Latest Rush Anti-Moderate Religion Hate Speech Just one of Many

Here's the difference between the religious right and moderate to progressive people of faith. The religious right uses its numbers to pursue its narrow vision of moral values, chiefly relating to criminalizing abortion and putting limits on the legal rights of gay Americans. At least since the Civil Rights Movement, moderate and progressive people of faith have not come together in the same way to be a force for tolerance, social justice, freedom of religion, and a sane foreign policy that uses force as a last resort. Yesterday, an opportunity to speak up for what is right arose for moderate people of faith. In response to Rush Limbaugh's statement that "the religious left in this country hates and despises the God of Christianity and Catholicism," the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance led the way yesterday in calling out Limbaugh’s abuse of moderate people of faith this past week. Here is part of his statement:

"Mr. Limbaugh has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance and insensitivity to the religious communities in this nation. "Mr. Limbaugh demeans the very spirit of Christianity as well as the faithful Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Baha'i, and other religious communities. Unfortunately Mr. Limbaugh's words echo the recent misuse of religion by politicians. We remain gravely concerned about the continuing manipulation of religion for partisan political purposes. The fusion of partisan politics and religion arrogantly blasphemes religion and aggressively threatens the vitality of democracy. "The Interfaith Alliance remains committed to the healing role of religion in America and stands with all people of faith and good will who remain dedicated to common values that enhance our lives together."

It's particularly ironic if no Republicans, such as Sen. Frist, speak out against a VERY REAL rather than an imaginary attack on people of faith. If they do not speak out against Limbaugh, we will know that their posturing on judicial nominees was more partisan puffery than heartfelt passion to protect people of faith.

It’s time for America’s moderate religious community to follow Dr. Gaddy's lead and to speak out against the daily dose of hate speech served up by Rush Limbaugh. Distorting and showing contempt for the deepest values of moderate and progressive people of faith is just the latest episode in a daily dose of anti-American values put forth by Mr. Limbaugh. In the past he has made light of torture and sexual harrassment and belittled people named Chavez as "people we've had problems with"

This Against the Grain commentary is written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer

There is one proud and satisfied place where the pictures and accounts of the abuse endured by some prisoners at Abu Ghraib cause no consternation and no outrage: Rush Limbaugh's America, pop. 20 million.

Here's Rush's take, from his Website:

"I'm sorry, folks. I'm sorry. Somebody has to provide a little levity here. This is not as serious as everybody is making it out to be. My gosh, we're all wringing our hands here. We act like, 'Okay let's just die,' you know? 'Let's just give up. What can we do to make these people feel better? Let's just pull out of there, and let's just go. Let's just become a neutral country. Let's just do that.' I mean, it's ridiculous. It's outrageous what's happening here, and it's not -- and it's not because I'm out of touch; it's because I am in touch, folks, that I can understand. This is a pure, media-generated story. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm [not] saying the pictures aren't there, but this is being given more life than the Waco invasion got. This is being given more life than almost -- it's almost become an Oklahoma City-type thing. One more Bush sound bite, and the president continued explaining how real democracy works here."

Here's Rush's sociological evaluation of what really happened at Abu Ghraib, as quoted in a piece in The New Republic on Limbaughism:

"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?"

Check out this string of qoutes from:

Media Matters

Limbaugh: Women "Actually Wish" for Sexual Harassment

Limbaugh: "A Chavez is a Chavez. We've Always Had Problems with Them"


What you can do to stop this:

1.) Call your local Rush-carrying radio station and complain that Rush has offended you as a moderate (Lutheran, Catholic, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim etc )_______ and that you take this type of anti-religious hate speech very seriously.

2.) Listen to the program just long enough to get the names of any local sponsors. Call them and express your outrage that they are sponsoring these types of attacks against the fundamental American value of allowing freedom of religion. No one religious view is more acceptable than any other in this country, and that is why we have the wall of separation between church and state.

3.) Bring this topic up with others who share your moderate vision of religion or who believe in America's history of religious tolerance.

4.) Avedon Carol of the first-rate The Sideshow has joined in this discussion and reminds us that this anti-American bigot is on Armed Forces radio--how can this be? Avedon is correct: call your representative as well. At a minimum, some better balance is needed. Thanks for linking the last post, and for joining in the discussion anout how to respond.

Rush Limbaugh Abuses & Taunts Moderate & Progressive People of Faith

Moderate and progressive people of faith have been reluctant to enter into the political arena. Frankly, we're more comfortable volunteering at food pantries, homeless shelters, or helping out others in need. Only recently and reluctantly have we recognized the need to stand up for the values- including being slow to judge others-- that we hold dear. But now Rush Limbaugh has seen fit to insult moderate and progressive people of faith on his top-rated radio program. Enough is enough: we must not take this lying down. Limbaugh must either apologize or we must consider a national boycott of all radio stations that carry his program. Just two days ago, this Blog spoke out against anti-religious bigotry from a left-wing non-believer. But at least he did not insult and taunt moderate religious people in the shocking and abusive manner that Mr. Limbaugh has. Anti-religious bigotry on all sides must stop, and seeking to impose one vision of religion must stop, too. There is no right way to worship G'd. Further, there is no one version of Christianity, nor is Christianity the official religion of this country. As Al Gore said yesterday, this is exactly the type of religious persecution and intolerance that America was founded to prevent. "How dare they?" Gore said. "This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throw-back to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place." Limbaugh thinks he can taunt the most deeply held values of millions of Americans with no consequence--he thinks the sleeping giant of moderate and decent Americans will not notice. But he is mistaken--the giant is waking up from a long nap.

c/o Mike Tidmus Blog:

In his broadcast, Rush postulated the proposition that there are two Christian Gods, and the God of that tiny, bigoted minority known as the radical religious right is the only correct and true God. As for other faiths (and non-faiths), this press release (in its entirety) from The Interfaith Alliance says it all.

Limbaugh's Religious Hate Talk Blasphemes Religion, Interfaith Alliance President Says

WASHINGTON -- April 28 -- Today, in response to Rush Limbaugh's statement that "the religious left in this country hates and despises the God of Christianity and Catholicism," the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance, released the following
statement:

"All people of faith in the most religiously diverse nation on earth should be insulted by the uninformed religious pronouncements of a vitriolic radio host," said Rev. Dr. C Welton Gaddy, President of the Interfaith Alliance. "Mr. Limbaugh has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance and insensitivity to the religious communities in this nation.

"Mr. Limbaugh demeans the very spirit of Christianity as well as the faithful Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Baha'i, and other religious communities. Unfortunately Mr. Limbaugh's words echo the recent misuse of religion by politicians. We remain gravely concerned about the continuing manipulation of religion for partisan political purposes. The fusion of partisan politics and religion arrogantly blasphemes religion and aggressively threatens the vitality of democracy.

"The Interfaith Alliance remains committed to the healing role of religion in America and stands with all people of faith and good will who remain dedicated to common values that enhance our lives together."

According to Media Matters, on the April 27 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Mr. Limbaugh said:

LIMBAUGH: "I would submit to you that people on the left are religious, too. Their God is just different. The left has a different God. There's a religious left in this country.

"And, the religious left in this country hates and despises the God of Christianity and Catholicism and whatever else. They despise it because they fear it, because it's a threat, because that God has moral absolutes. That God has right and wrong, that God doesn't deal in nuance, that God doesn't deal in gray area, that God says, 'This is right and that is wrong.'"

