Jim Wallis: God's own party?

Jim Wallis: God's own party?
From: Sojourners

Several weeks ago, Episcopal priest and former Republican Senator John Danforth began an op-ed in the New York Times by writing: "By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." And, I would add, some Religious Right leaders are trying to transform the church into the religious arm of conservative Republicans. Either way, these partisan attempts to hijack faith and politics are wrong.

Yet each week brings a new outrage. This week's news was of a Baptist church in North Carolina, where nine members, including three deacons, say they had their membership revoked because they were Democrats who supported John Kerry. According to the Charlotte News-Observer, the nine walked out of a church meeting when Pastor Chan Chandler asked them to sign documents agreeing with his political views. When they left, members remaining voted to terminate their membership.

While the pastor has attributed it to a "misunderstanding," the former members say that last fall he told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Kerry should either leave the church or repent. One, a 75-year-old deacon, told the News-Observer: "He went on and on about how he's going to bring politics up, and if we didn't agree with him we should leave. I think I deserve the right to vote for who I want to." News reports today indicate that Pastor Chandler is resigning.

It's the latest outrage in a continuing pattern. Last year, news stories included Republicans seeking church membership lists and mailing postcards implying Democrats wanted to ban the Bible. Just a few weeks ago, Religious Right speakers held what they billed as "Justice Sunday - Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith" in support of President Bush's judicial nominees. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was quoted in the New York Times as saying Democrats "have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position."

Because many other religious voices spoke to challenge the attempt to make God a partisan, President Bush, to his credit, repudiated the equation of faith with his policies. He was asked at his recent press conference whether he thought filibusters against nominees were "an attack against people of faith." He replied: "I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated.... I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith."

Then, on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked Pat Robertson about his statement that "the out-of-control judiciary, and this was in your last book Courting Disaster, is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda..." Robertson replied: "George, I really believe that. I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together...the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings."

This latest news from North Carolina is the logical, inevitable result of the road the Religious Right and some Republicans have taken.

It is the assumption that Christians must accept one partisan political position on issues, or be accused of not being Christian. This is an assumption we must reject. Rather, we must insist on the deep connections between spirituality and politics while defending the proper boundaries between church and state that protect religious and nonreligious minorities and keep us all safe from state-controlled religion. We can demonstrate our commitment to pluralistic democracy and support the rightful separation of church and state without segregating moral and spiritual values from our political life. Abraham Lincoln, in his famous Second Inaugural Address, said of the two sides in the Civil War: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other." He would say the same today.

The Republican Party is not God's own party, as the Religious Right and some Republican leaders seem to be suggesting. And, of course, neither is the Democratic Party. We must say it again and again until it is heard and understood: God is not partisan; God is not a Republican or a Democrat. When either party tries to politicize God, or co-opt religious communities for its political agenda, it makes a terrible mistake. God's politics challenge all our politics. Our faith must not be narrowed to the agenda of one political party.

- Jim Wallis

Filibustering Frist!

Filibustering Frist!

DavidNYC at Daily Kos reports on "Filibustering Frist Comes to DC":

"By now you've certainly heard about the Princeton students who've been filibustering Bill Frist for over (as of this writing) 367 consecutive hours. Last night, they took their filibuster on the road and made their way to the Capitol in Washington, DC. After reading about it in this diary, I knew I had to go pay them a visit...this phase of the filibuster comes to its denouement tomorrow, with a big rally and press conference planned for 11am, complete with members of Congress. If you're in the area, you should definitely swing by....It's been a brilliant piece of political theater and has gotten great press coverage. It's also been a great a example of how blogs can be used as an organizing tool and as a way to get your message out......"

The organizers of Filibuster Frist are going to be on CSPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow morning during the last hour.

May 11th

"Inside
Politics" (video) - CNN, 5/1
"Princeton's Mock Filibuster Visits D.C." - U.K. Guardian (from AP), 5/11
"Princeton's Mock Filibuster Visits D.C."- L.A. Times (AP wire), 5/11
The
Frist Filibuster Hits Washington - Time.com, 5/11
Princeton
University's Filibuster Fight Heading to Washington - WNBC.com, 5/11

"Protest Travels to Capitol Hill" - Daily Princetonian, 5/11

"Harvard Dems Filibuster 'Nuclear Option'" - The Crimson, 5/11

May 10th

"Students filibuster against Frist at his alma mater" - CNN.com

"Princeton's filibuster fight heading to Washington" - Newsday (from AP)

"Students give Frist taste of filibuster" - Yuma Sun, 5/10

May 9th

"Blogwatch" - TIME Magazine, 5/9

"Anatomy of a filibuster" - The Daily Princetonian, 5/9

"Princeton Undergrads Speak Up for Filibuster" - The

Dartmouth, 5/9

May 8th

"Of Filibustering And Haberdashery" - NY Times, 5/8 (print only)

May 7th

Wikipedia - nuclear option

"7 Judges' Futures Hang in Filibuster Fight" (picture/caption) - Washington Post (from AP), 5/7

"Don't like filibusters? Just listen" - Courier News, 5/8

May 6th

Transcript - Crossfire - CNN, 5/6

"Filibuster at Princeton Sends Frist a Message" - The New York Times, 5/6

"Princeton 'filibuster' rips alum Frist" - MSNBC News (from AP), 5/6

"Filibuster Protest Continues at Princeton" - The New York Times (from AP), 5/6

"Filibuster

Protest Continues at Princeton" - UK Guardian Unlimited (from AP), 5/6

"Filibuster Protest Continues at Princeton" - The Washington Post (from AP), 5/6

"Filibuster Protest Continues at Princeton" - ABC News (from AP), 5/6

"Princeton Students Protest Anti-Filibuster Frist" - Fox News (from AP), 5/6

Filibuster Fight Slide Show - Yahoo News, 5/6

"'Nuclear Option' is partisan politics" - The Daily Princetonian, 5/6 (guest column)

Op Art - The Daily Princetonian, 5/6

John Edwards to Help Strengthen Democratic Presence in States

John Edwards to Help Strengthen Democratic Presence in States

"Far too often, people think that the solutions to the problems we face as a country must come from Washington, but much of the important work on the issues Americans face every day is done in the states."

-John Edwards

There's some exciting news from John Edwards this morning. Edwards has agreed to help strengthen the Democratic presence in state legislatures by recruiting candidates and raising money.

John, here's thanking you in advance. (America loves you, regardless of what Ferrell Blount the Wicked Grinch has to say).

Hear and See The Eels on Jay Leno

Hear and See The Eels on Jay Leno

Go and listen to (and see) Mark Oliver Everett (aka E). He was on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno recently and he was great. The video is at the bottom (right side) of the page.

You can see him (and his band, The Eels) tonight on the Carson Daly Show.

The new album gets an A+ from me. Perhaps I'll soon have a chance to review it at BlogCritics.org.

I just adore Mark's work..and him. And Bobby Jr (his dawg).

Mountain Bloggercon This Autumn?

Mountain Bloggercon This Autumn?

Rumor has it:

There's talk of an autumn Mountain Bloggercon in Asheville, N.C.

*thanks to a little bird

Harry Reid - Stand Up and Fight For America

Harry Reid - Stand Up and Fight For America!

Thanks to Mark at The Common Ills, I found this blogpost at A Winding Road about the "nuclear option" and the out-and-out refusal on the part of the GOP to work with the Democrats. The Democratic leadership cannot keep offering olive branches to Bill Frist, who is gunning for our rights. I recently heard an ex-Congressman speak, off the record, about how the current Congress is alien to him - he recalls a Congress where Reps from both sides of the aisle worked, as statesmen, in the spirit of compromise for the good of America. The current GOP leadership are a bunch of radical thugs who care nothing for the rights of the minority - and President Bush does nothing to temper them, so I have to assume he is fully supportive of their actions.

Harry Reid needs to get tough - and now!

Excerpt:

Reid is like the outcast on the school playground who keeps trying everything in his meager means to be accepted by a group of bigger kids as an equal.

The Republicans have made clear that it's their way or no way. Reid and the Democrats need to be making it clear that they've already been more than reasonable and are not going to give up the right of the minority party to filibuster without a real fight.

