to death, and do any of these things on television or in the movies or in front of small children if it cranks their tractor. All without government intervention.

Point made yet? If not, here goes: Sure, in an ideal world the free market would make everything available to everyone at a reasonable price that is kept down by competition. But that ain't the way it works. And I do believe it is the private sector - nay, the CHURCH's - job to be the primary support for the poor. But we ain't getting the job done, folks. And our government IS put in place to "establish justice" for and "promote the general welfare" of all its citizens. And justice and welfare are often in short supply in a system predicated primarily on stock valuation and populated by those of us who are more worried about TiVo than transients.

The Micah mandate

“He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8

From Carry A Big Stick by George Grant:

“In 1917, when American troops were preparing to sail across the seas in order to take to the battlefields of France and Belgium in the First World War, the New York Bible Society asked former president Theodore Roosevelt to inscribe a message in the pocket New Testaments that each of the soldiers would be given. The great man happily complied. And he began by quoting Micah’s striking triune call for biblical balance — what he called the ‘Micah Mandate.’

“Why this particular passage? Because he said, ‘The whole teaching of the New Testament’ is actually ‘foreshadowed in Micah’s verse.’

“In his brief message to the soldiers, he explained:

" 'Do justice; and therefore fight valiantly against those that stand for the reign of Moloch and Beelzebub on this earth. Love mercy; treat your enemies well; succor the afflicted; treat every woman as if she were your sister; care for the little children; and be tender with the old and helpless. Walk humbly; you will do so if you study the life and teachings of the Savior, walking in His steps.'

"He concluded, saying:

" 'Remember: The most perfect machinery of government will not keep us as a nation from destruction if there is not within us a soul.'

"Roosevelt believed that the ultimate security of men and nations depended on a faithful adherence to Micah’s threefold demonstration of true Biblical balance: "A strident commitment to justice, a practical concern for mercy, and a reverent humility before almighty God.”

When Is Red Blue?

Here is an editorial from Christianity Today that takes Tony Campolo to task for numbering himself among Red Letter Christians.

When Red Is Blue: Why I Am Not a Red-letter Christian
by Stan Guthrie

Though I own several Bibles with the words of Christ printed in red, I've always found the concept a bit iffy. After all, we evangelicals believe in the plenary, or full, inspiration of Scripture, don't we? Setting off Jesus' sayings this way seems to imply that they are more holy than what is printed in ordinary black ink. Sure, Christians understand that Jesus the incarnate Word fulfills the written Word. But if all Scripture is God-breathed, then in principle Jesus' inscripturated statements are no more God's Word to us than are those from Peter, Paul, and Mary—or Ezekiel. That's why I felt a bit queasy when I heard about a group calling itself "Red-Letter Christians." In the book Letters to a Young Evangelical, Tony Campolo says RLCs have an "intense desire to be faithful to the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament." That's a worthy start, of course—but only that. More >

My response:

While Stan may score some points for exposing the disingenuity of Tony's professed non-partisanship, he fails miserably in his refusal to admit that the Republican party and mean-spirited, agnostic radio talk show hosts OWN more than half the evangelicals in this country. Most evangelicals equate doctrinal conservatism with political conservatism but sometimes the two are radically antithetical. I have been called a communist by a fellow ministry leader because I made a positive remark about the first century church's all-for-one economic model mentioned in Acts. His thinking was, "It's communalism, therefore communistic, therefore atheistic!" Never mind that it's scriptural. If it doesn't fit the social Darwinism espoused by modern-day conservatives, it's considered un-Christian. Is that irony or what?

Another thing: In context, when Jesus said "The poor will always be with you", he wasn't saying "Therefore, they aren't a priority." His point was, "I won't always be here. Focus on me now, and them when I'm gone." In fact, Matthew 25 makes it harrowingly clear that He says, "They ARE me, as far as you're concerned. If you don't take care of them you aren't mine. Get that through your head!"