FP says: APOLOGIZE OR WE WILL BOYCOTT! We also ask that all other people of faith and or good will, including our conservative Christian friends, to join us in seeking an apology and an end to religious intolerance in all its forms.

The FP Interview: Carlos Stouffer of Jesus Politics

FP: Who is Carlos Stouffer?

CS: I'm an internet addict and used book peddler living in Los Angeles. Before this I was in Chapel Hill, North Carolina teaching Portuguese as a graduate student and in Miami, Florida.

FP: When and why did you start your Blog, Jesus Politics?

CS: Last spring I was spending an excessive amount of time on the
Internet reading political articles and blogs and forwarding anti-Bush articles to some pro-Bush members of my family. I started blogging in early April as it seemed like a good way to channel what I was already doing anyway.

FP: Your Blog says, "My interest in Jesus goes back to when I was
born in Brazil where my parents were Southern Baptist missionaries." How did that experience of being a Protestant missionary in a very Catholic country shape your own perspective and views on the place of Christianity in society?

CS: We were in Brazil to convert the Catholics to our Southern Baptist way of practicing Christianity. But of course in subtle ways Brazilian
Catholic culture also ended up converting some of our Southern Baptist ways. I think our experience in Brazil would had been richer though if we were more open to a dialogue with the various and interesting religious expressions there. I imagine that it would had been possible for Baptists to create common cause with Catholics if there was more effort at building bridges.

FP: What does the phrase Jesus Politics mean to you?

CS: It is just a quick way of expressing the various issues involved at the intersection of religion and politics.

FP: Are you a regular church go-er these days? If so, are you still a Southern Baptist? If not, why not?

CS: My wife, Susan, who is finishing up her Ph.D. in Occupational
Science,is very involved in our local combo United Methodist/Presbyterian USA church. I attend and support her work. We might have attended a Baptist church but the only progressive Baptist churches in California are located around San Francisco.

FP: Who are your favorite thinkers and writers in the area of politics,religion and theology?

CS: Here is a small list of influential Southern Baptist progressives who are unfortunately too often forgotten today:

Clarence Jordan

Will Campbell


Carlyle Marney


Henlee Barnette

FP: Many people feel frustrated by both the perception of religious
people and the Bush Administration--what can they do to change things?

CS: I like to contrast the political Christians on the Christian Right with the political Christians on the Jesus Left. The Christian Right focuses on an orthodox and institutional interpretation of the Christian Faith whereas the Jesus Left focuses on fresh ways to honor the life and spirit of the historical Jesus. Even though some political Christian leaders are loud, I am pretty sure the vast majority of Christians in the US are not that interested or engaged in politics.

As more Christians get involved and become better informed, I think they will start to question the assumptions of these loud political Christians. I think the Christian Rightists are particularly vulnerable when Christians begin to wake up and discover what is going on in the name of Jesus.

FP: Are there a couple of posts you are most proud of?

CS: The best part of the blog are the contributions from several
commenters. We have a good conversation going now at: Jesus Politics Destroying Judeo-Christian Politics

FP: See also:

Sick to death of being told to respect religion

What's on Jesus i-Pod

Live Blog Response to Bush on Social Security c/o Working Families

I'll let this e-mail from the AFL-CIO speak for me:

Dear Working Families e-Activist:

AFL-CIO

Yesterday, thousands of people came out to voice their concerns about Social Security privatization. At rallies on Capitol Hill and around the country they urged Congress not to support President Bush’s privatization idea that would slash benefits and explode government debt. Poll after poll shows a clear majority of working families do not support Bush’s risky privatization scheme. Even the White House admits this plan would do nothing to solve any future funding problems for Social Security. But the hearings on Social Security privatization have begun on Capitol Hill.

And President Bush continues to travel around the country holding private “town hall” meetings, trying to convince America that his plan is good for us. We know better.

Here's what's at stake:


Privatizing Social Security would slash guaranteed benefits by some 40 percent—even for workers who decide not to have privatized accounts. After a lifetime of work, that can add up to $152,000 in lost benefits.

Privatization also would create massive, new federal debt and open Social Security up to political corruption—because politicians would decide which Wall Street firms would manage our money in privatized accounts.

And the huge costs of privatization could force an increase in the retirement age to 70.

We need to fight Social Security privatization as hard as Bush pushes it. With all that’s at stake, it’s well worth investing a little time now to circulate our Petition to Strengthen Social Security in your workplace during your break. Please click the following link to download the petition:

To reach our goal of 250,000 signers, we need numbers—tens of thousands more signatures on petitions collected in workplaces in every part of America. That means we need you to collect 10, 20 or even 100 signatures. Anything you can do gets us closer to our goal.

Please take one moment now to download the Petition to Strengthen Social Security by clicking the following link: Petition

Once you have downloaded the petition, please take it to your workplace and collect as many signatures as you can. Make additional copies of the petition to get even more signatures. Then fax the petition back to us at 202-637-5172.


Thanks for fighting for Social Security and retirement security for all working families. Look below to read the Pledge to Strengthen Social Security you are asking your members of Congress to sign.

In solidarity,

Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
April 28, 2005


P.S. Click the following link to urge others you know who are concerned about Social Security to download and circulate this petition during their break at their worksites, too:

Union Voice


Pledge to Strengthen Social Security

I pledge to the people of my district/state and to the American people that I will work to strengthen retirement security, including Social Security. I will oppose Social Security privatization proposals that would:


Require cuts in guaranteed benefits to pay for private accounts.
Weaken the system by diverting money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for private accounts. Increase the federal deficit to pay for private accounts.
Increase the retirement age to pay for private accounts.

Thomas Frank asks: What's the Matter with Liberals? Chumley at Kos Helpfully Answers

“What’s the Matter with Kansas?” was no doubt one of the most insightful books of last year. As the publisher notes, the book describes “the populist revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment. The high point of that backlash is the Republican Party's success in building the most unnatural of alliances: between blue-collar Midwesterners and Wall Street business interests, workers and bosses, populists and right-wingers.”

We have a couple of very slight qualms about his analysis, but the overall thrust of the argument--that liberals have let conservatives portray themselves as more in touch with the way Middle America lives and thinks-- is almost beyond debate. Now Frank is back with an article titled: What's the Matter with Liberals?

In this NY Review of Books article, Thomas Frank describes what he calls the Christmas Panic of 2004:

'Twas suddenly the season to be indignant, and from conservative commentators across the land there arose a collective clatter about how the liberal elite had ruined everyone's favorite holiday with their infernal determination to suppress the innocent folkways of the good Christian people of Middle America. The provocation was the decision by a handful of towns and school districts (as usual, every node of the right-wing publicity apparatus relied on the same three or four examples) to keep Nativity scenes off the lawns of city halls and overtly religious songs out of public school pageants...All across America a good old-fashioned red-state Christmas—just like the ones we used to know, only much touchier—brought another year of liberal woe to a close. Righteous parents fantasized that they were striking back at the liberal Gestapo every time they uttered the subversive phrase "Merry Christmas." Visions of noble persecution danced in everyone's heads, as dazed Democrats wandered upstairs for yet another long winter's nap.

