Carry a Big Stick

Nice Christians?

2009-05-17T02:27:00.004-05:00

This is a comment to an excellent, thought-provoking blog post by a dear friend of mine.

@Dean - I'm reading UNChristian by David Kinnaman (excellent book) and I was thinking the same thing. "Yep. That's us. We seem to be against everything and for nothing."

@Shawn - Well, that cuts both ways. Conservative (and Christian!) media paint all liberals as godless, amoral, baby-killing, America-hating communists.

I don't like either side's stereotyping. And I'm frustrated by the fact that humans so eagerly grasp at caricatures of those who are different. Think about it honestly: If your opponent's perception of you is flawed, couldn't your perception of them be flawed as well?

From the day I accepted Christ, I understood that you grew as a Christian by studying the Bible, praying, going to church, and becoming a Republican. Only later did I discover that the last one wasn't required. And frankly, I think I used it as a mask to cover for not always doing the first three very well. It was easy to repeat rhetoric I heard on talk radio, make sarcastic remarks about Bill Clinton, and sign a few petitions - then pat myself on the back for "fighting for righteousness." As with head knowledge of theology, I believed the right (?) things but I didn't have to DO anything. It's easy to take potshots at politicians and root for your "team." It's a lot harder to directly affect the community around us face-to-face.

Also, to set up one political party or ideology as the only true one is idolatry (and illogic) of the first order. Each side has legitimate points and the best solutions to many problems. But not all problems. They are earthly institutions and philosophies, born both of noble intentions and selfish interests. That's why we need each to keep the other in check.

But I don't think politics is the point of Jan's post. As I already pointed out, it's easier to avoid introspection and self-evaluation - the purpose she expressed - and just launch into well-rehearsed arguments about politics. And, let's face it, when "teammates" do that amongst themselves they are just preaching to the choir, flashing their "True Believer" badges at each other. Is this good use of our time? Or, rather, God's time?

Let's find out where we have contributed to the often accurate perception that we are mindless sheep bent on making everyone follow our rules, with not much care for their real lives and legitimate questions. I hope Jan's acquaintance came away with an understanding that that's not what we're about. At least not deep down. And I hope that we have the humility to learn that we do have wisdom to glean from liberals, too. I think I read somewhere *cough*Proverbs*cough* that safety is in a multitude of counsel, not in a gaggle of folks who already agree with you.

New blog dedicated to my endorsements

2008-10-27T22:57:00.001-05:00

See http://votesharp2008.blogspot.com/

My Endorsements

2008-10-10T22:36:00.002-05:00

Starting this weekend, I will be announcing my endorsements for statewide, local, and national office. I will announce one per post.

I'm pretty excited about it and I'm having fun researching the candidates. I hope you enjoy it and - more importantly - find it useful.

Stay tuned.

Sorry, but it is funny

2008-09-15T12:47:00.002-05:00

And PG-13.

Sarah Palin's address to the RNC

2008-09-05T16:57:00.006-05:00

Transcript from NPR
.

Palin is FFL member

2008-08-29T13:55:00.005-05:00

I have long touted Feminists for Life as the model for pro-life activism. It is focused just as much on providing alternatives and practical support for women as it is on opposing abortion. It is led primarily by women and seeks their equality and empowerment while also giving voice to the unborn. I have long lamented the pro-life movement's fixation on elimination of the procedure itself with little regard to the circumstances that lead women to choose it. FFL addresses both ends of the situation.

Here is their statement on Palin's candidacy.

"Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.

"According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

"Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.

"Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.
FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."

"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.

“FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life’s mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion,” said Foster.

"As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.

"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.

Sarah Palin pretty much, well ... rocks

2008-08-29T11:46:00.020-05:00

Just finished listening to Sarah Palin's announcement speech.

One thing's for certain: She will go toe-to-toe with Joe Biden in the debates and not bat an eye. She's not a blow-dried policy wonk like Romney. She's not an oily car salesman type like many of the other GOP veep hopefuls. She's impassioned, forceful, and (according to her record) not afraid of anyone - even the Republican Party itself.