TR revival

Seems both sides of the presidential race have found their new "hero." At least for rhetorical purposes.

View the sidebar video accompanying this Tampa news article, "Roosevelt, the latest political inspiration."

I'm afraid they'll quote him but they won't imitate him. The day they try to outlaw lobbyists I'll take them seriously.

TR's Square Deal finding new fans

Here's a kid with his head on straight. A senior at Ohio State wrote this column about the Square Deal of Theodore Roosevelt and how it is relevant (and sorely needed) today.

Here are some of my favorite Square Deal quotes from the man himself. These quotes were all taken from TR's "New Nationalism" speech, given at a ceremony honoring Civil War veterans in Ossowatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910. Read the full text here.

On labor versus capital:

(Abraham Lincoln) said:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.

"Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world."

And then comes a thoroughly Lincolnlike sentence:

"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

It seems to me that, in these words, Lincoln took substantially the attitude that we ought to take; he showed the proper sense of proportion in his relative estimates of capital and labor, of human rights and property rights. Above all, in this speech, as in many others, he taught a lesson in wise kindliness and charity; an indispensable lesson to us of to-day. But this wise kindliness and charity never weakened his arm or numbed his heart. We cannot afford weakly to blind ourselves to the actual conflict which faces us to-day. The issue is joined, and we must fight or fail.

On meritocracy and the undue influence of the wealthy:

One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows...

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of free men to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will.

On powerful business interests:

We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest is entitled to justice -- full, fair, and complete, -- and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt by mob violence to plunder and work harm to ... the wealthy man ... I would fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.

On national defense:

It is hardly necessary for me to repeat that I believe in an efficient army and a navy large enough to secure for us abroad that respect which is the surest guarantee of peace. A word of special warning to my fellow citizens who are as progressive as I hope I am. I want them to keep up their interest in our internal affairs; and I want them also continually to remember Uncle Sam's interests abroad. Justice and fair dealing among nations rest upon principles identical with those which control justice and fair dealing among the individuals of which nations are composed, with the vital exception that each nation must do its own part in international police work. If you get into trouble here, you can call for the police; but if Uncle Sam gets into trouble, he has got to be his own policeman, and I want to see him strong enough to encourage the peaceful aspirations of other peoples in connection with us. I believe in national friendships and heartiest good will to all nations; but national friendships, like those between men, must be founded on respect as well as on liking, on forbearance as well as upon trust. I should be heartily ashamed of any American who did not try to make the American government act as justly toward the other nations in international relations as he himself would act toward any individual in private relations. I should be heartily ashamed to see us wrong a weaker power, and I should hang my head forever if we tamely suffered wrong from a stronger power.

On the environment and - you guessed it - special business interests:

Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.

Moreover, I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few, and here again is another case in which I am accused of taking a revolutionary attitude. People forget now that one hundred years ago there were public men of good character who advocated the nation selling its public lands in great quantities, so that the nation could get the most money out of it, and giving it to the men who could cultivate it for their own uses. We took the proper democratic ground that the land should be granted in small sections to the men who were actually to till it and live on it. Now, with the water power, with the forests, with the mines, we are brought face to face with the fact that there are many people who will go with us in conserving the resources only if they are to be allowed to exploit them for their benefit. That is one of the fundamental reasons why the special interests should be driven out of politics. Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us, and training them into a better race to inhabit the land and pass it on. Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.

Overtaxed? Make Bill Gates and Oprah pick up their slack.

Not a big Joe Biden fan but he's absolutely 110% right about every word he says here. I'm sure Rush and company jumped all over this but that's because he's talking about them. Trickle-down doesn't trickle-down. It trickles offshore.

Democrats Trolling for Christians

Time magazine story, here.

Why We Keep This Creed

A great column by Bush's former speechwriter explaining why criticism isn't treason.

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 4, 2007

One of the great Independence Day speeches of American history was an attack on Independence Day.