The Example of John Brown Raises Moral/Ethical Questions

The Example of John Brown Raises Moral/Ethical Questions

In the current issue of The Nation, I read The Avenging Angel, Martin Duberman's book review of David Reynolds's new biography, John Brown, Abolitionist, and I began to think.

"There is something more terrible than Cain slaying Abel: It is Washington slaying Sparticus!"

- Victor Hugo, 1859

John Brown, the abolitionist, was a complicated man of deep moral values who was put to death in America for putting his faith and values into action in his own spiritual war against the moral hypocrisy of state-sponsored slavery. At that time, Christians used faith-precepts to defend state-sponsored slavery.

In contrast, today, our government expects us to call state-sponsored killing "for liberation" in Iraq (in what the Catholic church considers an unjust war) "heroic".

Think about that, in terms of moral and ethical consistency...and in terms of your personal faith.

In Duberman's words:

"Who, if anyone, has the "right" to kill? And from what source does the right derive? When does (or should) taking another life bring honor, and when disgrace? Is there such a thing as a "just" war that merits medals and heroes..? ..The ethical conundrums multiply even as their resolution resists consensus...

....No madman or fraud could conceivably have matched his astonishing eloquence and spiritual grandeur. This was a special man indeed, made so by the utter sincerity of his egalitarian convictions and his willingness to sacrifice all in their name. Reynolds has managed--long after someone else should have--to restore to us a flawed but deeply impressive humanitarian figure who makes the moral midgets currently dominating our national discourse appear, by contrast, the ignoble specks they actually are.."

Antinomianism is the belief that Christians are liberated from the observance of moral laws when God's grace is active. The belief was first attributed to St. Paul, who declared that his opponents "slanderously" had charged him with saying, "And why not do evil that good may come?" (Rom. 3:8). Antinomianism caused John Brown to kill in Kansas for egalitarian reasons. It causes men to bomb abortion clinics for what they believe is defending uninterrupted in-utero growth.

I ask myself:

Why, in spirit, do I understand why John Brown did what he did?

Why, in spirit, do I not agree with the men who bomb abortion clinics and take innocent life for what they see as defense of innocent life?

It has much to do with the value I place upon freedom. Freedom, for the slave, is a lot easier to embrace than the problem of freedom vs. faith which arises when the free control over a person's own body is threatened by the State. Is abortion not also an issue regarding some element of slavery? What would John Brown do?


The hand in this photo is telling you there is something going on inside this open womb. Personally, it causes me to understand what is real and often unseen to the eye. What is unseen to the eye is easier to neglect. I support sex education in schools along with abstinence programs, pregnancy prevention, counseling, and all adoption support because I believe there's more to that hand than meets the eye. A woman's right to choose should always be a legal option, along with the others.

This is one of the toughest issues we'll have to face in America. We have to learn to talk about it without the strong emotion that comes all too naturally to us.

New Address for Suburban Guerilla

New Address for Suburban Guerilla

FYI: Suburban Guerilla's address has changed. The address may have changed, but blogsister Susie still provides the same great commentary.

Thanks to Elayne for the info.

Poll Shows John Edwards' Nationwide Popularity

2008: Poll Shows John Edwards' Nationwide Popularity

Aides insist [John Edwards] has a serious shot in '08, pointing to last week's Marist poll showing Edwards performing better against Republicans than any Democrat nationwide.

When Republican, Democrat and Independent voters were asked who would be their preference in a nationwide race, John Edwards fared the best of all Democrats in the Marist poll, trailing John McCain by just 3 percentage points (46-43), which is a statistical tossup. John Edwards led Rudy Giuliani in the poll, 48-45, another statistical tie.

Hillary Clinton received 40% support among registered Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents for 2008.

To Impeach or Not to Impeach?

To Impeach or Not to Impeach?
What Can Citizens Do About the State of Their American Government?

I have read this article by Grace Reid at Daily Kos, which is reminding us that we, the U.S., are not the only nation in the world, although we may be the most powerful. We have a media that buries stories that are critical of the U.S. President, but the world outside our borders hears the stories which our media chooses to ignore and/or self-censors.

The writer wonders why American readers aren't more interested in the story about the movement to impeach Tony Blair, since it's bound to have international repercussions which will affect the Bush administration and the large part they played in massaging the intellligence in the lead-up to a war they knew they were going to start - no matter what; UN be damned.

The article also suggests that members of U.S. Congress (both GOP and Dem) are livid after learning about the leaked Rycroft memo from Downing Street because Congresspeople were persuaded to relinquish war powers, which should be OUR power, to President Bush and they now know they were rope-a-doped. They're powerless to do anything at all, in reality. They were castrated when they gave an unworthy leader the reins of power which rightfully belonged to the People.

Do we, the people, have any real democratic power if our Representatives now have such limited power? Listen to what Grace has to say:

When asking, "Where's the Media?" I think its important to remember that you, the reader ARE the media. Whether or not you "seize the day,".... YOU ARE THE MEDIA.... Your opinion matters, you MAKE the news. The media is nothing more than giving the people what they want. And that sells newspapers, and that gets ratings.... but you already know this, right? "Who controls the media, controls the fates." Well, that means YOU!! If you can find the news and report on it, if you can think things through for yourself and write a letter to the editor, if you can decide on these issues and write to your Representatives... YOU ARE THE MEDIA. And as Congressman Conyers has pointed out, your letters make more of a difference than you'll ever know.

Read and consider Grace's conclusion:

During the Nixon years it was John Dean who said, "There is a cancer on the Presidency." But now it is our whole form of government that has reached a critical mass. If the United States is a democratic Constitutional republic, then there is no question that impeachment is the proper course of action. Anyone who says otherwise has chosen the serfs role.

In the mean time, we have to suffer headlines about John Bolton's nomination for UN ambassador - the same old same old - another puppet who will systematically ruin the United States' good standing in the international community in favor of raw power and rule by fear, conquest, and intimidation.

I'm afraid, sadly, that America will not wake up until the first nuclear weapon which some terrorists have purchased from a rogue nation has been detonated in an American city. I pray this doesn't happen, but what if it does? It would be too late - we'd be kissing our hard-won freedom goodbye. Only then might citizens realize that this foreign policy has been all wrong. We'll all wish we'd organized in a movement to impeach George W. Bush a long time ago. But it's too late now, my fellow citizens. You must look at the reality. There is no media on your side. There is no Congress on your side.

When you live in a nation where even the truth's been politicized, you know you have to act for change or see your free country and democractic government die.

I'll leave you with this thought:

An elderly person asked me the other day in the course of conversation: "Why haven't they taken that guy [President Bush] out of the Oval Office in a straight-jacket strapped to a board? He's a madman! Why is he allowed to remain in power after all he's done to our country? Why don't the people act? What's wrong with them?"

Okay, that sounds hyberbolic, I realize, but a hell of a lot of "regular Joes" are talking this way. So -what do we do?

My own conclusion is that I don't believe President Bush will ever be impeached. Let's be realistic. There is no way I could see this Congress beginning the task. To my way of thinking, we should concentrate our efforts to persuade Americans to elect a virtuous Congress that would impeach a leader who would so boldly breach our trust. At the same time, remember that we have a sick media here in the United States. There is too little investigative journalism, too much market-driven self-censoring, and there are too many buried stories. I'll repeat Grace's own words:

"Who controls the media, controls the fates."

I think it's extremely important that we blog (speaking truth to power without faltering); write letters to the editor of news publications (or offer to blog for the newspapers); to hold media's feet to the fire, get involved in a grassroots coalition to promote grassroots candidates in your own community (and if there isn't one, then start one), and write your Representatives and call their offices with your concerns. Turn your anger and frustration toward a committed effort to organize and I think we'll all be the better for it.