In other words, liberals had fallen into yet another trap set by conservatives, who are always ready to brand them, fairly or unfairly, as elitist and disrespectful of religion. Frank is absolutely correct in describing the way the right manipulates and exploits this perception. But, alas, some so-called liberals are only too happy to play into the anti-religious stereotype. There is every reason to believe many “liberals’ still don’t get it. "I'm sick to death of being told to respect 'religion,' read a recent Chumley diary entry in Daily Kos, "Fucking sick of it." This hostility was echoed by many who commented there and on
Jesus Politics.

What was most disturbing was that these comments came in response to statements by moderate and liberal people of faith on Faithforward. Read these statements-some of them are even made by sympathetic atheists and agnostics. What did any of these people do to deserve Chumley's wrath? They spoke out about something that was important to them. There is a word for Chumley's attitude and the word is not liberal-the word is intolerant. This type of intolerance is not acceptable whether it comes from the right or the left. As Wikipedia notes: "As an Aristotelian virtue, tolerance is a middleground between softheadedness on the one hand (overtolerance) and narrow mindedness on the other (undertolerance)." It is narrow-minded not to respect people because they are gay or because they are religious. Chumley assumes that his moral clarity is so perfect that we should all follow him in de-valuing religion. Anyone who agrees with him, more power to you--but you certainly make life easier for the Right to try to brand all liberals with your strident and intolerant brush.


Here's a pledge I'd like to see both Chumley and Dobson make.

It comes from Tolerance.Org

To fulfill my pledge, I_______________ will examine my own biases and work to overcome them set a positive example for my family and friends work for tolerance in my own community speak out against hate and injustice.

We Share A World

For all our differences, we share one world. To be tolerant is to welcome the differences and delight in the sharing.

Here's a couple of suggestions for Bloggers of both right and left, most of which invlove simple courtesy and common sense. For moderates and progressives, adherence to these rules might help us from playing into the type of traps Frank describes.

1.) You may feel like nothing is sacred, but don't assume others feel that way. Don't be contemptuous of anything that is sacred or that has an important meaning to anyone else;

2.) Don't assume you have all the answers because you don't;

3.) Be sensitive to folks who have less education than you do, because they almost always have more street smarts than you do;

4.) Try to be civil in all dialogues and discussion;

5.) Avoid charged phrases so that they do not lose their meaning--ie, who is an extremist or who is an elitist.

6.) In general, profanity does not improve clarity-though there are exceptions.

Take Faithful Progressive Action

Faith into Action Opportunities:

1.) Pray with Let Justice Roll this afternoon
Wednesday April 27th at 2 pm

The Let Justice Roll: Faith and Community Voices Against Poverty coalition invites you to join in a "National Day of Prayer on the Federal Budget on Wednesday, April 27." The coalition is asking people of faith and allies to stop at 2 p.m. (EST) Wednesday, and pray for a budget that does more to support children, families, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and all those who live in poverty.

Simultaneously, a group of clergy and supporters will gather at 2 p.m. Wednesday in Washington outside the Senate Hart Building for prayer before going to the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other key senators.

Congress is expected to vote on a fiscal year 2006 budget resolution by April 29. Religious and community groups are asking Congress for a budget that is more reflective of the moral values of our nation than the budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate.

Let Justice Roll: Faith and Community Voices Against Poverty is a campaign sponsored by the National Council of Churches USA and the Center for Community Change, as well as a host of national, state, and local religious, faith-based, and community organizations.

2.) Move-On.PAC

Rally to Stop the Judicial Takeover

COALITION FOR A FAIR AND INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY

... Vice President Cheney and Senate Republican leader Bill Frist are threatening to use what they call the "nuclear option"—a parliamentary maneuver to overturn the 200-year-old tradition that all judges have broad support in Congress.

MoveOn PAC and our partners in the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary are organizing a massive national wave of protest to stop them, culminating with emergency rallies across the country on Wednesday, April 27, at 5 PM (or earlier in a few cities).

This is an "all hands on deck" moment, and we need everyone to turn out and be counted. Please come to the rally nearest you, or, if there's no rally within 50 miles, click here post your own rally location!


3.) If you're too busy today, how about meeting in NYC on May 7th?

On May 7th in NYC, Interfaith Voices is hosting a day long conference called "Progressive Religious Voices: Religious Values Promoting Liberty and Justice for All".

We're holding a conference to pull together local organizers, activists
and general progressive people of faith for a day of speakers, panels
and workshops so we can figure out how better to multiply our own voice
both locally and nationally. Dr. Bob Edgar of the NCC and Robyn Lundy
of Tikkun are two of our keynote speakers.

There will be about a dozen panels covering topics like marriage
equality, hunger and poverty, as well as more technical ground, like
how to do congregation to congregation outreach, messaging (and "framing"),
and secular outreach.
A more complete list of panels and speakers is included in the attached
press release and flyer, and the most up to date information can be
found on our website, http://www.interfaithvoices.net/

So Who Got The Better of it on Sunday?

UPDATE 12:35 PM (Keeping You Up to Speed)

Frist not interested in any deals. Thanks to Randolph Fritz and The Agonist Blog Sited in comments. Maybe Frist wants to show his loyalty to FRC< Dobson, etc.


Also, WP poll shows most do not favor nuclear meltdown of Senate rules.

UPDATE 7:00 AM: Frist, Reid Work on Judge-Approval Deal By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid is quietly talking to the Senate's chief Republican about confirming at least two of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees but only as part of a compromise that would require the GOP to end its threat to eliminate judicial filibusters, officials say.

UPDATED ORIGINAL POST:

Sunday night and early Monday morning, FP was feeling pretty damn happy about the exchange relating to Justice (Nuclear) and Social Justice Sunday--the dueling events in Louisville. On the positive side, we had organized a really spirited and impressive response in a very short time frame.

As Glenn at DriveDemocracy.org reports, Social Justice Sunday was well attended and got some good press. "Our Freedom AND Faith rally attracted a standing-room-only-spilling-out-into-the-street crowd to Louisville’s Central Presbyterian Church. So here’s to the good patriots of Louisville. All the major networks were there." Bravo, well-done to both Glenn's group and Clergy and Laity Network. They reacted fast. But still it was a reaction. Family Research Council set the agenda, and those of us who opposed them made that fact very clear. That good feeling I had this morning left me when I read an out of town local paper and there was an AP story that said Sen. Frist met with "Christian leaders" but did not talk about religion and that he argued that the nominees of President Bush deserved an up or down vote. Period. Nothing about how there came to be a Justice much less a Social Justice Sunday.

My sense that we'd been had only grew when I got time to read David Broder's column from Sunday's paper. He urged Democrats to just throw in the towel, specifically:

"The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering the seven Bush appointees to the federal appeals courts who were blocked in the last Congress and whose names have been resubmitted. In return, they should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench and a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually, carefully and with a guarantee of extensive debate in coming months." Whoa, Nellie--David Broder is supposed to be the voice of the reasonable center, but that's not much of a "deal" is it? It appears from the proposed compromise described above that Sen. Reid is a better negotiator than Mr. Broder took him for, but not by much. The compromise looks to be mostly a retreat by Sen. Democrats.