She's also a devout Christian and fervently pro-life but is not a Wall Street Republican (which anyone who's read a few post here knows I DESPISE). She and her husband are union members and she has ruthlessly rooted out corruption in Alaska - and inside her own party! - since she was first elected to public office.

Sounds like a certain president I love. She was even a public service commissioner just like TR.

She's also willing to compromise on many fronts. She opposes gay marriage but she passed medical benefits and visitation rights for life partners. And, like Joe Biden, she has a son on active duty in the Army and her military advice will be extremely well-considered before it is given.

Based only on what i've seen and read so far, I wish SHE were running for president rather than McCain!

And on that tack, even if McCain loses she now has national name recognition for 2012. And she's only 44. It's win/win for her.

Wow.

Signs of hope

2008-08-28T14:10:00.006-05:00

I was struck by this interview with a disappointed Hillary Clinton supporter at the DNC following Clinton's speech there.

Three things I take from this clip.

First, I feel awful for this lady. She's obviously a very principled person and struggling mightily with her grief and her commitment as a good citizen.

Secondly, I'm proud as an American that not only have we reached the point where her political views are no longer presumed to fall along racial lines but also that she was able to follow another woman to such heights in our presidential race. That's very exciting stuff to me and should be for all of us, regardless of our political stripe.

Third, I want to emphasize that we did not get to that point by accepting status quo conservatism on social issues. Many rights that modern conservatives take as a given were fought against tooth and nail by their fathers and grandfathers only 30-40 years ago.

Bill Clinton's DNC Speech

2008-08-27T22:12:00.005-05:00

I am going to edit this down and provide commentary but I wanted to paste it here while I had it in front of me. Check back for the real review! Thanks. - JS

I am honored to be here tonight to support Barack Obama. And to warm up the crowd for Joe Biden, though as you'll soon see, he doesn't need any help from me. I love Joe Biden, and America will too.

What a year we Democrats have had. The primary began with an all-star lineup and came down to two remarkable Americans locked in a hard-fought contest to the very end. The campaign generated so much heat it increased global warming.

In the end, my candidate didn't win. But I'm very proud of the campaign she ran: She never quit on the people she stood up for, on the changes she pushed for, on the future she wants for all our children. And I'm grateful for the chance Chelsea and I had to tell Americans about the person we know and love.

I'm not so grateful for the chance to speak in the wake of her magnificent address last night. But I'll do my best.

Hillary told us in no uncertain terms that she'll do everything she can to elect Barack Obama.

That makes two of us.

Actually that makes 18 million of us — because, like Hillary, I want all of you who supported her to vote for Barack Obama in November.

Here's why.

Our nation is in trouble on two fronts: The American dream is under siege at home, and America's leadership in the world has been weakened.

Middle-class and low-income Americans are hurting, with incomes declining; job losses, poverty and inequality rising; mortgage foreclosures and credit card debt increasing; health care coverage disappearing; and a big spike in the cost of food, utilities, and gasoline.

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global nonproliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Clearly, the job of the next president is to rebuild the American dream and restore America's standing in the world.

Everything I learned in my eight years as president and in the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job.

He has a remarkable ability to inspire people, to raise our hopes and rally us to high purpose. He has the intelligence and curiosity every successful president needs. His policies on the economy, taxes, health care and energy are far superior to the Republican alternatives. He has shown a clear grasp of our foreign policy and national security challenges, and a firm commitment to repair our badly strained military. His family heritage and life experiences have given him a unique capacity to lead our increasingly diverse nation and to restore our leadership in an ever more interdependent world. The long, hard primary tested and strengthened him. And in his first presidential decision, the selection of a running mate, he hit it out of the park.

With Joe Biden's experience and wisdom, supporting Barack Obama's proven understanding, insight, and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need.

Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States.

He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries. He will rebuild our frayed alliances and revitalize the international institutions which help to share the costs of the world's problems and to leverage our power and influence. He will put us back in the forefront of the world's fight to reduce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to stop global warming. He will continue and enhance our nation's global leadership in an area in which I am deeply involved, the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, including a renewal of the battle against HIV/AIDS here at home. He will choose diplomacy first and military force as a last resort. But in a world troubled by terror; by trafficking in weapons, drugs and people; by human rights abuses; by other threats to our security, our interests, and our values, when he cannot convert adversaries into partners, he will stand up to them.