On the Fourth of July, 1829, William Lloyd Garrison-- who looked like a shop clerk and set rhetorical fires like an arsonist -- took the pulpit at the Park Street Church in Boston. Rather than celebrate, he said, Americans should "spike every cannon and haul down every banner" because of the "glaring contradiction" between the Declaration of Independence and the practice of slavery. The grievances of slaves, he argued, made the grievances of the American colonists look like trivial whining. "I am ashamed of my country," he concluded. "I am sick of our unmeaning declamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our hypocritical cant about the unalienable rights of man."

Even across the centuries, his gall is startling. But Garrison laid bare the central contradiction of the American experiment: that the land of the free was actually a prison for millions of its inhabitants.

The war that ended slavery, it turned out, did not end oppression. In "Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War," Nicholas Lemann recounts how armed paramilitary groups, often consisting of former Confederate officers and soldiers, conducted a violent guerrilla campaign to reimpose race-based rule across the South in the 1870s. In our own period of ethnic cleansing, local officials were assassinated, elections were overturned and resisters were massacred. Lemann tells the story of Charles Caldwell, a black state senator from Mississippi, lured to a bar for a Christmas drink and shot in the back. Staggering to his feet, he said: "Remember when you kill me you kill a gentleman and a brave man." He was then shot 30 or 40 more times.

Why love such a country? Why celebrate its birth? The answer was given from the pulpit of the Ebenezer Baptist Church on Independence Day 1965.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that America has a "schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against herself." But we are redeemed, he argued, by our creed, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which manages "to forever challenge us; to forever give us a sense of urgency; to forever stand in the midst of the 'isness' of our terrible injustices; to remind us of the 'oughtness' of our noble capacity for justice and love and brotherhood." Americans, he said, believe in "certain basic rights that are neither derived from nor conferred by the state. . . . They are God-given, gifts from his hands."

"You may take my life," King said, "but you can't take my right to life. You may take liberty from me, but you can't take my right to liberty." And this creed of "amazing universalism" calls "America to do a special job for mankind and the world . . . because America is the world in miniature and the world is America writ large."

The privileged and powerful can love America for many reasons. The oppressed and powerless, stripped of selfish motives for their love, have found America lovely because of its ideals.

It is typical of America that our great national day is not the celebration of a battle -- or, as in the case of France, the celebration of a riot. It is the celebration of a political act, embedded in a philosophic argument: that the rights of man are universal because they are rooted in the image of God. That argument remains controversial. Some view all claims of universal truth with skepticism. Some believe such claims by America amount to hubris.

Which is why some of us love this holiday so much. It is the day when cynicism is silent. It is the day when Americans recall that "all men are created equal" somehow applies to the Mexican migrant and the Iraqi shopkeeper and the inner-city teenager. And it is the day we honor those who take this fact seriously. Those in our military who fight for the liberty of strangers are noble. Those dissidents who risk much in Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and China are heroic. Those who work against poverty and injustice in America are patriots -- because patriotism does not require us to live in denial, only to live in hope.

In America we respect, defend and obey the Constitution -- but we change it when it is inconsistent with our ideals. Those ideals are defined by the Declaration of Independence. We have not always lived up to them. But we would not change them for anything on Earth.

michaelgerson@cfr.org

One

http://web1.one.org/issues

Lemme out!

James Dobson and Don Wildmon have taken the National Association of Evangelicals (of which they AREN'T members, I might add) to task for adding the environment to their list of priorities.

One-Size Politics Doesn't Fit All

I, for one, am relieved that any group of evangelicals is promoting anything else in addition to sexual and reproductive morality and are considering that maybe the Republicans might - gasp! - be wrong about some issues.

Most of the people in charge of that party and the current administration have a different god than we do - the almighty dollar. They just woo us with a few planks in the platform and tack "God bless America" onto the end of their speeches to win our votes. The rest of their days are spent cutting backroom deals with cronies and helping them get richer at everyone else's (not to mention the environment's) expense.