Culture War: Fundamental Catholic Leaders Chide Catholic Colleges for Commencement Speaker Choices

Culture War: Fundamental Catholic Leaders Chide Catholic Colleges for Commencement Speaker Choices

The Madison Capital Times is reporting that The Cardinal Newman Society, a conservative Catholic organization, has chided Edgewood College and 12 other Catholic colleges and universities for inviting commencement speakers who publicly oppose "fundamental Catholic teachings." Edgewood College has invited Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Paul Higginbotham to speak at their commencement on May 15, and his views on abortion are problematic for the Cardinal Newman Society, who wish to see a "renewed Catholic identity".

If the Catholic church insists upon this culture war, I hope they will be are thinking ahead about how to sustain a religion where an overwhelming majority of American women, who believe they should have control over each of the decisions they make in this life, will be suddenly missing from their pews on Sunday.

Happy Mothers Day!

Mom sings me to sleep while Daddy plays
Happy Mothers Day!

Be very good to your Mom today, if you're lucky enough to have her with you. Don't forget to tell her that you love her. Life is short. Moms are the best and a mother's love is one of life's greatest gifts.

A special Happy Mothers Day greeting to all the Blogger Moms.

West Genesee High School Makes Newsweek's "Top Schools" List

West Genesee High School Makes Newsweek's "Top Schools" List

Congratulations go out to the administrators, staff, students, and parents of West Genesee High School in Camillus, which made Newsweek's Top 1000 Schools in America list (at 828, tied with Grosse Point North, MI).

Way to go, West Genny!

Dan Gillmor: Human Rights Watch Makes Appeal to Bloggers

Dan Gillmor: Human Rights Watch Makes Appeal to Bloggers

According to Dan Gillmor, Human Rights Watch is "asking bloggers to help 'prevent discrimination, uphold political freedom, protect people from inhumane treatment in wartime, and campaign to bring offenders to justice.'

Gillmor comments:

I trust this will annoy the pro-torture community.

Human Rights Watch RSS feeds

Conyers Circulates Letter Asking Bush to Explain Memo Allegations

Conyers Circulates Letter Asking Bush to Explain Memo Allegations

According to a Knight Ridder news report, an anonymous aide has said that Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking President Bush for an explanation of the leaked (highly classified) British memo's charges that he was determined to ensure that US intelligence data supported his Iraq policy.

Worst "News" Article I've Seen in a Long Time

Worst "News" Article I've Seen in a Long Time

I've just read one of the worst, most biased accountings of the CUNY conference written by an AP journalist and published in the Akron Beacon Journal. I wouldn't complain so loudly had I not been a witness to the conference myself. The article is so one-sided that it seems to me that Mr. Ostling was at a different place altogether.

From the misleading title:

"Academics on left bash evangelicals"

to the opinion-laden statement:

"The book table sold assorted Bush-bashing titles."

..it is an example of terrible, terrible journalism by Richard N. Ostling. The book table, by the way, was filled with a wide variety of political and spiritual titles. Bush-bashing is an incredibly subjective term for someone who claims to be a journalist of independent thinking. He does the average reader is disservice by filing this as "news".

Mr. Ostling has a fine reputation for reporting on issues relating to religion, but he really missed the boat on this one. I was at the conference both days and I'm telling you - he was biased and sloppy on this story. We can learn nothing from it except being led to believe it was a bunch of intellectuals bashing the poor evangelics with their venomous fangs bared. Such was NOT the case. The tired old stereotyping is indicative of clear bias. I cannot see it as anything else.

Listen to Ostling referring to the spirit of the conference:

"...it offered a fresh example of how venomous America's conservative-liberal religious split has become and how entangled faith is with politics."

I was there. It was not a "venomous" atmosphere at all. The speakers were not frothing secular extremists. There were quite a few people of active faith, including Rev. Bob Edgar and Rev. Joseph Hough, who spoke at the conference. There was advice given by some of them for political debaters to cease the urge to call evenagelical Christians names like "wingnut"; to stop pushing the envelope by saying over-the-top things, in the course of debate, to those of a more conservative faith, to talk to people of every faith at 'the middle-level', to engage far right religious leaders at a political level, and to listen carefully to what they have to say. Actual facts were given. (Unlike Ostling's totally unfair "news" article, unfortunately.)

Ostling says:

"..the chief targets were evangelical Protestants."

Once again, Ostling has left out something very important and has misled his readers. The facts issued were about the LEADERS of the Religious Far Right. There was never an ill word spoken or a negative view given about the people who make up the evangelical congregation.

"No speaker representing religious conservatives was invited to offer a rebuttal."

Journalists suffer from the curse of even-handedness - the feeling that they must have two polar sides presented in order to be able to report a news story - and Ostling is no different. If this conference was just going to be another example of Fox News-style "fairness", I would not have attended.

What the heck is this supposed to mean?

"Nor did conferees clarify what religious lobbying is proper or improper."

I'd be utterly ashamed to own up to writing this piece and calling it "news" if I were Ostling.

I question the journalistic integrity of the Akron newspaper for giving it print and trying to pass it off as news!

Warning: Patriot Pastors are NO PATRIOTS

"God has blessed the mission of Vision America...Beloved, the forces we fight are not of this world, and Satan never gives back what he has stolen without a fight. We are in a culture war for the soul of America."

-From Patriot Pastors/Theocrats

Warning: Patriot Pastors are NO PATRIOTS

The Patriot Pastor Network is a misnomer if there ever was one. Any Pastor who would seek to remove the checks and balances which keep our American Judiciary independent is NO PATRIOT! He (or she) would be a traitor to the spirit of American democracy. Their effort to exert and influence political power to impose a religious test on judicial nominees runs AGAINST the U.S. Constitution!

They Chose Culture War Over Common Sense

This is what I can imagine myself doing to folks who chose the culture wars over rational, ethical morality in this last election. Thanks to Biomes Blog for the photo.

Photo by Jude

Coffee shop window NYC
photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell

Pope Calls For Ousting Of Jesuit Editor

Pope Calls For Ousting Of Jesuit Editor

"Stephen Pope, a moral theologian at Boston College who wrote the article critical of the church's position on same-sex marriage, said of the dismissal: "If this is true, it's going to make Catholic theologians who want to ask critical questions not want to publish in Catholic journals. It can have a chilling effect."

- From a NY Times article by Laurie Goodstein

Rev. Thomas Reese, the 60 year-old editor of the Catholic publication America, who has covered some sensitive issues including gay priests, stem-cell research, whether Catholic politicians can be denied Communion if they support abortion rights, and same-sex unions, has been ousted at the behest of Pope Benedict XVI.

Tom Roberts, editor of the National Catholic Reporter, has commented that he believes this is "an absolute tragedy and an appalling affront to intelligent discourse."

It seems that the man who was Cardinal Ratzinger was waiting for the opportunity to oust Reese. As one of his first acts as Pope, this sends a clear message to Roman Catholics.

After seeing the new Ridley Scott film "The Kingdom of Heaven" last night, I am reminded how the force of organized religion can break down a society's view of the the value of virtue in men and women who hold faith and truth in their own hearts and minds. This is not to say that it is requisite to be irreligious in order to be virtuous, for the modern-day Society of Jesus can be held up as quite virtuous and obviously religious.

When you remove from the public forum your most intelligent, open-minded, and virtuous defenders of the faith, I believe that the faith becomes narrow and, ironically, increasingly vulnerable to corruption for power's sake.

Silencing post-Vatican II theologians is a clear cry for the denouncement of modernity. I am a person who struggles to find reasons to stay with the Roman Catholic faith. I was raised in the faith, educated in the faith, and it is not something I wish to abandon, because I place a high value on the personal virtues that I know I have developed, in large part, because of the education in that faith. However, I'm afraid, truly afraid, that as a result of denouncing modernity, the Roman Catholic Church in America will soon suffer the same fate as the Roman Catholic church in Europe. They are making the already-difficult struggle a near-impossible battle by narrowing the field back down to doctrinal tenets to which the modern man can barely relate. They ask us to stop looking ahead, and thus our hearts and spirits atrophy. It takes a leap of faith to trust modernity, and I only see this current move to silence modern men of faith as a direct way of losing the lambs that stray. When will they ever learn?