Barack Obama also will not allow the world's problems to obscure its opportunities. Everywhere, in rich and poor countries alike, hard-working people need good jobs; secure, affordable health care, food and energy; quality education for their children; and economically beneficial ways to fight global warming. These challenges cry out for American ideas and American innovation. When Barack Obama unleashes them, America will save lives, win new allies, open new markets, and create new jobs for our people.

Most important, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are strong at home. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

Look at the example the Republicans have set: American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-quarter as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage. I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other severe conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well-connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

America can do better than that. And Barack Obama will.

But first we have to elect him.

The choice is clear. The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam. He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American dream and how to restore America's leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 1/2 million falling into poverty — and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy. More Band-Aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured. More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.

They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks. In this case, the third time is not the charm.

My fellow Democrats, 16 years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity.

Together, we prevailed in a campaign in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be commander in chief. Sound familiar? It didn't work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it won't work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.

His life is a 21st century incarnation of the American dream. His achievements are proof of our continuing progress toward the "more perfect union" of our founders' dreams. The values of freedom and equal opportunity which have given him his historic chance will drive him as president to give all Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability, their chance to build a decent life, and to show our humanity, as well as our strength, to the world.

We see that humanity, that strength, and our future in Barack and Michelle Obama and their beautiful children. We see them reinforced by the partnership with Joe Biden, his wife, Jill, a dedicated teacher, and their family.

Barack Obama will lead us away from division and fear of the last eight years back to unity and hope. If, like me, you still believe America must always be a place called Hope, then join Hillary, Chelsea and me in making Sen. Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

Obamanomics

2008-06-25T15:12:00.007-05:00

An excellent look from The Weekly Standard at the strengths and weaknesses of the economic, war, and energy policies (and campaign strategies) of both Obama and McCain. My only gripe is the column is presented as - and in the opening paragraph reads like - a pro-Obama piece. But once you get further, it's obvious the writer (or his editor) just started the column in media res. In reality, each gets criticized and respected on different issues and tactics.

Read it
.

Wow! An issues candidate! With experience!

2008-05-08T15:43:00.020-05:00

I am voting for a certain local Republican candidate for county tax collector because she actually has a specific agenda and has experience in the department. Her name Angela Stafford and here are her primary goals:

Cross-train satellite office tax personnel so that they can help license personnel at surge times (Currently, if you're in a long line to renew your license, the tax clerks can only sit idly by and watch)

End use of county car for tax collector's personal business

Make the position her full-time job, not a moonlighting honorific

The second two are modest goals and sound almost accusatory of the present collector. But I just find it refreshing that her campaign is not built on empty, meaningless phrases like "I share your values" and "We need to shake things up." Or, worse yet, phrases that exclude part of her (hoped for) constituency like, "We're all Christians." Case in point:

That ad tells me little about what Cheryl Baswell Guthrie plans to do or what qualifies her for the job. She's a local attorney and unsuccessfully ran for the state legislature in 2006. But I had to look that up. She obviously is independently wealthy or has friends who are because that spot runs every 20 minutes around here. But all it does is speak to the hot button issues that Obama complained that conservative politicians prey on without addressing the economy or any other issue - essentially proving his point!

Of course, she'll win.

Talking to Ourselves

2008-04-30T14:21:00.021-05:00

Americans are increasingly close-minded and unwilling to listen to opposing views.

It's not often you see me quoting an outspoken secularist/atheist but this lady's absolutely right.

