OK... let me begin with a couple of facts.
I am pro-choice. I have no idea why or how that gets conflated with "pro-abortion." I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion." Indeed even the abortion providers with whom I'm familiar would like nothing better than to see the procedure disappear.
Being pro-choice is a stance based in my understanding of my faith. It is by no means in conflict with my commitment to following Jesus.
Given that lots of folk are writing about safe and legal these days given the current situation, I want to write a little about "rare." Again, let me been with the assertion that everyone I know who is pro-choice wants abortion to become rare. I'm less sure that is the case with many of those who call themselves "pro-life" but who I would rather call "anti-choice."
So what are the conditions that allow that to happen... Women who get pregnant want to be pregnant. They see a way forward that truly involves life.
So how do we get there... first the easy steps.
We make birth control easily available to all. I remember being shocked when one of my young church members reported going off to college and being confronted by bowls of condoms in his dorm common areas. I now think it was a wonderful idea. Perhaps such a bowl should be in every high school rest room. But condoms must not be the only method freely and easily available. Make other methods freely and easily available to young girls.
We make sex ed a requirement for ALL youth beginning before they reach puberty. No parental op out. Get rid of the stupid abstinence only programs. One of my clergy friends used to say "abstinence works... until it doesn't." There is clearly a reason why there are large numbers of young girls from evangelical families seeking abortions. They have been indoctrinated with the idea that abstinence is the only option... so they don't understand or have birth control available. Too often they end up with a pregnancy for which they are unprepared and for which they certainly have not planned.
Work to teach boys that they are responsible for unplanned pregnancies and put teeth in that responsibility.
Now the more difficult ones...
Provide supports for mothers and young children. This would involve free day care, support for the mother so that a pregnancy does not derail her entire future, food, shelter, housing supports where needed, enhanced supports for special needs children. We see again and again that economic pressure, poor education, and reduced options lead to higher abortion rates while societal supports for women inevitably pushes the abortion rate down. There are reasons that poor women have more abortions. We can remedy that.
Some time ago I read an article written by an anti-choice mother of a child with Down's Syndrome. She remarked that one sees fewer and fewer children with Down's Syndrome and that the vast majority of parents ho learn of that marker in a pregnancy seek an abortion. She cited both the loss that entails to society and the difficulties one faces as a parent of a child with those issues. She was especially articulate regarding the fears she had as a parent, worrying about her child's future should something happen to her and her husband. She then talked of a trip she made to Northern Europe - an area where abortion is less stigmatized than in the US and much more available. She was surprised to see what she perceived as significantly more people with Down's Syndrome. As she enquired, she quickly saw that the parents there had much less anxiety than parents of Down's Syndrome children in the US. They felt sure that should something happen to them, the general society would be there to make sure the child was not abandoned. She described what she saw as a clear method to lessen abortions of fetuses with Down's Syndrome markers - have strong societal and governmental support for the children and their parents. That gave the parents the luxury of saying "yes," knowing they would not be forced to deal with all of the pressures on their own.
We can make abortion more rare. It involves political choices that we can make if we are really interested in making abortion more rare as opposed to exerting control over women's bodies and autonomy.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Friday, June 02, 2017
Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing Can Change Everything - book review
If by some chance you haven't read anything I've posted in the past, I am a leftist. I half joked that Bernie Sanders was not liberal enough for me... and it was only half a joke. I am a child of the 60's. The Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement were important parts of my formation. I am also a Christian and a pastor of a Christian church. I believe in radical transformation. I believe we are on the cusp of significant change as a culture, as a world, and in the Church.
When this title by Becky Bond & Zack Exley, Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing Can Change Everything, presented itself as a possibility for a book review, I envisioned 5 Easy Steps to Changing the World... or maybe even 5 Really Hard Steps to Changing the World. I was hoping that the book would pick up where Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything left off and do a better job of providing direction than Tom Sine's, Live Like You Give a Damn did. As a parenthesis, if you haven't read Klein's book, it is a must read for anybody concerned about the direction our world is going. I was hoping for some insights that might apply to the Church and to churches as we seek to navigate this turbulent time.
I got what I wanted... sort of... and didn't get what I wanted... sort of... The book claims to not just be a re-hashing of what happened in the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and then proceeds to be exactly that. For those who are interested in understanding how the Sanders campaign worked and why it was as successful as it was, this book is a must read. For whoever decides to run for the Democrats in 2020, it is likewise a must read. For change smaller that a presidential campaign, the book requires a bit more work to make relevant. Still, there are some key ideas that speak to anyone involved in working for significant change whether on the macro level or the more local one. A couple that jumped out at me are:
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
When this title by Becky Bond & Zack Exley, Rules for Revolutionaries: How Big Organizing Can Change Everything, presented itself as a possibility for a book review, I envisioned 5 Easy Steps to Changing the World... or maybe even 5 Really Hard Steps to Changing the World. I was hoping that the book would pick up where Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything left off and do a better job of providing direction than Tom Sine's, Live Like You Give a Damn did. As a parenthesis, if you haven't read Klein's book, it is a must read for anybody concerned about the direction our world is going. I was hoping for some insights that might apply to the Church and to churches as we seek to navigate this turbulent time.
I got what I wanted... sort of... and didn't get what I wanted... sort of... The book claims to not just be a re-hashing of what happened in the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and then proceeds to be exactly that. For those who are interested in understanding how the Sanders campaign worked and why it was as successful as it was, this book is a must read. For whoever decides to run for the Democrats in 2020, it is likewise a must read. For change smaller that a presidential campaign, the book requires a bit more work to make relevant. Still, there are some key ideas that speak to anyone involved in working for significant change whether on the macro level or the more local one. A couple that jumped out at me are:
- The first is that change can happen... but if we want to see real change we have to embrace something big that includes all of the issues AND we must envision radical change rather than incremental change. People are willing to work if they are inspired. Incremental change doesn't inspire folk.
- Personal contact is central to everything
- Institutions and practices that used to work just get in the way now.
- Let volunteers run with their gifts.
- Be willing to make mistakes.
- Expect pushback even from folk you expected would be on your side.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
Tuesday, June 07, 2016
a suspension of disbelief & Donald redux redux
Twice before I've blogged about the folk who attend our local megachurches yet tell me that they do not believe what they believe in those churches... here and here. I wrote about folk who walk into a church and suspend their disbelief... that is they basically acted as if they believed what was being said for that hour in church and then wrote it off as they walked out the door. Or perhaps they simply don't listen to what is being said.
I've been thinking about this in regards to the Donald Trump phenomenon. I think that is going on there as well... the folk who are endorsing him are not really listening to what he is saying. It does go further than that - and perhaps this is true in those church folk as well. Not only are they not hearing what is said, they are projecting what they want to hear. For example, Donald has made "Make America Great Again" his slogan. Not once has he given even the slightest idea how he would do that and even more important, he has not defined what that means. What are the characteristics that we have lost? When was the time that we were great? Those listening can fill in whatever answers work for them... and they do.
That "morals" voters would choose Donald Trump over anyone except Hugh Hefner is almost unbelievable. That neo-cons would back his economic policies makes me scratch my head. I guess some folk find his bull in the china shop persona attractive after Obama's measured, cautious, and thoughtful presentation on the world stage but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. I'm sure there are some who feel so disenfranchised that they want to blow up this entire project called American democracy and replace it with... who knows what... and they aren't presenting a picture any more well formed than Somalia. And finally there are those Republicans who have decided that since Trump will get the nomination, he must be a real Republican and is therefore worthy of their vote over any Democrat... even one whose policies are well to his right in almost every single way. And those same Republicans continue to ignore... here is the list from that liberal bastion the Washington Post. I get that there are folk who really don't like Hillary, the Dems likely nominee and hope that by electing Donald, they'll at least retain control over the SCOTUS and the legislative branches. That, of course presupposes that anyone can predict what Donald would do with judicial nominees and that there are enough folk out there drinking the Kool Aid to provide shirt tails for Republican candidates down the ballot.
And the rest of the world looks on in wonder as we Americans continue to suspend our disbelief, project our hopes and dreams, and ignore what is blatantly in front of us. And they are realistically afraid.
I've been thinking about this in regards to the Donald Trump phenomenon. I think that is going on there as well... the folk who are endorsing him are not really listening to what he is saying. It does go further than that - and perhaps this is true in those church folk as well. Not only are they not hearing what is said, they are projecting what they want to hear. For example, Donald has made "Make America Great Again" his slogan. Not once has he given even the slightest idea how he would do that and even more important, he has not defined what that means. What are the characteristics that we have lost? When was the time that we were great? Those listening can fill in whatever answers work for them... and they do.