NY Times Story
Boston Globe Story
America Magazine

UPDATE: See Andrew Sullivan's take

Excerpt:

If I were a Jesuit, I would take the hostility of this clerical tyrant as a badge of honor. Firing this moderate, quiet, modest man is really a call to arms for those of us who need to save our church from this disastrous choice for the papacy.

John McCandlish Phillips on Various Columnists

John McCandlish Phillips on Various Columnists

By the very title of John McCandlish Phillips' Washington Post column, "When Columnists Cry 'Jihad', I strongly sensed that he wished to rouse emotions of distrust and fear in the average conservative Christian. I am dismayed by this, because, for the sake of the strength of a democratic America, I hope to see reconciliation between the people who call themselves fundamentalists (or born-agains) and so many other Americans who do not share that particular belief. Look at how the 21st century began - with our nation being drawn into Islam’s civil war, which is a war between those who idolize a political and authoritarian religiously-based society and those who champion a traditional, civil, and peaceful Islam of many varied voices. Why do we not see that something similar could happen here in America when political leaders like Tom DeLay admit he believes God is training him in government by divine guidance and a Biblical worldview? That, my friends, is a theocrat who is the majority leader of the American ('small d' - and getting smaller) democratic House.

Mr. Phillips has used what seem to be carefully-selected words from various columnists, and has promoted the most negative version of the often-misunderstood term "jihad". Many Muslims (especially the Sufis) conceive of jihad as a personal rather than a political struggle and do not connect the term with violence against others at all. For example, withdrawal from the world to attend to mystical pursuits constitutes jihad. If monks are to retreat to a monastery to attend to all things mystical, does that mean they want to fly airplanes into buildings?

When Mr. Phillips said:

If [columnist Frank] Rich were to have the misfortune to live for one week in a genuine jihad, and the unlikely fortune to survive it, he would temper his categorization of the perceived President Bush-driven jihad by a minimum of 77 percent.

..his intellectual honesty, as far as I'm concerned, went flying out of the belfry. "Genuine" jihad? I know that Mr. Phillips is not an ignorant man. I understand the meaning of persuasive writing, yet I can't help but think this is a fear-based misleading, because I realize that the average American hears "Jihad" and automatically thinks of Mohammed Atta and Osama Bin Laden. I imagine John McCandlish Phillips knows that, too - very well. I wonder if Mr. Phillips, like so many conservative Christians today, are lashing out in pain, believing they are misunderstood?

This culture war continues to be waged by Conservative Far Right Religious Leaders against secular modernity, against the checks and balances protected by the U.S. Constitution, against the independent Judiciary, and against the American way. I know there are concerned and tolerant Americans who are becoming conscious of the futility of and the reasons for the ugly culture war, and they will look for real leaders who will not use or abuse their faith to manipulate them.

The narrow theological agenda that the theocratic right is imposing on our secular society will not stand. We won't stand for it. The movement values guns and the death penalty. It values the rich at the expense of the poor. It favors corporations at the expense of individuals. It seeks to eliminate virtually all regulations that protect the environment, worker safety, and public health. The political ramifications run against my own personal Christian faith.

I respect Mr. Phillips faith, but I surely cannot abide by his political stance.

Mr Phillips, still referring to columnist Frank Rich, raised the spectre of revolutionary visions of gay marriage. I can easily understand how, after reading Mr. Phillips' piece, that conservative Christian readers might believe the radical revolution is coming from gays (who have been with us from time immortal), rather than admitting that the real radicals are the conservative leaders of the Theocratic Far Right who have been, in truth, trying very hard - for a very long time - to perform a surgical reconstruction of the U.S. Constitution by their religious triumphalism, and worse, with the willing help of the GOP.

When Maureen Dowd wrote "Oh my God, we really are in a theocracy," most New York Times readers are savvy enough to know she was being wry. Mr. Phillips warned someone (just who's he warning, anyhow?) that Maureen shouldn't be taken "lightly". He's right, I think. Maureen has a good point, once you sort through her envelope-pushing satire. Mr. Phillips recognizes her heavy artillery and he is biting back - yet, his bark is worse than his bite if you read what he says about Maureen. It's toothless. He's gumming away at her reality-based snipe-fest, perhaps hoping for an angry or fearful reaction that could only come from red-meat Conservatives. (That answers my question about who he's "warning".)

Worst of all, Mr. Phillips has given the average American reader no credit at all for our belief in upholding the U.S. Constitution and supporting the Establishment Clause while still understanding and respecting all people of faith. I can hardly believe he felt he had to defend born-agains and Catholics in the way he chose (especially since I am a Catholic myself):

I have met hundreds of evangelicals and a good many practicing Catholics and have found them to be of reasonable temperament, often enough of impressive accomplishment, certainly not a menace to the republic, unless, of course, the very fact of faith seriously held is thought to make them just that.

I think to myself: How dare he presume that someone like myself would think any different about these people of faith? I am a Catholic American, many of my closest friends profess the born-again faith. How dare Mr. Phillips make them believe that someone like myself thinks my fellow Christians are raving lunatics? I certainly do not, and I am powerfully sorry for Mr. Phillips if he truly believes most Americans feel that way about people who call themselves conservative Christians.

Mr. Phillips ended his piece with a triumphal claim to theocracy-in-democratic-government by touting the national day of Thanksgiving as proof that God can mix with State and it's all hunky-dory. I recall the story of the first Thanksgiving which inspired the national day's declaration. The Native Americans were allegedly invited to celebrate with the Puritan immigrants after their first harvest in the New World. The Native Americans then had their land stolen and raped by 'Christians'. In 1779, ten years before the first Thanksgiving to God was proclaimed, Washington ordered Haudenosaunee villages burned to the ground in a post-Revolution punitive action. Later, Manifest Destiny made it perfectly acceptable to forget what was morally right or wrong. Expansion at all costs - and slavery - were acceptable to some men who claimed to live by 'Christian principles'. I'm not making any of this up. Read your American history books. The land was stolen. Thou shalt not steal.

What sins, today, will be acceptable to the Religious Far Right leaders in their electoral affinity with the Neocons and the GOP? This is something we need to carefully ask ourselves.

I wish Mr. Phillips, who I believe is a gifted writer, could have appealed less to fear and mistrust and could have, instead, simply written a piece with a tone similar to the one David Brooks wrote this week. I actually thought Brooks did a decent job on his piece titled Stuck In Lincoln's Land. All opinion columnists could do well in pushing the fear-and-division envelope less and giving us more fact-based opinion. Speak to and try to appeal to the "Middle faith", not the red meat; not the extremists. It's a huge turn-off, frankly.
__

"Most people of faith in the U.S. are not right wing or left wing. The U.S. is made up of the religious middle, decent people who do what their doctor tells them and what their president tells them.”

-Rev. Bob Edgar

Andrew Sullivan on UK Election and NRO

Andrew Sullivan on UK Election and NRO

Andrew Sullivan says, that while he agrees with almost all of a recent NRO article on the British election,

it is weird to read in NRO the following sentence:

[The Tories] have the leisure, the time, and the stability to rethink their distinctly timid economic strategy and to invest in building and selling a new one rooted in limited government.

So NRO now supports limited government? So why have they not blasted consistently at George W. Bush's complete abandonment of limited government and fiscal balance? As I have written before, Tony Blair's incremental increase in government spending is pure Thatcherism compared to Bush's big government explosion. Wouldn't it be great if NRO actually used the same principles it deploys against Blair and Howard against Bush? And don't give me the excuse of occasional pathetic worries about Bush's spending. If a Democrat had Bush's record, NRO's assault on him would be daily and relentless. Draw your own conclusions.

It isn't hard to figure out, Andrew. Thanks for pointing out the hyposcrisy.

Frederick Clarkson On Dominionism and Democracy

Frederick Clarkson On Dominionism and Democracy

Frederick Clarkson talks about the success of last weekend's conference on Examining the Agenda of the Religious Far Right.



CUNY Conference - Clarkson is 2nd from the left
photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell

He also talks about his new Talk2Action blog.