So who got the better of it on Sunday? There are two aspects to this question. The first relates to judicial nominees and the second is more about the overall perceptions and fall-out from the event. The original debate was about judges and the extreme conservatives got their message out to millions. The Family Research Council claims its "live TV simulcast, hosted by FRC Action and Focus on the Family Action, made its way into 61 million households in 44 states this Sunday, April 24." They got their message out with no counter message in that AP story. We give them the edge on the part of the question relating to Bush judicial nominees. The compromise described above does not really change this analysis but proves our original point.

On the broader question, moderate and progressive leaders united to oppose the callow and divisive use of religion to support a narrow political agenda. Further, these same moderate groups put together a quick counter-event. There was some discussion that Sen. Frist had gone too far, including criticism from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (c/o Raw Story). This article from the LA Times c/o Miami Herald reports on possible divisions in the GOP base. Nonetheless, it was the right calling the shots and setting the terms of the debate. Look at liberal US Christian bloggers last week-- with the notable exception of Father Jake--it was wall to wall Frist, FRC, and Social Justice Sunday. They've got us talking about Bush judicial nominees, when the right goes too far, etc etc--they've got us reacting to them. Further, Sen. Frist was able to establish his loyalty to the extreme Christian right, and recent history has shown it is not possible to go too far to the right when it comes to intra-GOP politics. We rate the second, broader question as a draw or perhaps, more hopefully, an incomplete. If the new moderate and progressive religious coalition holds, we may have gained the slightest edge--but the overall developments are no cause for great joy here.

Prison Report: U.S. Locks Up and Gives Up on More People

On Saturday my wife drove a woman to visit her son, a non-violent offender, in a prison about a couple of hours from here. She came back with stories about the young man’s life behind bars. He needs to get into three programs to be eligible to leave prison but there is no room in even one that would allow him to move forward with his treatment and his life. So he spends nearly his whole day watching TV. “This country does some of the dumbest things. How will watching TV all day help him cope better when he’s released-- if he’s ever released?” My wife asked this with the kind of exasperated anger I used to feel when I did more criminal cases. The U.S. criminal justice system is incredibly frustrating and ineffective. New prison statistics were released late Sunday by the government. It shows that we lock up and generally give up on more people than any other country. It is a very bleak picture of a country that doesn't deal with things, that watches way too much stupid T.V.

SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, A.P. Writer reports:

WASHINGTON - Growing at a rate of about 900 inmates each week between mid-2003 and mid-2004, the nation's prisons and jails held 2.1 million people, or one in every 138 U.S. residents, the government reported Sunday...Added Malcolm Young, executive director of the Sentencing Project, which promotes alternatives to prison: "We're working under the burden of laws and practices that have developed over 30 years that have focused on punishment and prison as our primary response to crime." He said many of those incarcerated are not serious or violent offenders, but are low-level drug offenders. Young said one way to help lower the number is to introduce drug treatment programs that offer effective ways of changing behavior and to provide appropriate assistance for the mentally ill. According to the Justice Policy Institute, which advocates a more lenient system of punishment, the United States has a higher rate of incarceration than any other country, followed by Britain, China, France, Japan and Nigeria.

How Extreme is Family Research Council: You Be the Judge

FP got a very nice e-mail from a conservative who asked "what was so bad about Sen. Frist supporting Christian Conservatives" today--"why is that inappropriate?" First, thanks for asking. Let me repeat: we know and admire many true Christian conservatives who do not have an extremist agenda. However, the group sponsoring today's event does talk in extremist terms. Federal judges reasonably feel threatened by their rhetoric. Even Ted Olson, well-connected Republican and Bush lawyer in the Florida election case, thinks right-wing attacks on judges have gone too far. In a Wall St Journal Op-Ed urged extremists to "lay off our judiciary." Olson wrote that..."it is time to take a deep breath, step back, and inject a little perspective into the recent heated rhetoric about judges and the courts." Instead, Sen. Frist embraces the group responsible for the most dangerous rhetoric. The Family Research Council is not the kind of group the Senate Majority leader should associate himself with, and that's why so many moderate religious leaders have spoken out against today's event.

Frank Rich writing in today's NY Times quotes FRC leader Tony Perkins as saying that the American judiciary is a greater threat than terrorism.

"(Tony Perkins) now runs the Family Research Council, a Washington propaganda machine devoted to debunking "myths" like "People are born gay" and "Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are." It will give you an idea of the level of Mr. Perkins's hysteria that, as reported by The American Prospect, he told a gathering in Washington this month that the judiciary poses "a greater threat to representative government" than "terrorist groups."

Religious Leaders Concerned Sen. Frist Associates with "Just Us Sunday"

In every movement there is a galvanizing moment when people come together and begin to make real change. Is it possible that the immediate and forceful response to Sen. Frist joining up with the fringe groups is that moment for moderate and progressive religious leaders? This story comes from ELCA News, but you could also read about it from any of the following participants: the National Council of Churches USA; the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); the African Methodist Episcopal Church; and/or the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism...Something happening here.

ELCA Presiding Bishop, Others, Criticize Senator, 'Justice Sunday'
CHICAGO (ELCA) -- The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), joined four other U.S. religious leaders in criticizing U.S. Sen. Bill Frist's (R-Tenn.) decision to participate in an April 24 teleconference which portrays Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's judicial nominees. The criticism came in an April 22 conference call with news reporters.

Frist is the Republican majority leader in the Senate. The April 24 telecast is being organized by the Family Research Council, Washington, D.C. , a conservative public policy organization. It will originate at Highview Baptist Church , Louisville, Ky. , and is to be distributed to congregations throughout the country over the Internet and through Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Hanson and the other religious leaders are displeased with the materials promoting "Justice Sunday" and with Frist's decision to associate himself with the event by appearing in the telecast in a taped presentation. An advertising flier for the telecast said Justice Sunday aims to address the Democrats' use of the filibuster to challenge Republican judicial nominees.

"The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith," the flier said.

Hanson was joined on the conference call by the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches USA; the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the general assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, African Methodist Episcopal Church; and Rabbi David Sapperstein, director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. The religious leaders said they are concerned that a high-profile political leader would choose to associate himself with the event.

Edgar told reporters that Frist refused to meet with religious leaders about his scheduled participation in the telecast despite several attempts to meet this week. The telecast should be called "Just Us Sunday," Edgar said, who added that for some religious leaders to be cut off from key political leaders is an "outrage." Edgar said he is asking Frist to "change his very destructive tactics."

Hanson told reporters "that the rhetoric associated with Justice Sunday is divisive and damaging to religion and politics." He said religious and political leaders should invite people in this nation into "lively civil public discussion of what makes for a more just world."

"The needs of this world are too great. The challenges facing this nation [are] too complex for such divisive rhetoric that we are hearing," he said.

"The tragic irony of Justice Sunday is that it risks perpetrating further injustice," Hanson said. "To imply some people because of their political convictions are not persons of faith is an injustice." Using the power of an elected political leader to polarize people of faith is "unjust," Hanson said.

"We as religious and political leaders need to be calling the American people to the barriers we have erected to divide us from one another and together, turn those walls into tables of conversation and reconciliation," Hanson said.

The Family Research Council is entitled to hold such an event, but Frist should not participate, Sapperstein said. Frist's participation is "inappropriate and ill-advised," and Frist should withdraw or repudiate "the notion of Justice Sunday," he said. "Senator Frist has the responsibility to lead America in a better direction," Sapperstein added.

Happy Passover!