That "morals" voters would choose Donald Trump over anyone except Hugh Hefner is almost unbelievable. That neo-cons would back his economic policies makes me scratch my head. I guess some folk find his bull in the china shop persona attractive after Obama's measured, cautious, and thoughtful presentation on the world stage but for the life of me, I can't figure out why. I'm sure there are some who feel so disenfranchised that they want to blow up this entire project called American democracy and replace it with... who knows what... and they aren't presenting a picture any more well formed than Somalia. And finally there are those Republicans who have decided that since Trump will get the nomination, he must be a real Republican and is therefore worthy of their vote over any Democrat... even one whose policies are well to his right in almost every single way. And those same Republicans continue to ignore... here is the list from that liberal bastion the Washington Post. I get that there are folk who really don't like Hillary, the Dems likely nominee and hope that by electing Donald, they'll at least retain control over the SCOTUS and the legislative branches. That, of course presupposes that anyone can predict what Donald would do with judicial nominees and that there are enough folk out there drinking the Kool Aid to provide shirt tails for Republican candidates down the ballot.
And the rest of the world looks on in wonder as we Americans continue to suspend our disbelief, project our hopes and dreams, and ignore what is blatantly in front of us. And they are realistically afraid.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
What Republicans Believe
I wouldn't dare speak for conservatives so I'll refer to an article written by Jennifer Rubin in her column in the Washington Post - Right Turn. The piece is Ten Things Republicans Believe. I found it a very interesting read and agreed with much of it... even though the implimentation of some of the ideas would likely be very different. For example, she says that Republicans are Pro-Israel. I would argue that being Pro-Israel is not the same as supporting Israeli abuse of Palestinians. Even less so, is support of Israel the same as supporting the expansion of settlements in occupied land. Indeed, I would argue that is precisely the worst thing possible that can happen to Israel as each settlement makes a 2 state solution more difficult and a 1 state solution means either apartheid or a nation wherein the Jewish population are overwhelmed by the Palestinians.
Two differences really jumped out for me.
The first is not as explicit as it could be. Rubin says that there is a distrust of centralized power when she really means to say that Republicans do not trust government. The implication is that they do trust centralized industrial and economic power. Limited regulations inevitably lead to the centralization of those two types of power and the unwritten theme is that that is just the natural course of things. In effect, she says they do not trust government, but they do trust multinationals and big banks. They trust institutions that have as their primary purpose in existence, a profit motive for a limited number of people and which have no basic commitment to the welfare of this nation vs. institutions that have the public good of US citizens as their primary motivation. Frankly, that bit just makes no sense to me at all. I understand about the failings of human nature and that they play themselves out in government agencies. Yes, government bureaucracies screw up sometimes. The same is true in the business world... only in businesses, without government regulations, there is no recourse and the power is unchecked.
A second important difference is what she refers to as an "originalist theory of interpretation of the constitution." She says that those with a different theory of interpretation "grant judges free rein to think up new rights and powers." Again... this makes no sense to me. One must understand the Constitution as having been written in an historical and cultural context that is not the same as the one in which we live today. She mentions the 2nd amendment in another place. Let's agree for argument sake that it gives the right to bear arms to all citizens (which I would not agree with under normal circumstances). If we think of the context when "arms" = muskets, do we take it to mean today that individuals can own muskets? That was the literal original intent if we agree to the first premise. Or do we take it to mean than individual citizens can carry any arms that the US Army uses (which at the time was pretty much a musket)? If the latter, then should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads? If not, why not? How do we translate that into today's world? Or do we take the sentence literally and agree that it referred to State Militias, used primarily in the south as a means of suppressing slave revolts and was included as a way of reassuring Southern states that the federal government would not take away their slave based economies and so has literally zero meaning in 2013?
The piece of the article that was encouraging to me was that there are some places where we agree even if implementations differ. At least then, there is room to talk. Here's to hoping that we all can do just that.
Two differences really jumped out for me.
The first is not as explicit as it could be. Rubin says that there is a distrust of centralized power when she really means to say that Republicans do not trust government. The implication is that they do trust centralized industrial and economic power. Limited regulations inevitably lead to the centralization of those two types of power and the unwritten theme is that that is just the natural course of things. In effect, she says they do not trust government, but they do trust multinationals and big banks. They trust institutions that have as their primary purpose in existence, a profit motive for a limited number of people and which have no basic commitment to the welfare of this nation vs. institutions that have the public good of US citizens as their primary motivation. Frankly, that bit just makes no sense to me at all. I understand about the failings of human nature and that they play themselves out in government agencies. Yes, government bureaucracies screw up sometimes. The same is true in the business world... only in businesses, without government regulations, there is no recourse and the power is unchecked.
A second important difference is what she refers to as an "originalist theory of interpretation of the constitution." She says that those with a different theory of interpretation "grant judges free rein to think up new rights and powers." Again... this makes no sense to me. One must understand the Constitution as having been written in an historical and cultural context that is not the same as the one in which we live today. She mentions the 2nd amendment in another place. Let's agree for argument sake that it gives the right to bear arms to all citizens (which I would not agree with under normal circumstances). If we think of the context when "arms" = muskets, do we take it to mean today that individuals can own muskets? That was the literal original intent if we agree to the first premise. Or do we take it to mean than individual citizens can carry any arms that the US Army uses (which at the time was pretty much a musket)? If the latter, then should individuals be allowed to own nuclear warheads? If not, why not? How do we translate that into today's world? Or do we take the sentence literally and agree that it referred to State Militias, used primarily in the south as a means of suppressing slave revolts and was included as a way of reassuring Southern states that the federal government would not take away their slave based economies and so has literally zero meaning in 2013?
The piece of the article that was encouraging to me was that there are some places where we agree even if implementations differ. At least then, there is room to talk. Here's to hoping that we all can do just that.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
"It's Not My Country Anymore"
I've heard that said by a number of my very conservative friends. I guess they have to decide that. Clearly it is not the same country anymore. Romney won a near historic percentage of the white vote and still lost the election. It isn't a country controlled by white folk anymore. More women were elected to the senate than ever before and one state - New Hampshire - has elected women to all of their leadership positions. It is not a country run exclusively by men anymore. Billionaires spent incredible amounts of money trying to buy the election Sheldon Adelson personally funded 6 campaigns with huge amounts of money and they all lost. Yes, money still talks, but it is no longer the deciding factor and the plutocracy doesn't have free reign anymore.
It is a different country than the one I knew as a child in the 50's and 60's. I embrace it. I'm excited by that. I believe this new country embodies the hopes and dreams implicit in the experiment called the United States. Still, it is different and my conservative friends need to make a decision whether they are part of this new expression of the United States. Should they decide to withdraw... that's OK, but they cannot call themselves patriots. They may say, "Obama is not my president," but if they do, they are also saying they are no longer part of this country.
For the Republicans, it will mean they need to re-evaluate and decide on new directions or they will be relegated to being a small regional party with less and less national voice. At least for a while, they will still have the power of obstruction, but their positive voice will become more and more marginal as the demographics continue to change. You can decide whether they are racist or not, but this election clearly was about race and their party is clearly identified racially. A majority of white people voted for Romney. Everyone else voted for Obama. Obama won. It is a new America.
It is a different country than the one I knew as a child in the 50's and 60's. I embrace it. I'm excited by that. I believe this new country embodies the hopes and dreams implicit in the experiment called the United States. Still, it is different and my conservative friends need to make a decision whether they are part of this new expression of the United States. Should they decide to withdraw... that's OK, but they cannot call themselves patriots. They may say, "Obama is not my president," but if they do, they are also saying they are no longer part of this country.
For the Republicans, it will mean they need to re-evaluate and decide on new directions or they will be relegated to being a small regional party with less and less national voice. At least for a while, they will still have the power of obstruction, but their positive voice will become more and more marginal as the demographics continue to change. You can decide whether they are racist or not, but this election clearly was about race and their party is clearly identified racially. A majority of white people voted for Romney. Everyone else voted for Obama. Obama won. It is a new America.
Friday, October 19, 2012
unfriending
I've been unfriended on Facebook... more than once. The first time I was aware of it, I was upset. Yes, I am opinionated and I'm not shy about sharing opinions, but I try to be respectful of those with whom I disagree and I try to learn from them. I also try to help them better understand my position. Yes... there is a degree of "evangelism" inherent in that, but I am more concerned about discussing and learning than about converting. I really wanted to know whether there was something I had said that was offensive and fix it. I didn't try but I still am curious about that first unfriending.
I never imagined that I would do it. I have some pretty conservative friends and I treasure their input especially when we don't agree. That reminds me that there are other ways of seeing the world and they always have something to teach me. They also remind me of some of the fallacies on my side of the theological, cultural, and political boundaries. That is very good.