Mr. Clarkson also mentions the free pass Pat Robertson always seems to get. (Remember when he wanted to blow up Foggy Bottom?) This past Sunday, on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopolis, Pat Robertson, founder of The Christian Coalition, claimed that the threat posed by the federal judiciary is "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." Robertson gets a roll of the eyes from us, but if Rev. Al Sharpton said something like that, Sean Hannity would be talking about it for three solid hyperbolic weeks.

Corrente lists Clarkson's, and some others' recent comments on "Christian Supremacist Watch".

Barbara has some current articles worth reading on this topic at her site.

__

The lovely Dawn Xiana Moon reminds us of James 1:27:

"Pure and lasting religion in the sight of God our Father means that we must care for orphans and widows in their troubles, and refuse to let the world corrupt us."

Someone asks her a question about this passage and offers a declaratory statement at the end:

"If caring for the orphans and widows, etc. is the Christian responsibility and not the governmental responsibility (as I believe) then how is that supposed to work in a land offering welfare, Medicaid, and all manner of gov't assistance? I believe we're all called to go farther than we have already gone."

The person is missing the point. If we were to remove ourselves from politics and refuse to participate as citizens in our election process, we would be knowingly failing those for whom we are asked to be especially caring and responsible.

Individual people of faith who are charged, by their faith,to care about the widows, orphans, and those in poverty must be responsible for solemnly determining which politicians we select who would best carry that duty forward with what we believe is the most virtuous and effective public policy. The world can corrupt you by misleading you and allowing you to take your eye off the goal of James' Biblical prescription. If you were to closely examine how the elderly and those in poverty are suffering more because of the policies of the Bush administration, James just might remind you that you've allowed a false and misleading message to corrupt your honest aim to keep the promise necessary to hold pure faith and charity toward those in your communities who are in real need. Food banks are helpful, but look around you and understand that public policy can create better opportunity for the
poor than tithing could ever do. James isn't asking you, in that Bible passage, to abandon, hate or distrust your American government. He's asking you not to lose your soul and to stay awake in your faith. His words find you where you are - in the society into which you were born. You are Americans! Be responsible ones. Be patriotic and Christian at the same time. Thanks to our Founding Fathers, you are allowed to be both and there is little conscientious reconciliation required.

Democrats Excommunicated From NC Baptist Church

Democrats Excommunicated From NC Baptist Church

Scrutiny Hooligans, Anonymoses, and Daily Kos have a story about a Baptist Church in Western North Carolina which has excommunicated Democrats for not supporting George W. Bush in the last election! See the story HERE.

East Waynesville Baptist Church asked nine of its members to leave when Pastor Chan Chandler gave them an ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. The minister has declined interviews, but he has said that "the actions were not politically motivated."

Does he think we were born again yesterday?

___________

The People For the American Way has made the following statement:

Following the report that nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in western North Carolina were excommunicated because they did not support President Bush in the election, Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way Foundation, had the following statement:

“What have we come to when the doors of a church are closed to longtime members because of their political beliefs? When a pastor equates political support for the ‘wrong’ candidate with a sin before God?

“I would say to Senator Frist and Karl Rove that this is what comes of attempts to manipulate religion for political gain. Americans simply will not accept the claim that ‘unless you accept my political beliefs, you cannot be a good Christian.’

“This nation was founded on respect for religious belief, and tolerance for religious diversity. Men and women of faith have every right to advocate for their political beliefs. While churches, of course, can set their own membership standards, no one should punish people of faith for their political beliefs.

“This is terribly sad. I urge the President to express his opposition to all attempts to manipulate faith for political gain.”

UPDATE -
See: "Church boots 9 over politics - Politics divides Baptists in Waynesville"
By KRISTIN COLLINS, Staff Writer, News & Observer

Asheville Citizen-Times stories HEREand HERE

Edwards:"Americans, We're In This Together"

John Edwards:
"Americans, We're In This Together"

With insight and humor, David K. Beckwith recommends that John Edwards, being sincere about his vision and wanting to reduce the numbers in poverty, should

"...entertain the possibility that one might educate those who are not actually impoverished, that there is no wrong in having just enough, and that it can be argued that it may well be the preferred state. Aside from Taoists and Buddhists teachings, once can reach into Christianity, the sermons of Eckhart on Poverty, for example, to show that less is indeed more…in other words, isolate out those who truly need help, and focus on them first and foremost. Too often, the aid only goes to agencies and sinecures and amanuenses, whose condition, though banal, is far from dire.

Additionally, and similarly, he might apply the same sermons and principles to the billionaires of our day, who need money like they need a supererogatory cranial ingress, or more commonly, a hole in the head."

In a Salon article by Peter Dizikes, one of Edwards' unique political advantages is laid out:

Edwards is in the most unusual position of all the potential Democratic hopefuls: Outside of the formal structure of his own party, unable to burnish his political resumé by conventional means, and unable to use political office to gain media attention.

He describes Edwards' current approach to the social values and ethics-aspect of issues that he once blanketed simply as "moral causes":

"..instead of just dubbing certain issues moral causes, as Edwards did last year, he is now basing his claims on some first principles. Work, Edwards claims, is not just an economic abstraction but an inherently social activity. Work is how people provide for their families and, in many cases, define their civic participation."

In America, we cannot succeed unless we work together. A team falls apart when its members' individual interests override the greater good of the team's goal. When this occurs, you can believe that achieving a strong, free nation with a healthy democracy is easily forgotten. On any team, you must have a goal. True patriotism means staying involved as a team member, setting aside excessive self-interest for the good of the team, and having an open government which facilitates citizen participation. Without the team and consideration of all its members, you lose freedom, opportunity, legal protections, and worst of all - you lose sight of your goal. It seems we've lost sight of many of our goals in the past few years, and the slow-killing of social democracy and further enriching, through policy reform, of the already-wealthy by the Bush administration has clearly been a driving force in the loss of American achievement, opportunity, and equality.

"The truth is nobody earns his or her money alone," Edwards said at the New School. "They earn it thanks to America. They earn it because America protects private property, enforces contracts, and yes, punishes torts ... So nobody goes it alone, and everybody has a responsibility to help everybody get ahead." We are, Edwards wants Americans to remember, in this together. If you don't accept that point, Edwards claims, you do not understand American history....."

Dizikes quotes Edwards on the stereotypes that exist, used often by the Right to blur the lines and diminish support for government aid for those living in real and inescapable poverty. The recently passed Bankruptcy Bill was a glaring example of how Republicans (and a few from the Democratic party) have lost touch with the reality of the economic situation of many common American citizens.

Unlike [Former President Bill] Clinton, Edwards seems eager to combat age-old shibboleths abetting conservative ideology -- like the myth that poor people are lazy, and thus not morally worthy of help. At Harvard Edwards described a meeting with poor families where he was struck by "how hard people wanted to work and how much they wanted to take care of their families. I know there's a stereotype that exists out there, but a lot of people who live in poverty don't fit that model."

In the latest Harpers magazine, Gordon Bigelow discussed the evangelical roots of economics, describing economics, when channeled by media and politics, as the "cosmology and theodicy of our contemporary culture." He describes early "faith-based initiatives" in British economic policy, where evangelical Anglicans did not understand poverty as a problem to be fixed, but instead saw it as a spiritual condition. The workhouses of Dickens' day were not supposed to help children prepare for life - they were supposed to save their souls. When I read Edwards' quote from the Salon article, it reminded me of the old workhouse theory, which is frighteningly espoused, in nature, by the GOP's recent attempts to cut off the checks and balances necessary to maintain a balanced independent Judiciary and to sandwich religious intolerance into their reform policies:

"All of us know the Bible says the poor will always be with us, and some people use that as an excuse to do nothing,"

Downing Street Memo Reveals Truth About Intelligence Manipulation

Downing Street Memo Reveals Truth About Intelligence Manipulation

Semidi is reporting that the "secret Downing Street memo" is now posted online. Matthew Rycroft, who was a Downing Street foreign policy aide, wrote:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

I've heard nothing in the media about it. Only in Bushworld would citizens not be going crazy with anger after seeing, in black and white, that the Bush administration massaged the intelligence like you would push 500 pounds of bread dough into a sandwich-sized ziploc baggie.