Some of my fondest memories of living in New York involve Pesach Seders at my (appropriately-named) friend Josiah's house. It's a wonderful time of the year and the traditions of Passover enrich and enliven it in a way that promotes spiritual growth and freedom, even for those not blessed to be born Jewish. Of course, we Christians owe so much to our Jewish brothers and sisters; our faith traditions are linked very deeply and forever. Jesus himself celebrated Passover shortly before his death. But beyond that, his ministry made it possible for the Gentiles to try to reconcile ourselves to the God of the creator's beloved people--no small task given their incredibly rich and faithful tradition.

With great joy and respect we wish all a Happy Passover!

Social Justice Sunday

FP and several other Bloggers got an e-mail promoting Social Justice Sunday--the counter event to Nuclear Sunday, or whatever Bill Frist is calling his big bully bash advocating changing the dignified way the U.S. Senate has conducted business for many years. Social Justice Sunday is being held in Louisville tomorrow. We are happy to support this positive event, and glad that these voices will raise a voice for hope and justice even as others try to divide us and fill us with fear. The way we read history, hope always wins out over fear-it just takes longer and more work than we would prefer.

Friends:

.. we're hoping you will promote our counter-event, "Social Justice Sunday." Frist and the Family Research Council's attack on all-faiths-not-their-own must not go unchallenged. We are Clergy and Laity Network and DriveDemocracy.org.

Our event is a public gathering in Central Presbyterian Church at 2:30 pm, April 24, in Louisville. It will take the fight to Senator Frist and his fundamentalist cronies by offering the media a rebuttal to the hateful "Justice Sunday" telecast.

It would be incredibly helpful if you could link to the Social Justice
Sunday information listed on the Building the Beloved Community website. We will post all updates and details to this site.

By the way, the site is the community gathering-place of our Building the Beloved Community initiative recently launched with over 60 sponsoring organizations, including Faithful America, TrueMajority.org, NCC, UCC, UUA, Sojourners, Tikkun, and United for Peace and Justice. We seek to reclaim the soul of America with a moral vision of social justice, freedom, and democratic values. Please join us in this important work!

Help us make our Social Justice Sunday event a success so the voices of
the progressive faith community may be heard.

Sincerely,

Brian Sarrazin – Director, Faith Voices for the Common Good
Zev Kanter – Washington Coordinator, Clergy and Laity Network

P.S. We also encourage you -- and everyone with a conscience -- to register with the BuildingBeloved.org website to post comments, contribute to the forums and blog.

Faith and Values: John Kerry Gets it Almost Right

First, full disclosure: FP worked his booty off for John Kerry and met nearly every member of the Kerry and Heinz family during the recent election. FP was standing next to Kerry’s brother and sister on stage when Kerry won the Wisconsin primary. I truly like the man and still get angry when I remember how President Bush threw mud (and/or did nothing to stop it when others did so) at a true war hero and patriot (though of course Bush had already done exactly the same thing to Sen. McCain.)

Still, I have to be honest here if this Blog is to have any value. In a recent telephone conference of a forthcoming national organization of progressive Christians, one of them expressed how dismally Sen. Kerry articulated his issues in moral or meaning-related terms. “God Bless his wonky heart,” said one theologian, “He means well…But it’s just too much policy and not enough heart, even though I believe he has the heart.” So it is with considerable interest that we heard two statements, both very welcome, from Sen. Kerry on faith and values yesterday. There was much that was good in them but still some fundamental problems with the way he expressed himself.

First, the good news. John Kerry spoke out against the distorted use of religion by Sen. Frist and others who are calling this Justice Sunday. He did so in clear terms that people can understand.

Kerry: Don't tell me what God wants
Boston Herald
By Noelle Straub

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - Updated: 03:55 AM EST
WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday attacked Republicans for having an ``orthodoxy of view'' and overly inserting religion into politics, accusing them of using God as a justification for appointing conservative judges. ``I am sick and tired of a bunch of people trying to tell me that God wants a bunch of conservative judges on the court and that's why we have to change the rules of the United States Senate,'' Kerry told a group of Bay State residents who traveled to Capitol Hill for U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan's annual legislative seminar. The Bay State senator was referring to a possible GOP move to alter Senate rules that would prevent Democrats from filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees. ``I am sick and tired of (them saying) they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values,'' Kerry added. ``We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich people in this country.'' The Bay State senator added that the Christian values and Catholic church he grew up with ``was a church of universality and understanding and true freedom of conscience'' and that there was never this kind of ``imposition of values'' into politics.Quoting the Biblical line that ``faith without works is dead,'' Kerry cited budget cuts to schools, literacy programs and Medicaid as distorted values.

Hooray! we say first and loudest. But there is one quibble that we must raise with Sen. Kerry's statement, and it's an error that should have been corrected long before now since he has been making the same statement since mid-way through the campaign. This tells me that indeed it does come from Sen. Kerry's own heart, but it also tells me that he needs some new advisors on faith issues. The problem? His repeated statement that "faith without works is dead." This is a very charged phrase, chock full of old and bitter theological arguments-not one that should be thrown around so casually. Though FP agrees whole-heartedly with this sentiment, these are fighting words for many Protestants-those who believe in the value of faith alone.

Sen. Kerry should stop referencing this quote from the Epistle of James every time the discussion of faith and values comes up--at least if he does not want to alienate Faith-is-Primary-Protestants many of whom are moderate evangelicals. Trust me, there are such people still out there-- particularly but not exclusively among old-school Lutherans, such as those FP was raised among.

There is a camp among such Protestants to whom the pecking order goes Paul (faith), Luther (faith), then Jesus (faith and works) and then, with some grumbling, James (works). Certainly this order follows for many Protestants whether one includes Luther or not. James, author of the Bible verse that Sen. Kerry mentions, is considered a mostly Catholic source by such people. Again, this is not our own view. But the ever useful Wikipedia provides some details:

Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and took the liberty of criticizing them. He called the epistle of James 'an epistle of straw', and could not reconcile the epistle with his belief in justification by 'faith alone'.

Wikipedia continues on The Epistle of James

"Justification by works," which James contends for, may be contrasted with the doctrine of "justification by faith", which Paul contends for in his own New Testament epistles. One way that Christians reconcile these perspectives by viewing that of James as a justification before others, that is to say the justification of a Christian's profession of faith by a consistent life; while Paul's emphasis was a justification before God, being regarded and accepted as just by virtue of the righteousness of Christ, which is received by faith. Another way that some Church fathers reconciled the two was to view true saving faith as faith that is energized by love, and that therefore is accompanied by good works, as opposed to a faith that is only intellectual assent to a set of beliefs. An interesting cross-reference is Acts 26:20, where Paul says that he has been preaching "that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance" (NASB, emphasis added)."

Back to the good news:

Check out Sen. Kerry's new video and message:

"It's essential for us to come together right now because, every day, Republican leaders are crossing lines that should never be crossed:

• The line that says a leader in the House of Representatives should never carelessly threaten or intimidate federal judges.
• The line that says a leader in the Senate should never accuse those who disagree with his political tactics of waging a war against people of faith.
• The line that says respect for core constitutional principles should never be undermined by a political party's quest for power.
• And, most important of all, the line that says a political party's leaders should never let their obsession with amassing power overwhelm the needs and interests of America's families.