This week, for the first time I unfriended someone. It wasn't easy for me to do. I really do treasure those connections across viewpoints and I really do try to be both respectful and humble. This time, there was no discussion and no respect coming my way at all and no interest in seeing anything from another's viewpoint. More than once I got messages from other friends asking what was up with that person on my timeline. Then the questions became "why are you putting up with that?" and I began to see that some of the remarks were hurtful to other friends or worse than that, were bringing out the worst in me and in other people. So, I unfriended this individual.
I wish we had been able to talk and learn from one another. I wish that both of us would have been stretched and encouraged to see things in new ways. That just wasn't happening and as another friend reminded me, "don't feed the trolls." I don't regret it, but I am sad.
I never imagined that I would do it. I have some pretty conservative friends and I treasure their input especially when we don't agree. That reminds me that there are other ways of seeing the world and they always have something to teach me. They also remind me of some of the fallacies on my side of the theological, cultural, and political boundaries. That is very good.
This week, for the first time I unfriended someone. It wasn't easy for me to do. I really do treasure those connections across viewpoints and I really do try to be both respectful and humble. This time, there was no discussion and no respect coming my way at all and no interest in seeing anything from another's viewpoint. More than once I got messages from other friends asking what was up with that person on my timeline. Then the questions became "why are you putting up with that?" and I began to see that some of the remarks were hurtful to other friends or worse than that, were bringing out the worst in me and in other people. So, I unfriended this individual.
I wish we had been able to talk and learn from one another. I wish that both of us would have been stretched and encouraged to see things in new ways. That just wasn't happening and as another friend reminded me, "don't feed the trolls." I don't regret it, but I am sad.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Political speech
I vote religiously (in both ways - in every election and in ways that reflect my faith). I think it is an important thing to do as a civic responsibility and as a steward of the future.
This coming election strikes me as being especially important. While things have certainly been worse, the country feels as if it is sitting on the knife edge. The two candidates, especially since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his VP, have radically different agendas and understandings of the direction we should go. If a Romney/Ryan ticket won the election and if the Tea Party was able to get a few more votes in congress, we could see a radically different country than the one I love in a very short number of years. Add the possibility of the next president getting to choose as many as three members of the Supreme Court and this becomes a very important election in which everyone should vote.
There are multiple streams in this election cycle that deeply sadden me.
The political discourse has become polarized to the point that there is little real discussion of the substantive issues. Clear facts are dismissed out of hand. Political leaders on the Republican side have stated that their primary goal is not to do right by the people but to ensure that Obama does not win again. I am struck by the quick name-calling against Obama - Socialist, Marxist, Terrorist, America Hater... which feels more intense to me than I have experienced before. My gut says that the degree of animus can only be based in racism but that is another post.
Both sides are throwing around inaccurate statements, although it seems to me that the Republicans are a bit more loose with the truth. Still, both sides have trafficked in inaccuracies and at times, down right lies. I know politicians "stretch the truth," but again, it feels worse to me than I have experienced before.
The money being spent... could do sooooo much good elsewhere. Think how many teachers could be hired with the money spent on each one of those attack ads. The amount of money being spent by billionaires is just obscene. That the SCOTUS equated that with free speech boggles the mind.
Now, this year I am doing something I have never done before - I am making a campaign contribution. I can't give $1 million like Bill Maher did or even less like Sheldon Adelson who has pledged as much as $100 million to defeat Obama and reportedly has already given over $50 million.
I believe in freedom of speech and have no problem with Mr. Adelson supporting whatever candidate he likes. Here's my question... why is his speech allowed to be so much "louder" than mine? If we put this analogy back to its origins, we see how silly the situation has become. Back in the day, free speech was just that. I could get my soapbox and go out to the corner and speak. I could shout... but only so loud. The physicality of it enabled a real exchange. The woman who disagreed with me could get her soapbox as well and we could have a lively debate or at least any audience could hear both sides of the issue. This just isn't possible when Mr. Adelson is able to speak at a volume 1,000,000 times louder than me. Limiting the amount he can give to a candidate does not limit his free speech, it only limits the volume and ensures that mine can still be heard.
A friend of mine was a part of a Black Muslim group back in the 70's that had a saying, "He who talks loudest gets over." This year the SCOTUS has institutionalized that saying... and that is not a good thing for the state of political discourse or for our country.
This coming election strikes me as being especially important. While things have certainly been worse, the country feels as if it is sitting on the knife edge. The two candidates, especially since Romney chose Paul Ryan as his VP, have radically different agendas and understandings of the direction we should go. If a Romney/Ryan ticket won the election and if the Tea Party was able to get a few more votes in congress, we could see a radically different country than the one I love in a very short number of years. Add the possibility of the next president getting to choose as many as three members of the Supreme Court and this becomes a very important election in which everyone should vote.
There are multiple streams in this election cycle that deeply sadden me.
The political discourse has become polarized to the point that there is little real discussion of the substantive issues. Clear facts are dismissed out of hand. Political leaders on the Republican side have stated that their primary goal is not to do right by the people but to ensure that Obama does not win again. I am struck by the quick name-calling against Obama - Socialist, Marxist, Terrorist, America Hater... which feels more intense to me than I have experienced before. My gut says that the degree of animus can only be based in racism but that is another post.
Both sides are throwing around inaccurate statements, although it seems to me that the Republicans are a bit more loose with the truth. Still, both sides have trafficked in inaccuracies and at times, down right lies. I know politicians "stretch the truth," but again, it feels worse to me than I have experienced before.
The money being spent... could do sooooo much good elsewhere. Think how many teachers could be hired with the money spent on each one of those attack ads. The amount of money being spent by billionaires is just obscene. That the SCOTUS equated that with free speech boggles the mind.
Now, this year I am doing something I have never done before - I am making a campaign contribution. I can't give $1 million like Bill Maher did or even less like Sheldon Adelson who has pledged as much as $100 million to defeat Obama and reportedly has already given over $50 million.
I believe in freedom of speech and have no problem with Mr. Adelson supporting whatever candidate he likes. Here's my question... why is his speech allowed to be so much "louder" than mine? If we put this analogy back to its origins, we see how silly the situation has become. Back in the day, free speech was just that. I could get my soapbox and go out to the corner and speak. I could shout... but only so loud. The physicality of it enabled a real exchange. The woman who disagreed with me could get her soapbox as well and we could have a lively debate or at least any audience could hear both sides of the issue. This just isn't possible when Mr. Adelson is able to speak at a volume 1,000,000 times louder than me. Limiting the amount he can give to a candidate does not limit his free speech, it only limits the volume and ensures that mine can still be heard.
A friend of mine was a part of a Black Muslim group back in the 70's that had a saying, "He who talks loudest gets over." This year the SCOTUS has institutionalized that saying... and that is not a good thing for the state of political discourse or for our country.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
tired of politics
Yep... I'm tired of politics.
First the reasons why I keep making political tweets, facebook entries, and blog posts...
I think politics are important. Our politics do shape the way we live together as a nation and the way we interact with the rest of the world. That has profound implications for me as a person of faith. If I really claim to follow Jesus, then my faith must express itself in political ways.
I think the next election is particularly important as there may be a member or two of the Supreme Court who are replaced and the make up of the court has a huge impact on the direction of the country. Another far right justice could really change things. (I know that Supreme Court justices have tended to surprise people in the past as they have taken their roles very seriously but there have been some recent appointments that seem to not get it and are simply partisan hacks.) On top of that we are facing some significant issues that require choices to be made based on values and the platforms of the two primary parties do represent different value sets.
Obama has not thrilled me but I don't know that anyone could have done a better job given the current political climate. And I am convinced that much of the reaction against Obama is racist in nature. Yes, I know that previous presidents have also been the brunt of jokes, animosity, and disrespect, but it feels worse at this point and the only reason I can see is his race. That must be resisted.
And the reasons that I am tired...
The attacks on Obama really do seem over the top and at times have an overt racial side to them.
I don't sense that either party, but especially the Republicans, have a commitment to making things better so much as they have a commitment to winning... or worse than that, for the Republicans, a commitment to ensuring that the Dems lose. Indeed, Mitch McConnell has said as much.
Yes politicians lie... and politicians engage in hyperbole... and politicians make promises that they either can't keep or flat out don't intend to keep... but again it seems worse to me as, and again I see it more from the Republicans, they flat out lie as a way of getting power.
I am disenchanted by the role big money can play and has already played since Citizens United. (see the Wisconsin recall as a clear example of that).
And finally, I am saddened by the degree to which partisan politics have fragmented our nation. I happen to think that a diversity of viewpoints and even disagreements are productive when we have a common commitment to the common good and work/struggle/wrestle together to that end. More and more it feels that the differences do not help us to find creative solutions or even compromises, instead they drive us apart.