Generation Engaged

Generation Engaged

At the One America website, Cate Edwards has blogged about a new organization which was started by Adrian and Devin Talbott after the last election. It's called Generation Engage, and it is a non-partisan group geared towards getting young people involved in the world of politics. Generation Engage allows its members to become a part of something bigger, a national movement of engaged young people committed to ensuring that their voices are heard. Young people have been unable to unite or coalesce behind a single issue or organization, as other age groups and demographics have. Generation Engage hopes to create a network that defines itself by inclusion, a community that welcomes and joins all young people in a national political discourse.

You may join the network HERE.

Thom Hartmann: The Frauds of the Clergy

Thom Hartmann: The Frauds of the Clergy

If you examine the Founding documents of this country, you will realize how the leaders of the GOP, in their electoral affinity with the Religious Far Right, would deliberately mislead American citizens in order to co-opt themselves and their corporate patrons in the destruction (by reconstruction) of the U.S. Constitution.

Thom Hartmann, whose article is well worth reading, says:

"The merger of corporatist Republicans and the new "frauds of the clergy" could bring this nation to an even more terrible crossroad, unless Americans of good conscience contact their members of the Senate to support Jefferson's and Madison's ideal of democracy.

The number to reach any member of the Senate is 202-224-3121."

One Soldier Shoots: By Faith or By Orders?

One Soldier Shoots: By Faith or By Orders?

I saw a column today in the New York Times written by Bob Herbert. It deals, in part, with a topic that is very, very hard for us to talk about. Yet, if we fail to talk about it, nothing will get better.

The column deals with a conscientious objector who raises some extremely disturbing charges about some things he saw happening, with his own eyes, in Iraq.

There was a statement, toward the end of the column, that seemed to have been added at the end to have maximum effect upon our faith consciousness.

It says:

Mr. Delgado, who eventually got conscientious objector status and was honorably discharged last January, recalled a disturbance that occurred while he was working in the Abu Ghraib motor pool. Detainees who had been demonstrating over a variety of grievances began throwing rocks at the guards. As the disturbance grew, the Army authorized lethal force. Four detainees were shot to death.

Mr. Delgado confronted a sergeant who, he said, had fired on the detainees. "I asked him," said Mr. Delgado, "if he was proud that he had shot unarmed men behind barbed wire for throwing stones. He didn't get mad at all. He was, like:

'Well, I saw them bloody my buddy's nose, so I knelt down. I said a prayer. I stood up, and I shot them down.'

Faith as Wedge:

Bob Herbert showcased the soldier's hearsay-statement, offered to him by the conscientious objector he'd interviewed, and I can see how the soldier's referral to prayer could easily be used as a wedge to politically divide people of faith. I'm not saying that Bob should not report what is told to him, that's not my point at all. I'm saying that the perceptions about the soldier and his faith, through the quoted statement about him, is how wedges are deepened by those who wish to use faith as a political weapon. (Unfortunately, I am aware that there are many political operatives who have this wish.)

Faith as Target:

When the conscientious objector points to the soldier's alleged statement about prayer and defense of a "buddy" as a direct reason for the killing of a detainee (rather than focusing on the fact that he was following Army orders), it seems that the conscientious objector is targeting the soldier's faith as the proximate reason for the killing. He takes the fact that there was a direct order to shoot nearly out of the picture. The statement is "put out there" with no deeper discussion of how many ways you could come to understand the soldier in question and his personal experience. Is that a fair way to lead others to understand the truth? I don't think so. That's why I've chosen to point this out to you.

Faith as Catalyst

Faith is being challenged as a catalyst for killing, if you read too many of your own fears and perceptions into the soldier's alleged statement. Did faith drive the soldier to kill - or was the order to fire upon the detainees the catalyst? I don't agree with our policy in Iraq, but if we infer that faith is a catalyst for killing, I believe we are making too heavy and unfair a judgement upon the soldier.


Faith as Personal Support

Have you considered that the soldier may have been personally struggling with the Army order to shoot, and stopped to pray God's forgiveness before killing as ordered, thus fulfilling a sworn duty? I don't think that would be too much of a strain on our empathetic imagination.

Faith as Maker of Enemies

You know, as sure as day follows night, that a person who already harbors anger for the soldiers will take the alleged statement from that soldier and consider it a Crusader's message. Faith makes enemies when we fail to talk openly and honestly about personal faith.


My personal thoughts? I believe the soldier was following orders. War makes you hard, or war makes you realize you cannot be hard. The conscientious objector could not be hard enough to allow what he perceived as gross violation of human rights to be forgotten. Through it all, there are soldiers who've followed orders and will be forever tortured by what they were ordered to do.

If a soldier stops to pray before he follows orders, I don't know if he's going to hell or heaven or San Luis Obispo when he dies. Neither do you, by science. You only believe by faith. The same faith that causes soldiers to pray.

Karen Kwiatkowski: The Libertarian '24'

"It is a great day when one of the most popular TV shows in America might be viewed with appreciation by Thomas Jefferson and H.L. Mencken."

Karen Kwiatkowski: The Libertarian '24'

One of my favorite writers, Karen Kwiatkowski, has written an article about the political overtones gleaned from the Fox show "24".


Dave wants Kim to come back

I admit that I'm a "24" junkie.
I just can't get enough of the show.

Bummer about Paul, isn't it? I wonder if this will permanently kill Jack's likelihood of keeping his gal pal Audrey?

John Edwards: The Contender

John Edwards: The Contender

Insiders call Edwards a contender - John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are the top two potential 2008 Presidential candidates being talked about by Washington insiders, according to this News & Observer article.

*Thanks to Seth Whitaker for the referral.

Who Is Patty Murray's Guest-Blogger?

Who Is Patty Murray's Guest-Blogger?

---
Patty..................................................Me

I've been told that Patty Murray and I look so much alike that we could be sisters.

The only reason I'm bringing that up is because John Edwards posted on Patty's blog today.

Check it out.

Gore Vidal: The Undoing of America

Gore Vidal: The Undoing of America
Gore Vidal on war for oil, politics-free elections, and the late, great U.S. Constitution by Steve Perry
LINK: City Pages

"...the old American republic is well and truly dead. The institutions that we thought were eternal proved not to be. And that goes for the three departments of government, and it also goes for the Bill of Rights. So we're in uncharted territory. We're governed by public relations. Very little information gets to the people, thanks to the corruption and/or ineptitude of the media....

...This is something new under the sun--that a president, just because he feels like it, can declare war on anybody. And Congress will go along with him, and the courts will support him. The founding fathers would be mortified if they saw what had happened to their handiwork, which wasn't very great to begin with but is now done for...

....All we do is hear about little cures for little pains. Nothing important gets said. There used to be all those talk shows back in the '50s and '60s, when I was on television a great deal. People would talk about many important things, and you had some very good talkers. They're not allowed on now. Or they're set loose in the Fox Zoo, in which you have a number of people who pretend to be journalists but are really like animals. Each one has his own noise--there's the donkey who brays, there's the pig who squeals. Each one is a different animal in a zoo, making a characteristic noise. The result is chaos, which is what is intended. They don't want the people to know anything, and the people don't..

...I've just been reading a report on Conyers's trip to Ohio with his subcommittee's experts. Ohio was stolen. The Republican Congress will never have a hearing on it. But I think attempts are being made to publish the details of what was done there, and elsewhere too in America. In other words, I put the case that Bush was never elected--not in 2000, and not in 2004. This is a new game in the world. Through the magic of electronic voting, particularly through Mr. Diebold and friends, you can take a non-president and make him president. But how to keep the people, including the opposition who should know better, so silent, this introduces us to a vast landscape of corruption which I dare not enter.."

To All Americans - Heal Our Land!

photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell

To All Americans - Heal Our Land!

"We have been accused of arrogance. But what of the fantastic arrogance of our leaders? What of their crimes against the people, the poor and powerless?

Still no court will try them, no jail will receive them. They live in righteousness. They will die in honor.