It also frightens me that so many Christians believe that the jungle law and social Darwinism taught by mean-spirited agnostic radio commentators are biblical principles. I've actually been suspected of being a communist for praising the early church's all-for-one monetary philosophy. Capitalism really does trump scripture when the rubber meets the road in your workaday red state church.

The GOP has had evangelicals in their hip pocket for far too long. I want out.

Questions for 2008

This column is by Gordon McDonald, author and pastor, chair of World Relief, and editor at large for Leadership Journal, a magazine for Evangelical ministers.

*****

The other day I read this headline in our newspaper: "Christian Right Leaders Struggle to Find a Strong Candidate for President in '08."

It turns out that, a few weeks ago, there was an unpublicized meeting in Florida at a five-star hotel during which "Christian leaders" discussed who they would support in the upcoming presidential race. I worry about a situation in which a few people who are very adroit at seizing the microphone presume to make a movement out of all of us and then speak on our behalf.

I was not raised (by parents or mentors) to think politically or to participate in public political dialogue. My generation of men and women who felt called to the Christian ministry were told that our task was to develop deeply rooted Christians who would transform our discipleship into action items such as work ethics, family strength, financial responsibility, moral choices in entertainment, and responsible political decisions. It was not "ours," we were taught, to form or join political organizations and use our privilege as Christian influencers to pick and tout candidates from our pulpits or TV/radio shows or print publications.

But the rules seem to have changed, and people like myself who are a bit unhappy about this may have to speak up a bit more. Thus, in an idle moment I imagined myself invited to the Florida meetings, and I began writing down issues and questions I would like to have raised had I been there. I am somewhat confident I know what others who did go would have talked about. So on my list I went in other directions.

As the various names would have been raised at the table in Florida (Clinton, Romney, Obama, McCain, Edwards, Giuliani—please note the randomized sample offered without prejudice), these are the questions I would have raised:

Can he/she give us a government that will recoup our reputation in the world as a generous and compassionate nation? And could he/she take more seriously the fact that a large part of this world now finds our country distasteful? And this goes for Christians in other lands also. (I'm embarrassed every time I go abroad.)

Is he/she brave enough to influence the formulation of bold new initiatives regarding energy-consumption, healthcare, and Social Security? (If there isn't, the year 2030 isn't going to be a good year)

Does he/she think they could stop putting our grandchildren in hock with hideous deficits? (Isn't being debt-free a Christian value?)

Would he/she take the issue of climate change and environmental care seriously? (It is God's creation, and some more generations may have to share it.)

Would he/she pledge to be so truthful with the American people that no reasonable person would question their integrity? Let's describe this as being Lincoln-esque. (I'm tired of spin.)

Would he/she renounce all forms of torture in the treatment of prisoners? (I'm ashamed that this is even an issue in America.)

Is he/she concerned about the growing social crisis of the separation between the rich and the poor? (It's becoming a gated world out there and one day there may be a new kind of homegrown terrorism.)

Does he/she think they might rethink the exporting of billions upon billions of dollars to places like Iraq when a few billion would make a lot of difference in the education of American children and the absurdly rising costs of college education? (I can't believe we are so silent on matters like this.)

Might he/she intend to offer any form of moral influence that would raise the tastes of our nation in its choices of entertainment, the spending of its money, and its growing addiction to sports? (Or does Rome live again?)

If there is ever again a justifiable reason to take this nation to war, could he/she make sure that everyone becomes involved in the sacrifice that war requires? To date the burden or war seems to be on a relatively small percentage of Americans while everyone else goes on living the so-called "good life?" (You destroy a nation by doing it the way we've been doing it. How did we forget Vietnam so easily?).

Could he/she see themselves being as turned on by the dream of alleviating diseases, suppressing genocide, and rescuing the dying nations (debt forgiveness comes to mind) as America once was about getting someone to the moon?