So, I'm trying to write/blog/tweet/post less about politics... we'll see how that goes.
First the reasons why I keep making political tweets, facebook entries, and blog posts...
I think politics are important. Our politics do shape the way we live together as a nation and the way we interact with the rest of the world. That has profound implications for me as a person of faith. If I really claim to follow Jesus, then my faith must express itself in political ways.
I think the next election is particularly important as there may be a member or two of the Supreme Court who are replaced and the make up of the court has a huge impact on the direction of the country. Another far right justice could really change things. (I know that Supreme Court justices have tended to surprise people in the past as they have taken their roles very seriously but there have been some recent appointments that seem to not get it and are simply partisan hacks.) On top of that we are facing some significant issues that require choices to be made based on values and the platforms of the two primary parties do represent different value sets.
Obama has not thrilled me but I don't know that anyone could have done a better job given the current political climate. And I am convinced that much of the reaction against Obama is racist in nature. Yes, I know that previous presidents have also been the brunt of jokes, animosity, and disrespect, but it feels worse at this point and the only reason I can see is his race. That must be resisted.
And the reasons that I am tired...
The attacks on Obama really do seem over the top and at times have an overt racial side to them.
I don't sense that either party, but especially the Republicans, have a commitment to making things better so much as they have a commitment to winning... or worse than that, for the Republicans, a commitment to ensuring that the Dems lose. Indeed, Mitch McConnell has said as much.
Yes politicians lie... and politicians engage in hyperbole... and politicians make promises that they either can't keep or flat out don't intend to keep... but again it seems worse to me as, and again I see it more from the Republicans, they flat out lie as a way of getting power.
I am disenchanted by the role big money can play and has already played since Citizens United. (see the Wisconsin recall as a clear example of that).
And finally, I am saddened by the degree to which partisan politics have fragmented our nation. I happen to think that a diversity of viewpoints and even disagreements are productive when we have a common commitment to the common good and work/struggle/wrestle together to that end. More and more it feels that the differences do not help us to find creative solutions or even compromises, instead they drive us apart.
So, I'm trying to write/blog/tweet/post less about politics... we'll see how that goes.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Why the Hate?
I have to admit that I've been more than a little puzzled by the political discourse regarding Obama. Yes, I know political discourse is always marked by exaggeration and hyperbole, but the stuff around Obama has just seemed over the top. There still are accusations that he is not an American, born in the USA. There are still prominent folk who claim he is really a Muslim. There is the constant buzz that he is a Socialist. Others say that he is the biggest threat to US security in the history of the nation. Simply put, none of the above is remotely true. Love him or not, he was born in Hawaii, is not a Muslim, is not a Socialist by any reasonable definition, and is clearly not the greatest threat to US security ever.
Many, especially in the African American community, have blamed the over the top hatred on race. Many on the right protest that they are not racist and his race has nothing to do with their disdain of Obama. Now, I know many folk far right of center who would never vote for Obama who are not racist and for whom race does not have any relevance. Still, I cannot help but think that the depth of invective against him is out of proportion to his policies. Indeed, most of his policies are literally continuations of those begun under the Bush administration. If that isn't about race, then what in the world is it?
And then today I saw a photo of a bumper sticker... it had the Obama logo with a circle and a line through it with the tag line - "Don't Re-Nig 2012." At first I wondered whether it was something made up by an Obama supporter to inflame the base so I googled it. I found a vendor selling the stickers along with other far right slogans. If that's not about race, then I have no idea what is.
Many, especially in the African American community, have blamed the over the top hatred on race. Many on the right protest that they are not racist and his race has nothing to do with their disdain of Obama. Now, I know many folk far right of center who would never vote for Obama who are not racist and for whom race does not have any relevance. Still, I cannot help but think that the depth of invective against him is out of proportion to his policies. Indeed, most of his policies are literally continuations of those begun under the Bush administration. If that isn't about race, then what in the world is it?
And then today I saw a photo of a bumper sticker... it had the Obama logo with a circle and a line through it with the tag line - "Don't Re-Nig 2012." At first I wondered whether it was something made up by an Obama supporter to inflame the base so I googled it. I found a vendor selling the stickers along with other far right slogans. If that's not about race, then I have no idea what is.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
why I won't vote for any of the Republicans
OK... anyone who knows me knows that there is a simple answer - BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS! There are clearly some Republican stands that do not work for me. In my estimation, they are all too quick to throw the poor under the bus and to shred the little safety net we have. As a party, they have focused on what I think is the wrong issue when they talk about the deficit while what we really need are jobs. Yes, yes, yes, the Dems are not much better, but they are a little better. So here are a few of my reasons with each of the four remaining candidates.
Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.
Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.
Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.
Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.
When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.
So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.
So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.
Newt... character counts. He has none. We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of. And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts. I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign. Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?! He claims to have changed. People do change. I don't believe him. His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt. There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas." When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.
Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics. Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him. That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine. And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith. To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president. Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century. I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic. When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.
Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government. Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away. Even if business and government were analogous, that is not how I want to see government run. That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it. It also seems that he wants this job too bad. He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him. I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of.
Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me. I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama. Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals. His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive. His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals. His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties. He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one. He isn't and he hasn't! At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama. I think he might gain far more than he would lose. The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs. He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas. Those views are more than I can take. Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.
When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table, none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time. None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.
So that leaves me with Obama. Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama. During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically. I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above. I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.
So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
compromises
My primary instrument is acoustic guitar and I have two wonderful instruments, both built by Lowden Guitars, an Irish company that builds stunning guitars. They are not inexpensive but to my ears, they are well worth the cost. The sound is big, warm, responsive, elegant, and rich. Guitars though are not very loud as far as instruments go so to be heard in any but the most intimate of settings, they require some kind of amplification. Any instrument that embodies all of those adjectives is going to be very difficult to capture with any kind of pickup and amplifying it will necessarily involve multiple compromises between accuracy, complexity of the system used to capture the sound, susceptibility to feedback, and the choice of which characteristics of the instrument must be attenuated to play in a louder situation. I joke that I spent a significant amount on a great guitar only to be faced with multiple compromises when trying to amplify it and significant additional costs.
Getting a good live sound is a huge area of discussion among acoustic players. For me, the bottom line is always, which compromises am I willing to make? What characteristics of the sound of my guitar played in my living room am I willing to give up in order to be able to play for an audience of 50 or 100 or 500 people?
Compromise... is not a popular word in the US these days. For decades, compromise has been the primary work for politicians. In a nation growing ever more diverse, their job was to come together and work out deals with which nobody was completely happy but everyone got something they deemed important. Of course, there have always been instances where folk have had issues about which they could not compromise. Still, until recent times, politicians did a pretty good job of finding ways past those issues and making deals.
In recent years our culture has become more and more polar. In politics this has been fed in the primary process where the more extreme voters are likely to participate and many politicians, especially on the right, are pushed towards the extremes just to get nominated. As those more extreme groups have gained power in the primary process and have enabled some extreme candidates to get elected, they have become more entrenched and less willing to compromise. For what it's worth, the same thing has happened in religious circles.
Now, here's the piece that has me interested. A few days ago Glenn Greenwald published a fascinating article in The Salon comparing many of Obama's political stands to those of Ron Paul and traditional liberal stances. He said the issue was that many liberals are either downplaying the issues where Ron Paul is actually more in line with their beliefs or ignoring them altogether. The reality here is that progressives are being forced to compromise their views. They must decide whom they will embrace when one candidate stands for some of their issues and not others while the other candidate is the exact opposite. I think Greenwald is correct that in large degree the liberals are avoiding a conscious compromise and ignoring those issues where Obama stands in contrast to their historic views.
Coming out of Iowa, the Republicans have a similar dilemma. Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent very different understandings of what it means to be a Republican and each would present an extremely different platform for that party in the next election. None seem to be a happy compromise for them. Indeed, I think that dis-ease with compromise has been the genesis of the revolving 2nd place candidates as many in the party are not happy with Romney while each option they put forward turns out to be worse. In any case, they will be forced to compromise, to choose which characteristics they can let go in order to keep some others. Some, like many in the Tea Party have already said they will not vote for Romney as he would be a compromise with their core principles. It will be interesting to see where this goes...
Getting a good live sound is a huge area of discussion among acoustic players. For me, the bottom line is always, which compromises am I willing to make? What characteristics of the sound of my guitar played in my living room am I willing to give up in order to be able to play for an audience of 50 or 100 or 500 people?
Compromise... is not a popular word in the US these days. For decades, compromise has been the primary work for politicians. In a nation growing ever more diverse, their job was to come together and work out deals with which nobody was completely happy but everyone got something they deemed important. Of course, there have always been instances where folk have had issues about which they could not compromise. Still, until recent times, politicians did a pretty good job of finding ways past those issues and making deals.