The enclosed video message addresses the vitally important moment that our nation has reached. Decisions are about to be made that will shape America's future. I urge you to take a few minutes to watch the video -- and to forward it to your friends. But, most of all, I encourage you to join with the entire johnkerry.com community in committing yourself to acting to give voice to our values in the critical days ahead and holding Republicans in Washington accountable."

Once again we say, hooray!

Meanwhile, Back in Iraq…What Naive Arrogance Hath Wrought

Like most moderate and progressive people of faith, FP opposed the invasion of Iraq. Unlike some, FP is no pacifist. Rather, he admires Christian realists who believe in a very exceptional “just war’ doctrine along the lines articulated by Reinhold Niebuhr. Using this approach, Afghanistan was a ‘just war’ but Iraq was not. The arguments are of course familiar. The Taliban sponsored, profited from and hid Bin Laden: after 9/11, enough said. Iraq was an entirely different matter. They had not attacked us and there was no evidence that they intended to or had the capability to do so. Saddam was an evil dictator but was clearly no strategic threat. This toothless old tiger couldn't even fly a plane across his own country, let alone threaten the US or Israel.

The most galling thing about this war was the incredible arrogance and naiveté of the neo-cons that presented itself as hard-boiled realism. These people were willfully ignorant of the history of the region--especially the experience of Israel in Lebanon. Israel had been greeted with flowers and by the end of its occupation wide avenues were named after suicide bombers in Beirut, Syria and Iran had another base to work from, and no one was any safer.

FP’s tag line at the time was something like, “Yeah right they’re going to greet us with flowers, and maybe Andy Griffith can come out of retirement to be Sheriff since it’s all going to be so much like Mayberry.” These arrogant and naïve people perhaps never considered the main strategic calculation that still gets too little discussion: the fact that this war has strengthened the already powerful hand of Iran in the region. This was so freaking obvious to anyone who had paid any attention to the region over the past 25 years-- but, sadly, they hadn’t.

Here are some stories from Iraq, and it’s not exactly Mayberry...Read them and weep for what naive arrogance hath wrought.

Helicopter Crashes in Iraq, Killing Nine

By JAMIE TARABAY, Associated Press Writer
4/21/05

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A commercial helicopter contracted by the U.S. Defense Department crashed north of the Iraqi capital Thursday, killing nine people, including three Bulgarians, officials said. Also Thursday, al-Qaida, the country's most feared terror group, claimed responsibility for a suicide car bombing that targeted interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's convoy but did not harm the Iraqi leader.

Yahoo Dozens of Bodies Found in Tigris River

Violence in Off the Charts in Area On Iraq Border

"We're facing a well-developed, mature insurgency with the support of the local population" of about 100,000 townspeople, (Marine Maj. John) Reed says. "There is no Iraqi security force here. They are not effective. There are no police. They are dead or doing something else."
In stark contrast to the inroads multinational forces have made in such hot spots as Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul, Marines in Husaybah have been forced to hunker down in defensive positions. Their base, Camp Gannon, is named for Capt. Rick Gannon who died April 17, 2004, while leading an effort to rescue two sniper squads trapped on a rooftop in the city. Five Marines died that day in a fight against about 100 insurgents.

SF Gate (c/o Juan Cole)
Militants: Iranians Volunteer for Attacks
-
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
(04-20) 16:48 PDT TEHRAN, Iran (AP) --

More than 400 young men and women have volunteered to carry out suicide bombing attacks against Americans in Iraq and targets in Israel, a militant group said Wednesday. The recruiting effort was detailed during a ceremony organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has been seeking attackers for nearly a year.
The Iranian government has distanced itself from the organization. But the event was attended by Mahdi Rahimian, the head of the Martyr's Foundation and the Imam Khomeini Relief Committee, both quasi-government organizations run by hard-liners loyal to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Knight Ridder:
Iraq insurgents switch strategy, go for major attacks
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

WASHINGTON - Strategists who keep close tabs on the war in Iraq are scratching their heads over a sudden shift to large-scale attacks on American bases by the insurgents who heretofore have primarily bedeviled U.S. forces with their roadside bombs and hit-and-run attacks. Just when military commanders in Iraq were beginning to feel optimistic about the marked fall in the number of terrorist incidents and attacks in the wake of the January elections, the insurgents twice so far this month have staged well planned and coordinated mass attacks on U.S. facilities at Abu Ghraib prison and a Marine base on the Syrian border.

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ INVESTIGATES ALTERCATION

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An altercation occurred this morning at Checkpoint # 2 in the International Zone as the Transitional National Assembly was gathering. The altercation involved a member of the Assembly, Coalition Force members, and Iraqi Security Forces.An immediate preliminary investigation revealed that Mr. Fatah al-Shaik's vehicle departed the long line of traffic by crossing the median, and approached checkpoint 2 from the opposite traffic lane. Upon arriving at the checkpoint, he got out of his vehicle and a verbal and physical altercation began with an interpreter supporting Coalition Forces. U.S. Soldiers then intervened and rendered assistance to diffuse the situation by stepping between Mr. al-Shaik and the interpreter which resulted in a Soldier physically separating the two individuals by holding Mr. al-Shaik momentarily. Another member of Mr. al-Shaik's party was prevented from exiting the vehicle by a US Soldier. This incident is under investigation by Multi-National Force-Iraq

The FP Interview: Dignan, Dialogue-Seeking Christian Conservative

FP: Who is the blogger known as Dignan?

D: I am a 30-something father of two girls and have been married to a wonderful and brilliant wife for 8 years. I live in Atlanta and work
in the commercial real estate industry. I'm actually on my third or fourth career. In the past I have been a computer programmer, a teacher, a missionary, and even managed a telemarketing office(yikes!). I am a voracious reader and talker, which probably explains why I am now blogging. I don't ever sleep and seem to still
have the energy of an 18 year old which explains my incessant posting on my blog. Oh almost forgot the most important things. My Myers-Briggs type is ENTP and I'm a Pisces. :)

FP: What does the 75 Year Plan refer to?

D: "Dignan's 75 Year Plan" is a reference to a Wes Anderson film, Bottle Rocket. I am utterly obsessed with his films. Dignan, played by Owen Wilson, is the main character in Bottle Rocket and has all sorts of dreams of heists and adventures. I guess I relate to the character because I am still an idealist and I hate cynicism.

FP: What three things would you want progressive people of faith to know about more conservative people of faith-what don't we understand?

D: I think the first thing progressive people of faith should know is that there is a growing questioning of assumptions among conservative
Christians. I think years ago there was a culture in many evangelical churches that very much frowned upon expressing doubt, not just about our faith but about certain political assumptions. This isn't too say that we are all changing our minds, but the fact that people are thinking and having more of an open posture is a very good development I think.

I think that there is lack of knowledge of the amount of work that conservative Christians do in their local communities to help those in need. While many secular conservatives often don't live out their political beliefs in this way, most conservative evangelicals do. And I'm not just talking about giving money. That is easy. I'm talking about getting involved in other people's lives, which can often be
messy and uncomfortable. I've had friends leave their comfortable homes in the suburbs to move into inner city neighborhoods to help low-income families. What's great about this is that there is a rejection of patronizing "charity" which is replaced by building relationships and community with those in need.