For them we have one message. For those in whose manicured hands the power of the land lies, we say to them - "Lead us." Lead us in justice and there will be no need to break the law. Let the president do what his predecessors failed to do. Let him obey the rich less and the people more. Let him think less of the privileged and more of the poor. Less of America and more of the world. Let lawmakers, judges, and lawyers think less of the law, and more of justice; less of legal ritual, more of human rights.

To our bishops and superiors we say- Learn something about the gospel and something about illegitimate power. When you do, you will liquidate your investments, take a house in the slums, or even join us in jail."

- Philip Berrigan S.S.J., from the transcript of the court trial of the Catonsville Nine

__________

In the political campaign leading to the 2004 elections, I do not recall one American Catholic Bishop appearing in the media to say one word of condemnation against the sin of greed, which contributes directly to poverty and inequality in this nation. By their ommission, voters were induced to support candidates who would virtually strip away support for Americans living in poverty.

All I recall hearing about were the wedge issues of abortion and homosexuality.

When the Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders of Christian sects start to sound like Fox News pundits, it is high time we recognize their actions as political and treat them accordingly. When I heard the Bishops were attempting to set groundwork for a denial of Communion to John Kerry and other Democrats because of their political beliefs on one isue (when there are thousands upon thousands of faith issues and concerns), I was not only appalled - as a Catholic, I was nauseated by the targeting of one American political party for one issue by the Church.

Once we realize a boundary is being blurred between the State and our faith, we must speak to the political issue on a strictly political level with these faith leaders, for they have entered a dangerous area where Christianity, alone, cannot take precedence over the rule of civil law and pluralism. There are too many people of non-Christian faiths (and non-faith) who call themselves American. Do you know that the word 'God' does not even appear, not even once, in the U.S. Constitution?

We must continue to appeal to our political leaders for fairness and I repeat that we must begin to speak to our religious leaders on a political level. We did not ask for this struggle and dilemma, but when our religious leaders decide to divide the body of Christ (which is the church and its members) by politics, we must reconsider the words of Father Philip Berrigan in 1969.

Two hundred years from Adam Smith, it's clear that the market has unleashed an uncontrollable force. It is not a Holy force by any means. There is an unrestrained "self-interest" of individuals and of organized special-interest groups. In an economic-Darwinian style, the weak are punished while the strong are rewarded. If we are to believe that the current consensus of the American majority is that it is morally acceptable for them to socially exclude those who are unable to meet the demands of the market, then we might assume we are living in a soulless society.

I, for one, refuse to believe that Americans truly feel that it is morally, politically, or legally acceptable to have such an unjust distribution of wealth, work, and income which GOP policies have brought about (with the help of a concentrated group of special interests who call themselves "Christian" and prove themselves to be anything BUT).

If the lights suddenly "came on", and those Americans who profess to be Christians were to sit back and think about how the policies they've supported (through elections) are running against their faith-based beliefs and Bible-based lessons, I think they'd be reeling with confusion and anger. Talking points and carefully-framed issues have caused these voters to believe they have been doing the right thing. In reality, the results of the policies they've been persuaded to support are coming to the surface, and they are dark, they are non-compassionate, and they are ugly.

The United States is, unfortunately, the leader in widening the gap between the upper, middle, and under-classes at home and around the world. Other countries are following our lead with the help of our influence and cooperation in G8 activities. The middle class in this country has long ceased to protest the New World Order. Their political interests are basically limited to concerns about family, religion, taxes and government regulation of business. The larger issues escape them because they do not affect their private lives, especially those who live in rural and suburban communites and who are far away enough from the areas which take on the full impact of the new (and rapidly growing) American underclass.

For the sake of brevity, let me state that I believe we need to see a change soon, or expect to see the rapidly-increasing working underclasses (in America and other nations - perhaps in a cooperative effort) to stage a resistance that may not be as peaceful as that of people of faith and morality like Father Berrigan. I'm not saying it may happen anytime soon, but unless we turn public policy around, we are bound to see a growth in support for such a resistance movement. If Congressmen (and women) cannot find a way to work with each other and cast partisanship aside, they may lose their chance for conflict management and control when a crisis is reached. When it comes to the Poverty issue and conflict resolution between the worker and the government, I believe American Labor will become an important and prominent movement, and will probably be seen as the new American patriotic movement. Americans will find their way back to believing in their communities and working together with the powerful force of their faith when they focus on economic justice and compassion for the poorest among them. When too many have been relegated to a class within which they see no opportunity of movement because public policy has locked them in and removed their liberty, they will begin to see the faithless component to the policy they'd once supported as true believers.

The issues of alleviating the causes of poverty, reducing inequality, respecting pluralism, considering true compassion in public policy, and being determined to promote tolerance are more important today than they've ever been. They all run true to the cause of freedom and liberty while calling upon those of faith as well as those who practice no faith at all.

Our religious leaders need to awaken to the truth of what's happening in America. I believe they have all too often failed to lead and the result is an America that, paradoxically, claims to hold to Christian values and yet has produced a nation of greedy, selfish, and non-community-based policies. Americans are better than that, and I do not fault them because I understand that they have been misled. We are one America or we are not America at all. We need to work together or expect to destroy ourselves from within.

I invite every American to read this and consider it carefully, remembering that our Founding Fathers personally knew little of Catholicism (though some saw it in French influence), the Baptist movement, or the Pentecostals - nor did they know about a "born again" movement. (The closest any of them came was Madison, who attended a moderately evangelical Episcopal church later in life). They came from the churches in which they were raised and/or saw established in their colonies (Anglican, Congregationalist,etc) - and some were Deists. John Adams belonged to an anti-Great Awakening wing of Congregationalists (a predecessor of the Unitarians).

We cannot allow Religious Supremacists (who make up the shadow-leadership of a widespread-yet-quiet political movement in America) to hijack, pervert, or water-down our faith. We must not allow them to destroy the traditional civic fabric of our country, which by tradition requires respect for religious freedom and pluralism. When issues are triumphalistically supported in the name of one religion's God and is a detriment to fair and responsible public policy, we are not acting as Americans. Someone may argue with me that Jesus Christ called us to work within our diversity, but no one can argue that the Founding Fathers called upon us to do so as American citizens.

If our religious and political leaders continue to turn their backs on each other, my fellow Americans, it is up to us to mend our nation and return to the true nature of our faith, which is love and empathy for our fellow man. We should seek cooperation to reach a higher goal for our civil society based upon our common and shared values. It is equally important to join together to help each other and to mend the divisions which our immature and dangerous leaders have created because of their own greedy self-interests.

If you are faithful, I appeal to you to never lose your faith. If you are patriotic, I appeal to you to never lose your love for American democracy and to embrace a policy which ensures a freedom that does not have to encompass the immorality of greed, but instead calls citizens to welcome the poor to take a place beside us at the bountiful table.

"To our bishops and superiors we say - Learn something about the gospel and something about illegitimate power. When you do, you will liquidate your investments, take a house in the slums, or even join us in jail."

Jeff Sharlet: Jesus Plus Nothing

Jeff Sharlet: Jesus Plus Nothing

Who is "The Family"?

Are they "just" a bunch of guys hanging out?
Are they "just" like you and me?

What is "Ivanwald"?

Read Jeff Sharlet's "Jesus Plus Nothing", an article which has appeared in Harper's Magazine.

National Review Mischaracterizes Us

National Review Mischaracterizes Us

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review is mischaracterizing the recent focus on the Religious Extreme Right as "hatred" for Christians. So many of us are Christians or Jews who've stemmed from the same Judeao-Christian base! I am a Christian. I attended last weekend's conference at CUNY with a woman of the Jewish faith. We both heartily agreed, at the end of the day, that the facts presented at the CUNY conference proved what the National Review doesn't care to discuss. Instead, they go for a gut attack and hope for a gut reaction. This insult and error in Mr. Kurtz's opinion couldn't be more off the mark. I never heard a word of "hatred" or anger from any of the speakers at the CUNY conference last weekend. On the contrary. They urged an open mind and an patient understanding while never losing sight of the bare facts. Never - not once - did they categorize anyone as "evil". I sat next to a Catholic Sister at the conference's break-out afternoon session. Many speakers were Christians and Jews themselves. Kurtz is so far off the mark that he should post a retraction to the gross "hatefest" misinformation he's speading. He's wrong, wrong, wrong.....sinfully wrong.