These are all questions with an admitted political ring to them. But each arises from my convictions as a biblical person.

If I'd been invited to Florida to ask my questions, I would liked to have described an experience I had the other day while waiting at an airport gate for a plane.

I found myself seated across the aisle from a young couple in their early twenties. He was suited up in army fatigues, a duffle bag in front of him. It was clear that he was headed for Iraq or Afghanistan. Next to him was his girlfriend or his wife (I couldn't tell).

I watched as she virtually connected herself to him from head to toe, trying every other minute to get even closer. The look of anguish on her face as she came nearer and nearer to the moment of their final goodbye was the look of one facing death. And I said to myself—as I watched youth in all of its idealism and romance about to be wrenched apart by forces over which they had no control—this isn't the way it was supposed to be. Somebody please change this!

Thus my final question for candidate: Are they willing to do so?

I'm a Presidential convention delegate!

I've decided to put my mouse where my mouth is. I have become a delegate in a new web-based, grass-roots movement to elect a moderate presidential ticket that will be comprised of a candidate from each party. It's called Unity08. It circumvents the current broken primary system that allows a dozen states to choose the candidates with the most money to drop in their television markets - money contributed by a powerful minority. It will hopefully address the issues the majority of Americans care about rather than the hot-button issues that pander to the ultra-left and ultra-right special interests.

Here's a video clip of actor Sam Waterston explaining the idea and motivation behind this movement:


It's not perfect (the delegates range from libertarian to populist to merely fed up) but it's not business as usual, either. Just going with my gut. And honestly, I don't care if it splits the vote for either party. I really don't.

Hopefully Unity08 will get on the ballot in Alabama. There's a long, long way to go. But it is possible. And that's enough for me at this point.

Tony Campolo on Capitol Hill

As many Christians know, Dr. Tony Campolo is a sociology professor and an ordained Baptist minister. While pro-life and pro-family, he has been vocally liberal on economical and environmental issues. I don't agree with some of Tony's theology (postmillenialism, for example) but politically he's not too bad. He says:

"I think that Christianity has two emphases. One is a social emphasis to impart the values of the kingdom of God in society - to relieve the sufferings of the poor, to stand up for the oppressed, to be a voice for those who have no voice. The other emphasis is to bring people into a personal, transforming relationship with Christ, where they feel the joy and the love of God in their lives. That they manifest what the fifth chapter of Galatians calls 'the fruit of the Spirit'. Fundamentalism has emphasized the latter, mainline churches have emphasized the former. We cannot neglect one for the other."

I can't say "amen" to that strongly enough. The social gospel folk treat Christ as an afterthought and the fundamentalists are focused on doctrinal fidelity. The pure and undefiled religion that James taught has balance: "To visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." Why does it have to be one or the other?

Notice in this video that Tony says that the primary responsibility for the poor lies not with government but with the church. But he also points out (scripturally) that governments will be judged harshly for not caring for the poor. I only wish the poster had taped the rest of his speech - it was just getting good!

Pro-life Dems, where art thou?

I know that God is not a respecter of persons or political parties. I have voted Republican for most of my adult life because of their official position on abortion. However, I have grown increasingly disgusted with the Republican bias toward the wealthiest Americans and their cynical appeals to Christians. I am equally appalled by Christians automatically voting for supposedly pro-life candidates no matter what other positions they hold.

Abortion is a priority but it cannot be the ONLY priority. We must attack the problems that create a demand for abortion - and that doesn't just mean teaching abstinence to teenagers, people. It means accurate birth control info for marrieds AND singles. It also means we must fight poverty, judgmentalism, and domestic abuse. And we must proactively assist women with unexpected pregnancies. Republicans talk about those things but do little about them. They'd rather give tax cuts to CEOs. That's why I'd vote for a pro-life Democrat if they'd just run one.