Lastly, we are not all a bunch of Ned Flanders. I, and most of my evangelical friends, reject the Pharisaical notion of "Don't drink,don't smoke, don't dance, etc". Some of my best times with pastor friends of mine have involved scotch and cigars. This would have been almost unheard of 15-20 years ago. The importance of this is that we are emerging from a cocoon that we constructed decades ago to keep
ourselves from being polluted by the world around us. Dick Keyes wrote an outstanding book, "Chameleon Christianity", that describes how many Christians developed an inward focus and created a Christian subculture that often has little to do with the Gospel. More and more, evangelicals are rejecting that model.

FP: Why do you think we can have civil discussions about our differences, when so many others seem to fall into partisan rants?

D: I think first and foremost, we can have civil discussions because we are brothers in Christ. I believe that transcends all politics. As a
result, I don't in any way question your motives and recognize that while I may disagree with you on some of the details, we both seek to love our God and love our neighbors as we are commanded. I am actually quite saddened by much of the rancor between Christians on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, especially in light of the fact that Paul said we should be known for our love.

Beyond that, the fact that you have shown an openness to have dialogue
with me and have avoided any ad hominem attacks has gone a long way
towards my willingness to listen to you and consider what you say with
an open mind and heart. My sinful pride tells me that I am always right, yet God tells me that I am not.

FP: You've been reading our series about some of the more extremist
members of the Christian Right-what do you make of it? Don't we all have some obligation to try to check extremists on either side?

D: Well, I don't disagree that many you have highlighted are indeed
extremists. However, among most conservative evangelicals I know, the mention of someone like Jerry Falwell elicits facial expressions to the effect of "what is that stink in the air?" As far as others like Rushdoony, I would imagine less than 5% of people at my church have ever heard of him. So I think you overestimate the influence of many of these people.

I'm not sure that I would agree about having an obligation to check out extremists on either side. I'd rather many of these people be ignored. I think many of them view any mention, even negative, to be good. I think some of them especially like to see their "enemies" attacking them as it proves what they have been saying, at least in their own minds. It is unfortunate that the media usually calls the
extremists first when looking for a soundbite.

FP: Who are your favorite writers and thinkers in the area of politics and theology?

Two of my favorite political writers are Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman. Technically, they are both economists, but I'm a firm believer that a good understanding of economics is necessary to understand most political issues. Sowell's Basic Economics is a classic text as is Friedman's Captitalism and Freedom. It is hard to ignore that Friedman is a Nobel prize winner. I make it a point to read many books from a left-of-center perspective and in a similar spirit I would recommend your readers to check out books like this to understand a right-of-center perspective.

D: My favorite writers of theology are Francis Schaeffer and Lesslie
Newbigin. Both of these men did a great service to the Christian community in showing how to speak truth with love to a postmodern culture. Schaeffer's Trilogy is the best place to start. I would also recommend Newbigin's Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture.

FP: From reading your site, I know that you favor Belgian brewers, but what domestic beers do you drink? Note if you're ever in Madison, I'll but you one of our fine local beers.

D: It's funny you ask about this. I actually grew up in a home where
alcohol was very much frowned upon to the point that I never had any until I was 24. When I did try beer it was always stuff like Coors or Miller and I hated the stuff. I couldn't figure out why people liked it so much. A few years ago though, my good friend Godric introduced me to Belgian beers and it was a revelation. Since then I have become quite the beer snob, though I can say I came about it honestly.

There are plenty of outstanding domestic beers that I like. Ommegang Brewery in New York comes to mind immediately. I highly recommend their Three Philosophers strong ale. Another one of the best breweries in the world is Stone Brewing Co. in San Diego. Check out their Arrogant Bastard Ale. And in Atlanta we have Sweetwater Brewing Co. which has an outstanding Festive Ale.

FP: Is there a post you are most proud of?

D: My favorite and probably most well-known post is Inside the Religious Right. I'm amazed at the life this thing has had. The opinion page of the Wall Street Journal linked to it (a few weeks ago). I have also been asked to be a guest blogger at a Howard Dean blog and for Redstate.org as a result of some people reading it. I don't think that I could have written that post five years ago. I have needed time to fully work through some of the things I went through in high school and college.

The other article would be Considering Poverty I wrote this article in response to a discussion between yourself and a friend of mine regarding misconceptions about how conservative evangelicals approach an issue like poverty. While conservative evangelicals don't talk as much about poverty as I would like, they certainly act.

Faithful Progressive Salutes Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich on Bolton Debate

Yahoo News reports that Sen. Richard Lugar, whom we have considerable respect for, tried to rush a vote on the nomination of John Bolton to head the US delegation to the UN. Sen. Lugar himself has called Bolton an unlikely choice, but now he is apparently in full partisan battle mode. But one Republican had the guts not to allow the vote without considering new allegations raised by Bolton opponents.

The tide turned when Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich spoke for the first time. He did not attend Bolton's two-day confirmation hearing last week but had been presumed to be a supporter. "I don't feel comfortable voting today," Voinovich said...After the meeting, Voinovich said he had planned to support Bolton but changed his mind after an impassioned critique from Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn. Voinovich said he does not fear retribution from the White House, which had counted on solid Republican support on the committee. "The passion on the other side on this, I don't think is political," Voinovich told reporters. "I think they raised some legitimate issues. I think we ought to find out what they are. I think we ought to get the information, get a chance to have (the allegations) rebutted," Voinovich said.

That's the type of intellectual honesty that used to be common in the US Senate. This is not the first time Sen. Voinovich has broken party ranks--he opposed the recently passed Budget resolution--and we hope it won't be the last. Sen. Voinovich reminds us that not all Republicans are extremists who hate contemporary America and want to re-write its wonderful history (see last post on Rep. De Lay), some are truly conservative of values that have made this country great. Fair debate and intellectual honesty would go a long way toward improving political discourse and practice and we salute Sen. Voinovich for his latest contribution.

DeLay: Congress Should Have Prevented Separation of Church & State, Judicial Review, Right to Privacy, etc etc

Hendrik Hertzberg hits another home run in this week's New Yorker Talk of the Town, on Rep. Tom DeLay. He quotes the ethically challenged Republican House leader's own twisted view of American history, and then nails both De Lay and President Bush in one sentence each.

DeLay quote: I blame Congress over the last fifty to a hundred years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that’s nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn’t stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn’t stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn’t stop them."

HH: 'So there you have it, the DeLay agenda: no separation of church and state, no judicial review, no right to privacy. Next to this, the President’s effort to repeal the New Deal social contract by phasing out Social Security is the mewing of a kitten.'

Lest We forget the Real Reasons 12 of 217 Bush Judicial Nominees Have Not been Confirmed

Last week on April 11th, 2005, the Senate confirmed the 205th judicial nominee since President George W. Bush took office five long years ago. Last Monday's unanimous
95-0 vote confirmed Paul Crotty as a U.S. District judge for New York state. As JESSE J. HOLLAND of the Associated Press reported, "With Crotty's confirmation, Bush has put 205 trial and appellate judges on the federal court since becoming president....Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominations through filibuster threats, while allowing Republicans to confirm 34 others."

Despite this success, the Extreme Christian Right and its minions have engaged in a distorted and shameful attempt to bully the Senate into approving some truly second rate and extreme judicial nominees. For example, next week has been designated "Justice Sunday" and Sen. Bill Frist intends to join up with religious extremists to demand that the Senate approve judicial nominees who have in most cases already been rejected in so much as their names were not sent out of Committee. Why were they rejected?