In recent years our culture has become more and more polar. In politics this has been fed in the primary process where the more extreme voters are likely to participate and many politicians, especially on the right, are pushed towards the extremes just to get nominated. As those more extreme groups have gained power in the primary process and have enabled some extreme candidates to get elected, they have become more entrenched and less willing to compromise. For what it's worth, the same thing has happened in religious circles.
Now, here's the piece that has me interested. A few days ago Glenn Greenwald published a fascinating article in The Salon comparing many of Obama's political stands to those of Ron Paul and traditional liberal stances. He said the issue was that many liberals are either downplaying the issues where Ron Paul is actually more in line with their beliefs or ignoring them altogether. The reality here is that progressives are being forced to compromise their views. They must decide whom they will embrace when one candidate stands for some of their issues and not others while the other candidate is the exact opposite. I think Greenwald is correct that in large degree the liberals are avoiding a conscious compromise and ignoring those issues where Obama stands in contrast to their historic views.
Coming out of Iowa, the Republicans have a similar dilemma. Mitt Romeny, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul represent very different understandings of what it means to be a Republican and each would present an extremely different platform for that party in the next election. None seem to be a happy compromise for them. Indeed, I think that dis-ease with compromise has been the genesis of the revolving 2nd place candidates as many in the party are not happy with Romney while each option they put forward turns out to be worse. In any case, they will be forced to compromise, to choose which characteristics they can let go in order to keep some others. Some, like many in the Tea Party have already said they will not vote for Romney as he would be a compromise with their core principles. It will be interesting to see where this goes...
Thursday, December 29, 2011
conflation
Let me address each... I am pro-God... but it really does depend on what god you're talking about. If we're talking about the God revealed in Jesus, then, I'm right with you. If we're talking about the god worshiped in some national religion that equates God with capitalism, war, and most of all the USA, then I'm definitely not "pro-god."
I am pro-life, but I have to say that I cringe when I say that. All too often the term actually means "pro unborn babies and once their born they're on their own." If you really want to use that term, you need to use it as the Roman Catholic hierarchy professes to use it - anti abortion, anti-war, anti capital punishment, pro affirmative action (in the broadest sense). Then, you can really say you're pro-life. If you are against all f the programs that support poor children, for raising funding of the military industrial complex... well, you get the direction... and you aren't pro-life, you're pro unborn babies and once they're actually born, they're on their own.
Pro - gun? Frankly, I don't believe the 2nd amendment has anything to say in today's world and should be repealed (like that would ever happen). The real question though is what does this mean to these folk? Are they saying they have the right to have a gun to shoot intruders (see pro-life)? To stand up against a repressive government? Good luck using that 440 deer rifle against a fuel air bomb dropped from a jet... or are they just saying they can spend their own money any way they please and that they have some machismo issue that requires owning something that can kill from 100's of yards away? Or maybe it has to do with the aesthetics and engineering of some weapons and the deisre to own something beautiful or with historical import? I don't know, but do any of those ideas really measure up to needing a constitutional amendment?
Pro-country... I'm pro the USA. I believe it is the best idea that anyone has had for a political arrangement. I believe we really can still be the city on a hill if we truly embrace the best of the dreams that gave shape to this country. At the same time, I am not a tribalist. If there is something to be learned from another country, then one who truly loves this country will learn it. If this country does something that flies in the face of all of its stated ideals, then one who truly loves it will call it out. Truly loving the country cannot ever mean turning a blind eye to its failings. The most important parts of my religious tradition tell me that those failings have to do with treatment of the poor and vulnerable. Being pro-country means to me, standing up to make life better for them.
Anti-Obama? Go for it. That is part of the genius of our system. You can be against the president for any reason you like, even stupid ones, racist ones, selfish ones, and uninformed ones. And there are good ones too. Still, if you go to the website for the PAC that produced that little graphic, they are complaining about a lack of leadership... but proposing no leader. Somehow, I think they've dropped the ball. They want your money to dispose of one poor leader to put who in? Trust them... yeah right.
And finally, all of these ideas are conflated with being a Republican. I'm sure there are Republicans who hold only the very best of values and vote that way because their conscience leads them in that direction. Like me, when I vote Democratic, many of them hold their noses because the Republican party endorses some ideas that they feel are important while ignoring some they also think important... and they make what they perceive as the better of two bad options. I sort of understand that. Still, I cannot but see how the basic orientations of the Republican Party do stand in direct opposition to my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus. Indeed, of the five statements, only two seem to fit, for me, with the Republican platform - pro-gun and anti-Obama.
for a little smile, here is a cartoon from the naked pastor blog (one of my favorites) that relates to the poster and the way that I experience the Republican party although it clearly is not meant for them alone (it is likely aimed at factions within the Church) and calls me to look more carefully at myself both from a faith standpoint and in regards to my politics as well.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
I can do math
On the day after Labor Day, I feel the need to write a short piece about what strikes me as the most important social issue for us in the US right now - jobs. There simply aren't enough of them. Far too many people have been out of work for far too long. Safety net programs are both inadequate and losing their efficacy and more and more folk are falling through the cracks. All of the politicians are marching out their plans to create jobs and frankly all of them fail to consider the long term. That is fine and indeed, that is appropriate at this time when we are in such a crisis. The question then is, do the programs work.
Here's where the math comes in. Laying off government workers makes more people unemployed. Immediately. Unemployed people don't spend money which causes businesses to lay off people which causes spending to go down which causes businesses to lay of more people and the spiral goes down. Take away jobs... and the number of jobs goes down... in a spiral. Cutting government contracts makes people unemployed. Similar but more complicated arguments could be made regarding infrastructure and education although both are more long term issues and so probably don't fit in this discussion.
Some folk will come out with plans that advocate lowering taxes on businesses or lessening environmental regulations and safety regulations. Again, I think in the short term, that might be fine as a stop gap to get things moving. Here's the problem. Neither works. Businesses already have money, what they don't have is customers. Cutting taxes on businesses doesn't create customers. Lowering safety standards and environmental protections doesn't create customers. Even cutting taxes on individuals doesn't help that much because it only impacts the folk who have jobs. What we need are jobs... and they will follow customers... but without jobs, we get no customers.
So what can the government do? Spend more money. Yes, I know that would raise the deficit and it certainly isn't a good strategy for the long term, but in our immediate crisis, it is what we need. Jobs are the presenting problem. If your house is on fire you don't stop the firefighters from hosing down the house because you're worried about water damage. You deal with that after the fire is out. The deficit is like water damage while the job situation is clearly a fire. Government should be hiring more people, not laying them off. Government should be passing money out to the states for every program that can be kick started with an infusion of cash not cutting back. Government should be hiring folk to go in and clean up after Irene. Government should be investing in research, supporting new technologies and strategies to make us more competitive. Government should be spending more, not less. If it means borrowing money. Borrow it. Interest rates are lower than they have ever been. Take advantage of that. Spend. Spend. Spend. And do it in a way that the money ends up in the pockets of real people and puts real people back to work so that businesses can begin to see customers and so need to hire more workers... and the spiral begins to go back up again. Then, when the population are more stable financially, the government can begin to wrestle with dealing with the long term problems.
Here's where the math comes in. Laying off government workers makes more people unemployed. Immediately. Unemployed people don't spend money which causes businesses to lay off people which causes spending to go down which causes businesses to lay of more people and the spiral goes down. Take away jobs... and the number of jobs goes down... in a spiral. Cutting government contracts makes people unemployed. Similar but more complicated arguments could be made regarding infrastructure and education although both are more long term issues and so probably don't fit in this discussion.
Some folk will come out with plans that advocate lowering taxes on businesses or lessening environmental regulations and safety regulations. Again, I think in the short term, that might be fine as a stop gap to get things moving. Here's the problem. Neither works. Businesses already have money, what they don't have is customers. Cutting taxes on businesses doesn't create customers. Lowering safety standards and environmental protections doesn't create customers. Even cutting taxes on individuals doesn't help that much because it only impacts the folk who have jobs. What we need are jobs... and they will follow customers... but without jobs, we get no customers.