From The Week, May 2, 2008. (Abridged):

As an atheist who takes a dim view of the influence of religion, said author Susan Jacoby in the Los Angeles Times, I am greeted enthusiastically in nearly all my public appearances. I'm not bragging. It's just that everywhere I appear, "95 percent of the audience shares my political and cultural views - and serious conservatives report exactly the same experience." Indeed, it's getting harder to find anyone who's willing "to give a fair shake - or any hearing at all" to opposing viewpoints. "Whether watching television news, consulting political blogs, or (more rarely) reading books, Americans today have become a people in search of validation for opinions they already hold." So when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress, liberals tune to radio or TV shows that mock him and insist Iraq is lost; conservatives, meanwhile, comfort themselves with echo-chamber pundits who proclaim that victory is at hand. Such close-minded stubbornness is not only lazy; it makes you very vulnerable to being duped or misled. "As long as we continue to avoid the hard work of scrutinizing public affairs without the filter of polemical shouting heads," we have no one to blame for our growing national ignorance "but ourselves."
- Full column

This isn't a new idea on this blog. I've been complaining about this idea - in one way or another - from the first post. Too many Americans have a mentality about political and cultural issues that seems more like blind devotion to a favorite sports team or an ancient ancestry than to any sense of rationality. They don't want to learn. They don't want to think. They want to cheer as their guy trash-talks the other guy.

Here's a breakdown of most talk radio:

"Us good. Them bad. Here am they bad ideas. All bad. Me shoot down all they ideas. Easy shooting. Bang. Bang. No need listen to them. I play sound bite. No need talk to they face. They morons. All truth you need am right here. We pause station identification."

If you're a liberal, would you please pick up a book by George Will or listen to Larry Elder sometime?

If you're a conservative, catch Alan Colmes online or read Jacoby's latest book. Check out her article on defiant ignorance on both sides here, too.

The other side occasionally has some valid points - many based on personal experience and logical thought - that can help this country.

Not perfect. But perfectable. - Pt. 2

2008-03-27T15:51:00.010-05:00

Now for the downside of Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech:

He did not satisfactorily answer the questions about his knowledge and tacit approval of Jeremiah Wright's demonizing of America. At all.

I cannot believe that Barack sat for 20 years under that man's preaching and managed to always miss every declaration like the ones shown in the ubiquitous video clips. That is beyond my ability to suspend disbelief. Judging from the kind of response the congregation gave those comments, it is clear that they were used to and applauded such sentiments. I've been around enough preaching to know that Wright knew those statements would get a huge response. He had given them a taste of it in the past and they had enjoyed it. Many had probably approached him after the service to encourage him on that path.

In short, he felt safe making those remarks because there was a history of positive reception in that church. And for Obama to say he somehow missed out on every instance of such sentiment is just not credible.

Obama says he always dismissed it as mere eccentricity or residual bitterness. Now, those concepts (of themselves) are somewhat understandable. I've winced a few times as older pastors made comments they saw as harmless but would be perceived even among conservatives today as being unenlightened or insensitive at best. But those are usually offhand comments that aren't part of the message. One shrugs and moves on.

But, for example, if my pastor were to start saying - nay, screaming - that all married women who don't stay barefoot and pregnant are raging Jezebels, I would leave the church. That's the equivalent of what Wright has done.

I did not stand in the Military Entrance Processing Station in Nashville in June of 1983 and promise to support and defend the Constitution of the USKKK of A. I gladly protected Wright's freedom to say that. But I also expect our presidents, regardless of political stripe, to repudiate any sentiment that would undermine the belief that we are the still the best nation on the planet. If a man doesn't believe that in his gut, he cannot fight for it with all his might.

As the rest of Obama's speech pointed out accurately and eloquently, my country isn't perfect (nor is it above criticism) but it's light years ahead of where it was.

Not perfect. But perfectable. - Pt. 1

2008-03-20T16:18:00.009-05:00

Plenty of press has been given to Barack Obama's 'More Perfect Union' speech. After George W. Bush's address to Congress in September 2001, it may be the most important American speech of the decade. If you've not watched or read it in its entirety please do so. I had initially only heard sound bites and read snippets. They leave out many of the most important parts and are used to slant opinions.

I can only give my personal impressions of the speech and I have too many, both approving and ambivalent, to cover in one post. Since it is a speech primarily on race I've decided to first address it from a white perspective. And all I can say is that I've never - ever - heard a black politician show he understands the legitimate concerns and observations of middle-class whites more than Obama did in this passage.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

See the full text at Obama's site - Text

Or watch it now:

Hating Hillary

2008-03-05T16:15:00.006-06:00

An excellent editorial from Christianity Today:

Hating Hillary
Getting to the bottom of a cultural trend that has seeped into the church.