These ugly mischaracterizations only serve to make Kurtz and his ilk at National Review look like the ranting and raving partisans they are. They're walking like ducks - so they're ducks, already. Mean, nasty little ducks, too. They are the symptom, and not the cure for what it's going to take to get Americans to understand one another.

Last winter, the National Review pulled the same crap on me, a meek and lowly blogger who gets a couple hundred hits a day.

What are they so afraid of?

I'll tell you - when you get too close to the truth, you get slammed!

When they don't like your message, they immediately bare the fangs.

There can be grace and dignity, even in politics. The National Reviewers know (or care) little about how to be dignified. Their soft affinity with the electoral politics of the extreme religious right is clearly the reason why.

Elizabeth Edwards Sets a Blogger Straight

Elizabeth Edwards Sets a Blogger Straight

Elizabeth Edwards has a lot of passion and intelligence, and that's what I admire about her. She wouldn't allow an untruth go by when blogger Chip Atkinson made a cheap shot about her husband on Ed Cone's blog today.

Here's how it went:

Ed blogged that John Edwards is working to raise the minimum wage.

Chip commented:

Now here's a guy who may seem to be working for minimum wage, but has a track record of working only for himself. Not an orginal idea in his head... he never paid his dues politically.
chip • 5/2/05; 6:28:51 AM #

To which Elizabeth replied, in John's defense:

Three points here. 1. "A track record of working only for himself"? John has spent his entire adult life working for others. For some of that work he was paid and often well, for some he was not paid at all. He has worked on homelessness issues, worked in our church, volunteered with sports programs at the Y, with city leagues for more than 12 years, worked (and in parge part paid) to establish free after-school programs in Raleigh and in Goldsboro, and he decided to try to replace Lauch Faircloth so our state could have a Senator who really knew and fought for North Carolina workers, which he did. 2. "Not an original idea in his head"? Maybe there is nothing new under the sun, but John has clearly not taken the path well-trodden in Washington. He spoke of "two Americas", giving an original voice to a long-standing (and worsening)immoral condition in this country, and since the election, he has continued his fight on a personal level. 3. And finally "he never paid his dues politically"? What in the world does that mean? I, for one, want someone who remembers life before politics, who has done manual labor (and honors it), who knows the menu at McDonald's, who has spent countless Saturday mornings coaching children, who has felt -- like most of us -- the highs and lows of life and doesn't forget any of it. (I suspect, Chip, that if he had spent decades in politics, you would say that he was too far from the people.)
Elizabeth Edwards • 5/2/05; 1:21:03 PM #

Lights Are Going On In America

Lights Are Going On In America

Barbara, who usually blogs about spirituality, writes about this past weekend's conference on Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right at CUNY and how it has caused her to think about the state of 'her America'.

I saw a funny quote at Barbara's site, and it ties in with the topic. Jerry Garcia said:

"Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us."

I laugh, and at the same time I remember that we were told on Friday night, by Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar (general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ and six-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives), that we are the prophets and the leaders we've been waiting for, just as Willam Rivers Pitt reminded us last year.

While we've been waiting, it's been us all along. We are the hope for America, and we must take the responsibility to act, each in the best and most effective way we know how.


Panel prepares for discussion
Left to right: Mark Crispin Miller, Jeff Sharlet, Ralph White, David Levine, Frederick Clarkson, Hugh Urban, and Chip Berlet
photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell

Barbara especially liked Katherine Yurica's conference speech. She can't get enough of YuricaReport.com. I agree. Katherine was a passionate speaker.

See her essay: "What did Mr. Bush's 2nd Inaugural Address Really Mean?"

Brian & Ruby: An Open Source Wedding

Brian & Ruby: An Open Source Wedding!

__Congratulations to Brian and Ruby!
This looks like it will be the first open-source wedding!

R. Crumb on Aging

R. Crumb on Aging

On NPR's Fresh Air, I heard underground comix-guru R.(Robert) Crumb say that he feels as if he was born an old man, and as the years have passed, he's become more and more like a child.

Photo

The Moon and New York City
photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell

Jim Wallis on the Hijacking of Christianity

Jim Wallis on the Hijacking of Christianity

An attempt to hijack Christianity
by Jim Wallis
From: Sojourners

"Last week, I wrote about the "Justice Sunday" event held at a Louisville, Kentucky, mega-church. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson, and Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler were joined by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on video in the event titled "Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith." Of course, I have no objection to Christian leaders expressing their faith in the public arena - it's a good thing that I do all the time. The question is not whether to do so, but how. As I heard more and more about "Justice Sunday," it felt to me like it was crossing an important line - saying that a political issue was a test of faith.


So, when I was invited to speak at an interfaith "Freedom and Faith" service at Central Presbyterian Church in Louisville, I agreed. On Sunday morning, I flew to Louisville, and that afternoon addressed more than 1,000 people who attended the rally. I didn't go to say that these leaders shouldn't bring their faith into politics; the issues concerning them - abortion and family values - are also important to me. But the way they were doing it was wrong. The clear implication of their message was that those who opposed them are not people of faith.


We can get some historical perspective by looking at how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did it - and he was the church leader who did it best. Once after he was arrested, he wrote a very famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," addressed to the white clergy who were opposing him on the issues of racial segregation and violence against black people. Never once did he say that they were not people of faith. He appealed to their faith, challenged their faith, asked them to go deeper with their faith, but he never said they were not real Christians. If Dr. King refused to attack the integrity and faith of his opponents over such a clear gospel issue, how can the Religious Right do it over presidential nominees and a Senate procedural issue known as the filibuster?


After the "Justice Sunday" event, and the controversy surrounding it, some of the sponsors are denying they ever claimed that those who oppose them are hostile to people of faith. Yet their words stand for themselves. In the letter announcing the event on the Family Research Council Web site, Tony Perkins wrote: "Many of these nominees to the all-important appellate court level are being blocked...because they are people of faith and moral convictions.... We must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith."


So, I told the Louisville rally that when someone has stolen our faith in the public arena, it is time to take our faith back. "Justice Sunday" was an attempt to hijack Christianity for a partisan and ideological agenda. Those on the Religious Right are declaring a religious war to give their version of faith religious supremacy in America. And some members of the Republican Party seem ready almost to declare a Christian theocracy in America. It is time to take back both our faith and our Constitution.


It is now clear there are some who will fight this religious war by any means necessary. So we will fight, but not the way they do. We must never lie or misrepresent the facts or the truth. We must not demonize or vilify those who are our opponents. We must claim that those who disagree with our judgments are still real people of faith. We must not fight the way they do, but fight we must. A great deal is at stake in this battle for the heart and soul of faith in America and for the nation's future itself. We will not allow faith to be put into the service of one political agenda.


This is a call for the rest of the churches to wake up. This is a call for people of faith everywhere to stand up and let their faith be heard. This is not a call to be just concerned, or just a little worried, or even just alarmed. This is a call for clear speech and courageous action. This is a call to take back our faith, and in the words of the prophet Micah, "to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God."

- Jim Wallis

Watch streaming video of Jim's message at the "Freedom and Faith" service:


RealPlayer


Windows Media Player

___________

Read more about "Justice Sunday" and Sojourners' efforts to offer an alternative view. Some sites may require registration.


Frist seeks Christian support to stop filibusters
+ The New York Times


Religion, politics intersect in 'Justice Sunday'
+ Lexington Herald-Leader


Christians square off over battle for judiciary
+ Chicago Tribune


Battle over benches spills across pews
+ Los Angeles Times


Religious conservatives speak out against Democrats' use of filibuster
+ The Kansas City Star


Foes attack event as intolerant
+ The Courier-Journal (Louisville)

____



What’s missing from the debate over values in America?

See this Mother Jones article by Garret Keizer.

Excerpt:

"Had Howard Dean been an evangelical Christian with an evangelical Christian base, would his followers have deserted him because his Iowa holler made him “unelectable”? Or would they have closed ranks behind him because his stand on the Iraq war made him right?"