So what can the government do? Spend more money. Yes, I know that would raise the deficit and it certainly isn't a good strategy for the long term, but in our immediate crisis, it is what we need. Jobs are the presenting problem. If your house is on fire you don't stop the firefighters from hosing down the house because you're worried about water damage. You deal with that after the fire is out. The deficit is like water damage while the job situation is clearly a fire. Government should be hiring more people, not laying them off. Government should be passing money out to the states for every program that can be kick started with an infusion of cash not cutting back. Government should be hiring folk to go in and clean up after Irene. Government should be investing in research, supporting new technologies and strategies to make us more competitive. Government should be spending more, not less. If it means borrowing money. Borrow it. Interest rates are lower than they have ever been. Take advantage of that. Spend. Spend. Spend. And do it in a way that the money ends up in the pockets of real people and puts real people back to work so that businesses can begin to see customers and so need to hire more workers... and the spiral begins to go back up again. Then, when the population are more stable financially, the government can begin to wrestle with dealing with the long term problems.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
up from the bottom
I get a daily meditation in my e-mail from Fr. Richard Rohr via the Center for Contemplation and Action. Today's meditation has another perspective on my semi-tongue in cheek comment that faith requires one to be liberal. I've quoted all of it here...
It is interesting that the history of the terms - right and left - reflect the demarcation between poor folk and those with power and riches. To some degree, that seems still to be true with the wealthy and powerful tending to lean more to the right while those on the margins of life tend to lean more to the left. How the middle class plays into this is even more interesting, especially as we watch the middle class shrink.
I'm struck by Rohr's comment that the Bible is an alternative history written from the viewpoint of the poor, the enslaved, the dominated, the oppressed... The central story is one of liberation, first of slaves in the Hebrew scriptures then of the outsiders in the Christian scriptures with the prophets in the middle crying out for justice to those oppressed by the folk with power and wealth. And that the clergy, like many of the religious hierarchy throughout the scriptures, sat on the side of those with power rather than with the people...necessitating the prophets to speak the word from God to those in power when the professional clergy either refuse to do so or are deaf to the still small voice of the Spirit.
lots to think about...
The terms “right” and “left” came from the Estates General in France. It’s interesting that now we use them as our basic political terms. On the left sat the ordinary people, on the right sat the nobility and the clergy! (What were the clergy doing over there?!) I think you see the pattern.
In history you will have these two movements, because we didn’t have the phenomenon of the middle class until very recently. The vast majority of people have been poor, even in Jesus’ time. The people who wrote the books and controlled the institutions, however, have almost always been on the right. Much of history has been read and interpreted from the side of the "winners,” or the right, except for the unique revelation called the Bible, which is an alternative history from the side of the enslaved, the dominated, the oppressed, and the poor, leading up to the totally scapegoated Jesus.
It is interesting that the history of the terms - right and left - reflect the demarcation between poor folk and those with power and riches. To some degree, that seems still to be true with the wealthy and powerful tending to lean more to the right while those on the margins of life tend to lean more to the left. How the middle class plays into this is even more interesting, especially as we watch the middle class shrink.
I'm struck by Rohr's comment that the Bible is an alternative history written from the viewpoint of the poor, the enslaved, the dominated, the oppressed... The central story is one of liberation, first of slaves in the Hebrew scriptures then of the outsiders in the Christian scriptures with the prophets in the middle crying out for justice to those oppressed by the folk with power and wealth. And that the clergy, like many of the religious hierarchy throughout the scriptures, sat on the side of those with power rather than with the people...necessitating the prophets to speak the word from God to those in power when the professional clergy either refuse to do so or are deaf to the still small voice of the Spirit.
lots to think about...
Monday, August 01, 2011
compromise? not
It is said that you can tell a good compromise because nobody is happy. The idea is that both sides have given significantly and that a higher goal has been met. It involves a common commitment to a definable end. Next, it involves both sides sharing their deepest hopes and dreams and then trading back and forth, giving a little here and a little there, until a solution is reached that reflects both sides giving up roughly equivalent amounts and that definable end being met. I believe in compromise. My wife would tell you that all too often I give too much.
What happened in Washington today was not a compromise. It was capitulation. Let me tell you why.
First off, there was no common definable end. There is a significant number in the Republican party who basically do not believe in a strong federal government. How can compromised be reached regarding government spending when some parties do not believe in government?
Second, there are some in the Republican party who do not have the best interest of the American people at heart. Mitch McConnell has proudly said that his primary goal is to see that Obama is a one term president. The easiest way to see that happen is to see the economy crash and burn. On the other hand, if the recovery took off like gang busters tomorrow, his goal would be impossible. So, tell me, what his strategy should be? And then there are some of the Tea Party folk who truly do believe that a strong federal government is a bad thing. Finally, there are those who are beholden to very wealthy and connected benefactors who are doing quite well with the status quo and don't want to see a stronger, more educated, more active middle class.
Third, nobody brought the liberal concerns to the discussion. Yes, I have heard many conservatives call Obama a socialist or even a communist. He isn't. Let me say that again, HE ISN'T. At best he is a centrist pragmatist. I have been saying since before he even won the nomination that he is right of center. I can't think of one thing he has done that would make me conclude otherwise. True, he is to the left of Michele Bachmann... but that still doesn't make him a liberal. It makes him sensible. So, what did liberals want that never even got discussed? Liberals wanted significant cuts in the military including an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not on the table. Indeed, discussions about military cuts usually still involve significant increases over current spending, just cuts in proposed increases. Liberals wanted significant increases in taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Never even in the same room. Liberals wanted to see deficit reduction come long after job creation which they see as requiring more, not less spending. That wasn't even discussed. Liberals want to see a plan for controlling medical costs that removes the profit motive from medical care. That wasn't even seriously discussed when Obama's medical plans were being raised let alone now. Liberals wanted separate talks regarding the debt ceiling and other economic issues. Again, never discussed. The liberals got none of their hopes or dreams. What did they receive? Medicare and Social Security were not cut... but the Republicans didn't really want them cut anyway or they would never have been re-elected. Now they can blame any fiscal problems on the Dems who refused to cut in areas they never would have cut anyway.
The conservatives got everything they wanted and more. They moved the discussion from jobs to deficit without showing how the two are even remotely related. No increases in taxes were discussed or are on the table for the future. Indeed, McConnell has promised that any representatives he sends to the "super congress" will be strong anti-tax increase folk. Again, they will be in a position to completely derail any possibilities of true compromise. They received significant cuts in the social programs upon which poor and middle class folk rely with more to come without touching the third rails of SS or Medicare. What did they give up? They didn't get a balanced budget amendment... which likely would never have passed anyway as it is simply a stupid idea. They didn't get cuts in Social Security or Medicare - see above. Now it is true that the truly anti-government crowd did not get to bring down the government... but did anyone with any sense really want that?
What happened in Washington today was not a compromise. It was capitulation. Let me tell you why.
First off, there was no common definable end. There is a significant number in the Republican party who basically do not believe in a strong federal government. How can compromised be reached regarding government spending when some parties do not believe in government?
Second, there are some in the Republican party who do not have the best interest of the American people at heart. Mitch McConnell has proudly said that his primary goal is to see that Obama is a one term president. The easiest way to see that happen is to see the economy crash and burn. On the other hand, if the recovery took off like gang busters tomorrow, his goal would be impossible. So, tell me, what his strategy should be? And then there are some of the Tea Party folk who truly do believe that a strong federal government is a bad thing. Finally, there are those who are beholden to very wealthy and connected benefactors who are doing quite well with the status quo and don't want to see a stronger, more educated, more active middle class.
Third, nobody brought the liberal concerns to the discussion. Yes, I have heard many conservatives call Obama a socialist or even a communist. He isn't. Let me say that again, HE ISN'T. At best he is a centrist pragmatist. I have been saying since before he even won the nomination that he is right of center. I can't think of one thing he has done that would make me conclude otherwise. True, he is to the left of Michele Bachmann... but that still doesn't make him a liberal. It makes him sensible. So, what did liberals want that never even got discussed? Liberals wanted significant cuts in the military including an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not on the table. Indeed, discussions about military cuts usually still involve significant increases over current spending, just cuts in proposed increases. Liberals wanted significant increases in taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Never even in the same room. Liberals wanted to see deficit reduction come long after job creation which they see as requiring more, not less spending. That wasn't even discussed. Liberals want to see a plan for controlling medical costs that removes the profit motive from medical care. That wasn't even seriously discussed when Obama's medical plans were being raised let alone now. Liberals wanted separate talks regarding the debt ceiling and other economic issues. Again, never discussed. The liberals got none of their hopes or dreams. What did they receive? Medicare and Social Security were not cut... but the Republicans didn't really want them cut anyway or they would never have been re-elected. Now they can blame any fiscal problems on the Dems who refused to cut in areas they never would have cut anyway.