Also interesting are the comments. All the editorial says is that we should not be hateful toward Clinton. It does NOT say we shouldn't criticize her. But there are too many who think treating her as a fellow person for whom Christ died is tantamount to endorsement.

Yes We Can

2008-02-08T10:31:00.000-06:00

In a sea of talking points and focus group-tested phraseology, Barack Obama is certainly a breath of fresh air.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality.

Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can.

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --

Yes. We. Can.

Now, I can see some of my fellow premillenialists reeling from this one. When they see words like, "Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world," they recoil in horror.

"No, we can't!" they cry. "We shouldn't even try! It's only going to get worse and worse until Armageddon. We can't postpone that. We should hide in a bunker until the rapture and just let the world fall apart. The sooner the better!"

But if that's the case, then why are you fighting to get your candidate(s) elected? If, deep down, you didn't also believe you could - and should - make a difference, you wouldn't even vote.

Good news: Yes you can!

Jesus and the GOP

2008-01-27T09:33:00.003-06:00

As Alabama approaches Super Tuesday, I am reposting my very first entry here. It's still the bedrock of my political feeling at this point.

I must have missed a critical Sunday School lesson somewhere along the way. I know I learned that Jesus loved me. I also remember reading about his kindness to those who were outcasts such as tax collectors and prostitutes. I vividly recall the story of his death and resurrection, his visit to the disciples afterward, and Thomas touching his scars and believing.

But I must have been out the day everyone else read the verse about Jesus registering with the Republican Party and adopting a platform just this side of Barry Goldwater.

It could very well be true. There are plenty of lessons I learned by inference and the example of others rather than in church or from the Bible. This is how I found out God is not too keen on seeing movies at theaters but you can watch them at home anytime. He especially detests smoking but will let gluttony slide. And beer sold on Saturday at 11:59 p.m. is tolerable but on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. it's an abomination.

So it is not altogether unreasonable to deduce - what with the political ads implying so - that Jesus is a Republican. With conservative Christian values, of course.

So, if I'm getting straight what I hear from Christian TV and radio, Jesus is a laissez-faire free-market capitalist who detests government regulation of business. He thinks anyone who considers the environmental impact of manufacturing is a tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing pothead. He's never seen a weapons system he didn't like. He figures cutting government contract deals with cronies is just part of doing business. He thinks poor people are only poor because they're lazy and that they could be success-driven yuppies with cookie-cutter clothes and cookie-cutter houses if they'd just get off their butts.

Had enough sarcasm?

My point is that we all say (I hope!) that God prefers neither dominant party or ideology - Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. But Christians got suckered into acting like He does about thirty years ago, give or take. Before that, evangelicals were largely populists - social conservatives and economic liberals. The Republicans co-opted our vote primarily by opposing abortion and supporting school prayer (without actually doing much about either). We've been a lock for them ever since. But instead of us influencing them, they've influenced us. Evangelicals now support the party line on everything - from the economy to social security to oil policy - simply because the party courted us on two issues, got what they wanted, and comes back wrapped in the flag and God's name every two years to get more.

Should we tell injured parties that corporations must operate unchecked and that over the course of decades market forces alone will eventually make these businesses public benefactors rather than threats? Doubtful. Do we really want to tell our children that we take little thought of the environment they will inherit or the resources we squander? I don't think so.

Yet we do it every time we support politicians who make corporations immune to lawsuits in exchange for campaign support, future board positions, and exotic travel opportunities. We send that message every time we defend energy policies that foul our air and avoid new power sources strictly out of blatant subservience to huge oil conglomerates. And we repeat it every time rights and liberty are eroded in the name of security.

It is wicked and abominable that we allow them to use us in this way.

Am I a Democrat? No way. Their capitulation to the abortion industry and militant secularism is abhorrent. But I refuse to make the blanket judgment that anything that comes out of any Democrat's mouth is wrong. Or, conversely, that everything a Republican says is right. That's utter foolishness. Wisdom is in a multitude of counsel, not in a gang of people who already agree with me.