The conservatives got everything they wanted and more. They moved the discussion from jobs to deficit without showing how the two are even remotely related. No increases in taxes were discussed or are on the table for the future. Indeed, McConnell has promised that any representatives he sends to the "super congress" will be strong anti-tax increase folk. Again, they will be in a position to completely derail any possibilities of true compromise. They received significant cuts in the social programs upon which poor and middle class folk rely with more to come without touching the third rails of SS or Medicare. What did they give up? They didn't get a balanced budget amendment... which likely would never have passed anyway as it is simply a stupid idea. They didn't get cuts in Social Security or Medicare - see above. Now it is true that the truly anti-government crowd did not get to bring down the government... but did anyone with any sense really want that?
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
OK... one more
The other day a friend of mine posted a quote from Penn Jillette on his Facebook wall - "F%*K Civility. The marketplace of ideas cannot be toned down for the insane."
I think it is an important statement and bears some scrutiny. First off, I don't think the discussions around recent political rhetoric are really about civility. Any single statement or image might be innocuous enough and reasonably interpreted as a metaphor... Palin's crosshairs may not be very different than the Democratic map with targets on it. Martial language is often used in political battles. You might even pass on "Don't retreat, reload" and argue that it is clearly metaphoric. Other statements are less easy to dismiss. Angle's "2nd amendment solutions" seems a pretty unambiguous statement that the use of guns at times of political disagreement is not only allowed but even encouraged. Joyce Kaufman's "if ballots don't work, bullets will" is even less ambiguous. Add those who continue to call the Obama administration illegitimate... When you place all of these kinds of statements together, it is very difficult to understand them as anything other than incitement to violence. If the Obama administration is illegitimate, then the ballots did not work so it is time for bullets. We have seen FBI and Secret Service reports that since the '08 election death threats against politicians, especially the president, have sky-rocketed. I do not believe this is a coincidence. So, I don't think it is about civility at all... let the pols and the talk show folk call somebody an idiot, make fun of them, disagree vehemently, whatever... they don't need to be civil, but calling for violence is something else altogether.
Now back to Jillette's comment because I think it is an important one for a variety of reasons. First off, it seems to acknowledge that the language did, does, or at least can incite people, albeit crazy ones, to violence. And then it argues that regardless of that, we must not allow political discourse to be defined by the crazies. I think he is correct on both counts. Here's the problem. We have people engaged in the discussion who are clueless. Many on the right just don't seem to get it. I have seen multiple arguments that calling for 2nd amendment solutions or proposing that bullets are the proper solution when the ballot box doesn't go your way are in any way related to violence. Having important discussions implies responsibility. Those who engage in public discourse have to weigh their words and understand what the possible results might be.
Again, the teaching from my CPE days is important... Chaplain Cholke never said "don't preach," he said, "be careful what you preach because someone may believe you." Those words ring true for political leaders as well... be careful what you say, someone will believe you and possibly will act upon those words.
I think it is an important statement and bears some scrutiny. First off, I don't think the discussions around recent political rhetoric are really about civility. Any single statement or image might be innocuous enough and reasonably interpreted as a metaphor... Palin's crosshairs may not be very different than the Democratic map with targets on it. Martial language is often used in political battles. You might even pass on "Don't retreat, reload" and argue that it is clearly metaphoric. Other statements are less easy to dismiss. Angle's "2nd amendment solutions" seems a pretty unambiguous statement that the use of guns at times of political disagreement is not only allowed but even encouraged. Joyce Kaufman's "if ballots don't work, bullets will" is even less ambiguous. Add those who continue to call the Obama administration illegitimate... When you place all of these kinds of statements together, it is very difficult to understand them as anything other than incitement to violence. If the Obama administration is illegitimate, then the ballots did not work so it is time for bullets. We have seen FBI and Secret Service reports that since the '08 election death threats against politicians, especially the president, have sky-rocketed. I do not believe this is a coincidence. So, I don't think it is about civility at all... let the pols and the talk show folk call somebody an idiot, make fun of them, disagree vehemently, whatever... they don't need to be civil, but calling for violence is something else altogether.
Now back to Jillette's comment because I think it is an important one for a variety of reasons. First off, it seems to acknowledge that the language did, does, or at least can incite people, albeit crazy ones, to violence. And then it argues that regardless of that, we must not allow political discourse to be defined by the crazies. I think he is correct on both counts. Here's the problem. We have people engaged in the discussion who are clueless. Many on the right just don't seem to get it. I have seen multiple arguments that calling for 2nd amendment solutions or proposing that bullets are the proper solution when the ballot box doesn't go your way are in any way related to violence. Having important discussions implies responsibility. Those who engage in public discourse have to weigh their words and understand what the possible results might be.
Again, the teaching from my CPE days is important... Chaplain Cholke never said "don't preach," he said, "be careful what you preach because someone may believe you." Those words ring true for political leaders as well... be careful what you say, someone will believe you and possibly will act upon those words.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
doing the thing I don't want to do
I began this blog as a place to write about topics slightly outside the scope of my normal public presentations - i.e. sermons. Certainly a sermon is a place where I raise the concerns that the culture is impressing on me and my hopes and dreams for the congregation in response to the witness of scripture... but... and it is a big but... sermons walk the fine line of speaking what I see and feel while respecting the views and experiences of the congregation. There are times when I must push this over the line, but I have to be careful there. For example, as I understand the words of Jesus, a Christian must be a pacifist. Members of my congregation have come to different conclusions than I have. So, I can preach about peace without requiring people to become total pacifists and allow them to struggle with what that means when their theology allows for war/violence under some circumstances. So, I envisioned the blog as a place where I could let loose without those constraints. I envisioned most of my topics as being theological or related to my therapy - music and guitars.
It feels as if I write most often about politics. I don't like that. I know that politics, as the way that groups of people make collective decisions, is by definition theological. How we live together says something about what we believe and what we believe says something about the ways we live together. So my understanding of God's yearnings for us is always reflected in my political acts and writings... and that is rarely material that makes it into my sermons because there is considerable diversity even in my little congregation with regards to any of these questions. So, I know where it is coming from... I write it here because I don't feel it is appropriate to say there... And it often comes across as more hard line than I really see myself.
So I'd like to write a bit about something less contentious... and this week I will. In two days I go to NAMM, the biggest trade show for the music industry. I go as a guest of Lowden Guitars, get to see George and some of the other folk from Lowden, connect with my friend Thomas Leeb, get to check out all of the newest doodads available for musicians to purchase, and see some of the bizarreness that is the LA commercial music scene. This year things will be a bit more serious for me as I'll be thinking about equipment etc. for use at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series but it will still be a fun couple of days. And I am soooo looking forward to not thinking about or writing about Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, or any of the rest of that bunch. Instead, I'll get to think about things that are important to me - strings, pickups, guitar builders, microphones, etc. - but which make little difference in the grand scheme of things.
It feels as if I write most often about politics. I don't like that. I know that politics, as the way that groups of people make collective decisions, is by definition theological. How we live together says something about what we believe and what we believe says something about the ways we live together. So my understanding of God's yearnings for us is always reflected in my political acts and writings... and that is rarely material that makes it into my sermons because there is considerable diversity even in my little congregation with regards to any of these questions. So, I know where it is coming from... I write it here because I don't feel it is appropriate to say there... And it often comes across as more hard line than I really see myself.
So I'd like to write a bit about something less contentious... and this week I will. In two days I go to NAMM, the biggest trade show for the music industry. I go as a guest of Lowden Guitars, get to see George and some of the other folk from Lowden, connect with my friend Thomas Leeb, get to check out all of the newest doodads available for musicians to purchase, and see some of the bizarreness that is the LA commercial music scene. This year things will be a bit more serious for me as I'll be thinking about equipment etc. for use at the Cambridge Drive Concert Series but it will still be a fun couple of days. And I am soooo looking forward to not thinking about or writing about Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, or any of the rest of that bunch. Instead, I'll get to think about things that are important to me - strings, pickups, guitar builders, microphones, etc. - but which make little difference in the grand scheme of things.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
I'm a liberal
Bet you're not surprised if you've read any of my blogs.
My brother-in-law sent me a link to a 10 question quiz published by a libertarian organization that evidently positions a person on the political spectrum pretty accurately. My scores came out 90 on personal issues and 20 on economic, with higher scores indicating less government intervention. That puts me far into the liberal area of their chart which they define as:
you can find the quiz here.
My brother-in-law sent me a link to a 10 question quiz published by a libertarian organization that evidently positions a person on the political spectrum pretty accurately. My scores came out 90 on personal issues and 20 on economic, with higher scores indicating less government intervention. That puts me far into the liberal area of their chart which they define as:
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
you can find the quiz here.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
taxes
Back in seminary we were given the option to opt out of Social Security on religious grounds. The requirement was a religious objection for clergy to receive government aid. As you can guess, a few classmates did opt out on anything but religious grounds. Even then (mid 1970's) there was discussion that Social Security would not be there when we began to retire. These classmates felt that they would do better by contributing the same amount to investments managing those resources on their own. I have no idea whether or how they did. My guess is that at least some of them made no additional investments and will be in a real mess when they come to retirement as they will not be eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare. Others may have been disciplined about investing and have done quite well. We'll see how it plays out for them.