We should not be married to any party or political ideology. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Can you honestly say - without qualification - that Jesus would be completely endorsed on every count, in practical application, by either side of our system? Not in a million years. And that's because He isn't about warring philosophies or beating the other guy or proving He's right. He's just Himself.

He is the truth - take Him or leave Him. But don't try to graft Him onto your politics. He transcends your ideology. And in many ways He will contradict your ideology. Please remember that the next time a politician tells you he's a God-fearing across-the-board conservative. Sometimes those two things are mutually exclusive.

Please leave comments

2008-01-16T18:17:00.002-06:00

.
Please weigh in on this clip of Tony Campolo on a Canadian talk show.

Operators are standing by.

I think Tony's been reading my blog!
.

I hate the horse race

2008-01-16T12:05:00.000-06:00

The horse race theme of the presidential candidate coverage reminds me of the guest stars on The Love Boat or the contestants on TattleTales. It's about being famous for being famous. (Seriously, what did Dick Gautier do for a living?) Or, in this case, being in the lead because you've been in the lead. The news coverage is all so self-fulfilling it is frightening.

Even McCain pollster Bill McInturff laments the vicious cycle of the poll-driven nomination process, “Polling affects press coverage, which affects your name recognition, which affects polling.” Which affects voting. When people hear "current front-runner" tacked on to every mention of a candidate's name, it can heavily influence voters to pick the horse who seems to have the best chance of winning.

I'm still convinced this dynamic accounted for Bush winning the GOP nomination in 2000. He was one of the least substantive candidates in the field (he couldn't pick out many countries on a map) but he had constant early press coverage (and the front-runner label) for his gigantic fundraising results as far back as 1998. That gave him a tremendous advantage going into the final year.

I find it ludicrous that the news media treats each individual state as if it's make or break when only two states have even voted! Someone wins Iowa and they are trumpeted as the frontrunner: "Smith Takes the Lead!" Then the same person loses New Hampshire and the headlines scream "Smith Campaign Reeling! Will It Survive?" It's only two states! There are 48 more to go!

I believe there should be a nationwide primary. It would put an end to all the false do-or-die drama and give every candidate a chance to receive votes in every state. This is also important to me because I live in Alabama and our turn comes so late that I can't recall ever having voted in any primary where the nominee hadn't already been decided. At the very least, my preferred candidate as always out of the race by that point.

It would also spare us watching the candidates going from state to state and lying about everything they're going to do just for that state - as if it were their first priority.

Yes, I'm talking to you, Mitt.

To Hear Good News

2007-12-07T18:13:00.000-06:00

.
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

2007-11-21T14:48:00.000-06:00

.
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?

2007-11-02T15:12:00.001-05:00

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

2007-10-29T14:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-10-22T17:38:00.001-05:00

“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?

2007-10-11T14:54:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-23T11:11:00.001-05:00

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

2007-08-14T12:07:00.001-05:00

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.

2007-07-24T16:58:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-19T16:44:00.001-05:00

Time magazine story, here.

Why We Keep This Creed

2007-07-06T14:28:00.000-05:00

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

2007-06-25T12:02:00.002-05:00

http://web1.one.org/issues

Lemme out!

2007-04-24T12:31:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-20T13:46:00.000-05:00

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:

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!

2007-03-01T16:35:00.000-06:00

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

2007-02-13T15:21:00.001-06:00

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?

2007-01-25T15:52:00.000-06:00

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.

High Fives from Jesus

2005-08-11T16:12:00.000-05:00

How many sermons have you heard that point to professional athletes and corporate magnates as examples? Have you ever wondered why a Christian should want to be like Michael Jordan or Bill Gates?

Whenever hard work, persistence, and determination are illustrated for us, it's typically in the form of some hardscrabble story, like the one about the poor boy from East L.A. with rickets and hydrocephaly. He ignores the naysayers, overcomes peer pressure from his street gang, and becomes a Heisman trophy winner, NFL Hall of Famer, millionaire, and movie actor married to a beautiful blonde. Too bad he's also O. J. Simpson.