I remember the discussions very clearly. I remember arguing that beyond the question of whether or not it is moral to claim a religious exemption when one is really thinking only about the economics of the situation, there is the question of one's responsibility to the common good. I argued that it didn't matter whether or not SS would be there when I retired, it was my responsibility to pay in to support those who had given their lives building the society whose benefits I enjoyed. I still feel that way even though my quarterly payments of self-employment tax (the equivalent of the payroll tax) do hurt and the fact that I am more than frustrated by the most regressive tax in our system.
Those who benefit from the structures of the society should pay to support that system and those who benefit the most should pay proportionately more. I am not only willing to pay my part... I am morally obligated to do so and the size of my part is based on the benefits I receive and have received from the system.
This chart is a very important one for thinking about taxes... and about our current situation
A few observations -
I would argue that the wealthy and the corporations that do business in the United States receive the most benefits from the system and should proportionately pay more to sustain that system.
Taxes are the lowest percentage of GDP in 60 years... No wonder we're having a budget crisis.
Corporate taxes - in a time of HUGE profits to corporations - are the lowest they have been on the chart. We have all heard of huge corporations like Exxon in 2009 reporting a tax benefit of 1.1 million on 45.2 billion in profits. The GAO reported in '08 that from '98-'05, 2/3rds of US corporations paid no income tax.
Employment taxes - Social Security, Medicare, etc - are probably the largest percentage of the chart... and are the most regressive tax in our system, effecting the poor and middle class while not being levied on higher incomes.
Estate and gift taxes, the closest things we had (and I did say had) to a wealth tax, were never large but they did contribute to the fiscal pie, have shrunk to zero.
Clearly, this situation is not sustainable. The question is what should be done. The government does things that are necessary to have a civil society and those things cost money. They must be paid for and the only way to do that is via taxes. Somebody has to pay taxes and the lion's share are now being borne by workers through the payroll tax. In this situation, the Republicans and a few Democrats are arguing that we must extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% while cutting safety nets, social programs, and other expenditures that contribute to a civil society. This is exactly the wrong answer. Taxes should be raised on those who benefit the most.
The argument goes that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to invest less, resulting in fewer jobs, etc. This logic fails when you think about it. If money is invested, that removes it from the taxable income so logically, a higher tax rate encourages rather than discourages investment. Why give the money to the government when you can use it to add capital to a business and thereby avoid paying the taxes?
I remember the discussions very clearly. I remember arguing that beyond the question of whether or not it is moral to claim a religious exemption when one is really thinking only about the economics of the situation, there is the question of one's responsibility to the common good. I argued that it didn't matter whether or not SS would be there when I retired, it was my responsibility to pay in to support those who had given their lives building the society whose benefits I enjoyed. I still feel that way even though my quarterly payments of self-employment tax (the equivalent of the payroll tax) do hurt and the fact that I am more than frustrated by the most regressive tax in our system.
Those who benefit from the structures of the society should pay to support that system and those who benefit the most should pay proportionately more. I am not only willing to pay my part... I am morally obligated to do so and the size of my part is based on the benefits I receive and have received from the system.
This chart is a very important one for thinking about taxes... and about our current situation
A few observations -
I would argue that the wealthy and the corporations that do business in the United States receive the most benefits from the system and should proportionately pay more to sustain that system.
Taxes are the lowest percentage of GDP in 60 years... No wonder we're having a budget crisis.
Corporate taxes - in a time of HUGE profits to corporations - are the lowest they have been on the chart. We have all heard of huge corporations like Exxon in 2009 reporting a tax benefit of 1.1 million on 45.2 billion in profits. The GAO reported in '08 that from '98-'05, 2/3rds of US corporations paid no income tax.
Employment taxes - Social Security, Medicare, etc - are probably the largest percentage of the chart... and are the most regressive tax in our system, effecting the poor and middle class while not being levied on higher incomes.
Estate and gift taxes, the closest things we had (and I did say had) to a wealth tax, were never large but they did contribute to the fiscal pie, have shrunk to zero.
Clearly, this situation is not sustainable. The question is what should be done. The government does things that are necessary to have a civil society and those things cost money. They must be paid for and the only way to do that is via taxes. Somebody has to pay taxes and the lion's share are now being borne by workers through the payroll tax. In this situation, the Republicans and a few Democrats are arguing that we must extend tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% while cutting safety nets, social programs, and other expenditures that contribute to a civil society. This is exactly the wrong answer. Taxes should be raised on those who benefit the most.
The argument goes that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to invest less, resulting in fewer jobs, etc. This logic fails when you think about it. If money is invested, that removes it from the taxable income so logically, a higher tax rate encourages rather than discourages investment. Why give the money to the government when you can use it to add capital to a business and thereby avoid paying the taxes?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Church & State... again
Yesterday I was lurking on a conservative Christian forum and read something that took shocked me... one of the participants said that he and his wife had "agreed to pray against Barack Obama... to pray for his utter failure." I wondered about the implications. If a presidency "utterly fails," what does that mean for the people? What about those who would lose their jobs or their lives if that prayer were answered? What does such a prayer tell us about an individual's understanding both of God and of their role in society? And how does it jive with Biblical injunctions to ray for those in power or even to love our enemies? How does praying for something that would invariably cause the suffering of so many people remotely resemble anything that Jesus would do?
Then today, I saw a link to a report on Ethics Daily, a centrist to left leaning Baptist publication, that tells about a meeting of about 40 conservative Christian leaders who met in Dallas to strategize about what they could do to defeat Obama in 2012.
I have posted before that I believe freedom of religion ensures that people of faith, any faith no matter how repugnant, can bring their religious belief to their political decisions. So at a technical level, I have no issue with what the poster said on the forum or what the "Christian leaders" did. On a faith level, I think they have all missed the boat and are reflecting anything but a Christian understanding of the issues before us. Whenever I read these kinds of things I am always taken back to my seminary days at Eastern Baptist Seminary where one of my professors declared, "It is not possible to be a Christian and a conservative." I think there may have been a bit of hyperbole going on, but as a general statement, I think the prof was accurate.
On a political level and a pastoral level, I mourn such closed minds. How can they speak to a culture which has embraced at least openness to discussion if not pluralism? What happens to church members who are not quite so sure about specific political stances? What happens to anyone who is able to see merit even in some opposing opinions? And what about those who need healthcare, unemployment insurance, Social Security, etc.? What does it say from a pastoral standpoint when you're unemployed and your pastor stands in the pulpit and argues that we should suspend unemployment benefits while at the same time extending tax cuts for the richest in our society? And not only should we do these things, they are the things that God requires of us? (guess they haven't read any of the prophets).
And finally, I read a quote from St. Augustine the other day that seems appropriate here... when St. Augustine was asked for the three great principles of Christianity, he replied: "First, humility. Second, humility. Third, humility." If I try to think of any characteristics, good or bad, that might define those people... humility ain't it.
Then today, I saw a link to a report on Ethics Daily, a centrist to left leaning Baptist publication, that tells about a meeting of about 40 conservative Christian leaders who met in Dallas to strategize about what they could do to defeat Obama in 2012.
I have posted before that I believe freedom of religion ensures that people of faith, any faith no matter how repugnant, can bring their religious belief to their political decisions. So at a technical level, I have no issue with what the poster said on the forum or what the "Christian leaders" did. On a faith level, I think they have all missed the boat and are reflecting anything but a Christian understanding of the issues before us. Whenever I read these kinds of things I am always taken back to my seminary days at Eastern Baptist Seminary where one of my professors declared, "It is not possible to be a Christian and a conservative." I think there may have been a bit of hyperbole going on, but as a general statement, I think the prof was accurate.
On a political level and a pastoral level, I mourn such closed minds. How can they speak to a culture which has embraced at least openness to discussion if not pluralism? What happens to church members who are not quite so sure about specific political stances? What happens to anyone who is able to see merit even in some opposing opinions? And what about those who need healthcare, unemployment insurance, Social Security, etc.? What does it say from a pastoral standpoint when you're unemployed and your pastor stands in the pulpit and argues that we should suspend unemployment benefits while at the same time extending tax cuts for the richest in our society? And not only should we do these things, they are the things that God requires of us? (guess they haven't read any of the prophets).
And finally, I read a quote from St. Augustine the other day that seems appropriate here... when St. Augustine was asked for the three great principles of Christianity, he replied: "First, humility. Second, humility. Third, humility." If I try to think of any characteristics, good or bad, that might define those people... humility ain't it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