It seems as though it never occurs to those that regurgitate these stories that not all hard work, perseverance, and winning is good. In fact, much of this striving is based on a warped need for approval or control. It's often self-centered, obsessive, and damaging to those who love the supposed role model. But does that matter? No! They're winners. And shouldn't we all desire to be winners?

No. We should desire to “do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with our God.” (Micah 6:8) Well, most kind and humble people don't get a lot of reward or recognition in this world. They usually don't win ball games or the corner office. In fact, they really don't CARE about those things anyway.

I know that God often gives those things to people who are serving him faithfully. One biblical example might be the Joseph of Technicolor Dreamcoat fame. And I know of godly people who have gained position and financial security. But they couldn't care less about those things apart from any use they may have for God's glory. They pour the money back into charity and church and use their power to effect positive, compassionate change.

Another fallacy of these illustrations are the unrealistic expectations they set up. But that's a whole other post.

Jesus and the GOP

2005-07-05T16:41:00.000-05:00

I must have missed a critical Sunday School lesson somewhere along the way. I know I learned that Jesus loved me. I also remember reading about his kindness to those who were outcasts such as tax collectors and prostitutes. I vividly recall the story of his death and resurrection, his visit to the disciples afterward, and Thomas touching his scars and believing.

But I must have been out the day everyone else read about Jesus registering with the Republican Party and adopting a platform just this side of Barry Goldwater.

It could very well be true. There are plenty of lessons I learned by inference and the example of others rather than in church or from the Bible. This is how I found out God is not too keen on seeing movies at theaters but you can watch them at home anytime. He especially detests smoking but will let gluttony slide. And beer sold on Saturday at 11:59 p.m. is tolerable but on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. it's an abomination.

So it is not altogether unreasonable to deduce - what with the political ads implying so - that Jesus is a Republican. With conservative Christian values, of course.

So, if I'm getting straight what I hear from Christian TV and radio, Jesus is a laissez-faire free-market capitalist who detests government regulation of business. He thinks anyone who considers the environmental impact of manufacturing is a tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing pothead. He's never seen a weapons system he didn't like. He figures cutting government contract deals with cronies is just part of doing business.

Had enough sarcasm?

My point is that we all say (I hope!) that God prefers neither dominant party or ideology - Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. But Christians got suckered into acting like He does about twenty-five years ago, give or take. Before that, evangelicals were largely populists - social conservatives and economic liberals. The Republicans co-opted our vote primarily by opposing abortion and supporting school prayer (without actually doing much about either). We've been a lock for them ever since. But instead of us influencing them, they've influenced us. Evangelicals now support the party line on everything - from the economy to social security to oil policy - simply because the party courted us on two issues, got what they wanted, and comes back wrapped in the flag and God's name every two years to get more.

Should we tell injured parties that corporations must operate unchecked and that over the course of decades market forces alone will eventually make these businesses public benefactors rather than threats? Doubtful. Do we really want to tell our children that we take little thought of the environment they will inherit or the resources we squander? I don't think so.

Yet we do it every time we support politicians who make corporations immune to lawsuits in exchange for campaign support, future board positions, and exotic travel opportunities. We send that message every time we defend energy policies that foul our air and avoid new power sources strictly out of blatant subservience to huge oil conglomerates. And we repeat it every time rights and liberty are eroded in the name of security.

It is wicked and abominable that we allow them to use us in this way.

Am I a Democrat? No way. Their capitulation to the abortion industry and militant secularism is abhorrent. But I refuse to make the blanket judgment that anything that comes out of any Democrat's mouth is wrong. Or, conversely, that everything a Republican says is right. That's utter foolishness. Wisdom is in a multitude of counsel, not in a gang of people who already agree with me.

We should not be married to any party or political ideology. Read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Can you honestly say - without qualification - that Jesus would be completely endorsed on every count, in practical application, by either side of our system? Not in a million years. And that's because He isn't about warring philosophies or beating the other guy or proving He's right. He's just Himself.

He is the truth - take Him or leave Him. But don't try to graft Him onto your politics. He transcends your ideology. And in many ways He will contradict your ideology. Please remember that the next time a politician tells you he's a God-fearing across-the-board conservative. Sometimes those two things are mutually exclusive.