Not for their religion but because of their extreme views on important issues of policy. Civilrights.org brought us this message some months ago. Since then, Judge Pickering was snuck onto the bench while the Senate was out of session.
civilrights.org
Judges Ad Script and Citations

President Bush promised to nominate federal judges "exceptional for their humanity" & not judges who would threaten our basic American rights:
But Bush nominee William Pryor called Roe versus Wade an "abomination..."
-- Remarks to the National Federalist Society, 1997

Charles Pickering called a cross-burning a "drunken prank."
-- United States v. Thomas, 1994

Jay Bybee advised that the President could ignore laws forbidding torture.
-- The Washington Post, 6/22/04

Carolyn Kuhl ruled that a woman's right to privacy was not violated by the doctor who invited a drug salesman to sit in on her breast exam.
-- Azucena Sanchez-Scott v. Alza Pharmaceuticals, 1999

Jeffrey Sutton said the Americans with Disabilities Act "is not needed."
-- University of Alabama v. Garrett, 2001

Janice Rogers Brown accused senior citizens on social security of "cannibalizing" their grandchildren's future.
-- Speech to the Institute of Justice, 2000

And William Myers compared the government's role in protecting public lands to King George's "tyrannical" rule over the American colonies.
-- Western Ranchers Fed Up with Feds Forum, 1996

Clearly the President has nominated "exceptional" judges - exceptional for the threat they pose to our fundamental freedoms.
(202-224-3121)
Please tell your Senators to stand firm and not to confirm nominees like these.

Paid for by the Coalition for an Independent Judiciary.
www.saveourcourts.org

NOW Politial Director Linda Berg picks up the story, as of March 5, 2005.

In the first three nominees selected for a hearing by Judiciary Committee Chair Arlen Specter, the administration reveals its hand and makes clear the issues through which it hopes to mold the federal judiciary.

The records of these three nominees demonstrate a breathtaking hostility to women's rights, civil rights, worker's right, environmental protection and the notion of an impartial judiciary.
The opening salvo was the March 1, 2005 hearing for the confirmation of William G Myers for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In the hearing, Senator Patrick Leahy stated, "I believe Mr. Myers to be the most anti-environment nominee sent to the Senate in my time here." Myers has criticized the Supreme Court on both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (legalizing birth control), saying that those decisions were made on the "personal moral values of the justices." He likewise praised the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which permitted the use of state criminal sodomy laws against gay and lesbian couples. Myers has compared federal laws protecting the environment to the "tyranny" of King George. Formerly an attorney for grazing and mining corporations, as the Interior Department's top lawyer, Myers issued decisions that would devastate sacred tribal lands and his nomination has engendered unprecedented opposition from Native American Indian Tribes. NOW joined 172 other organizations in opposing this nomination .

On March 3, the Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the nomination of Terrence Boyle to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. This former aide to Jesse Helms holds an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, and he was one of the first judges to rule that the Americans with Disability Act did not apply to the States. Twice reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court when he sided with white plaintiff voters in redistricting cases, Boyle has said that states are not obligated to adhere to equal opportunity law in positions where a state's "culture" does not approve of women working in that field. Because, as a sitting District Court judge, Boyle has only published a handful of his more than 10,000 opinions, we believe that the hostility to our rights obvious in that handful of cases is probably the tip of the iceberg. Because of the danger posed by this nomination, NOW President Kim Gandy sent a strong letter of opposition to Boyle's confirmation directly to Senators Leahy and Specter.

Next week, the Committee plans to hold a hearing on the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, notwithstanding the fact that he admits to practicing law without a license for three years. This nominee poses particular risk to the rights of women. As a member of the misleadingly-named Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, he proposed a series of changes to Title IX (the equal educational opportunity law) which, if implemented, would have had devastating effects on equality for women in school athletics. Griffith has compared his political philosophy to that of ultra-conservative Senator Rick Santorum, who is notorious for his rabid attacks on reproductive rights and whose philosophy is not one we wish federal judges to emulate.


Some Faith Leaders, such as Reform Jews, have spoken out against the use of religious bigotry as a method of bullying to put extremists on our Federal courts. This, despite a firm conservative grip on all of our judicary.

Judges Battle Transcends Numbers

By David G. Savage LA Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The looming battle over President Bush's nominees to the U.S. appeals courts might derail the Senate, but it probably won't make much difference in the federal courts. That's because Republican appointees already dominate them.

Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees.

Even if Bush wins approval for the dozen disputed nominees who have been blocked by Senate Democrats, only one circuit would change its ideological balance — hardly a seismic shift. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, now evenly divided, would become 10-6 Republican.

Though it remains a staple of conservative rhetoric that the courts are "out of control" and driven by "liberal activists," the GOP's control of the White House for 24 of the last 36 years has given Republicans — if not conservatives — a firm grip on the federal judiciary.

If control of the federal judiciary is not at stake, why are Sen. Frist and others engaging in this deceptive and disturbing strategy of making this a 'religious' issue? Give us your thoughts, and we'll offer our own over the next week.

Sunday Words of Wisdom

Something made me think of these lines by William Wordsworth, from one of the best loved poems of all time.


...And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things...


From:
LINES COMPOSED A FEW MILES ABOVE TINTERN ABBEY

Extremists declare Justice Sunday: It's a tough time to call yourself a Christian...

It's a tough time to call yourself a Christian. Sometimes even FP is almost ashamed to be associated with Christianity, given the way our faith is used by the intolerant voices of the Extreme Right. Here's the position we moderate and progressive people of faith find ourselves in: we're asserting ourselves and asking for respect from our liberal allies (see last post) at the exact moment when the Christian Right is seeking hegemony over all branches of our government. We have to work to stop them to save our rights as Americans and to preserve the dignity of our faith.

First there were attacks on the courts that dare to follow established precedent and procedure rather than following marching orders to lie down and accept an ad hoc government of men not laws. Now there are efforts to use faith in a distorted and shameful attempt to bully the Senate into approving some truly second rate and extreme judicial nominees. For example, April 24th has been designated "Justice Sunday" and Sen. Bill Frist intends to join up with religious extremists to demand that the Senate approve judicial nominees who have in most cases already been rejected in so much as their names were not sent out of Committee. The Independent gives us the details:

Religious right plan Democrat-bashing 'Justice Sunday'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
16 April 2005

Bill Frist, the Republican leader of the US Senate and strongly tipped to run for the presidency in 2008, is to join a broadcast with right-wing Christian evangelicals in which Democrats will be accused of "standing against people of faith" by seeking to block George Bush's judicial nominations.
Mr Frist has agreed to join a number of prominent Christian conservatives for a service next weekend to be beamed live from a "mega-church" in Kentucky to churches around the US and on the internet. The event, organised by the Family Research Council (FRC), has been dubbed "Justice Sunday".

A flyer for the event says that the filibuster - a process whereby a party in the minority can "talk out" a bill and ensure there is no time to pass it - is "being used against people of faith". The flyer does not name the Democrats but the party has used the device to prevent Republicans confirming 10 of Mr Bush's judicial nominations.

As Americans United uncovers:

The Family Research Council, a Washington-based Religious Right group, held a closed-door “Washington Briefing” March 17-19, 2005. During the event, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) addressed attendees and pledged that Republican leaders in Congress would work to implement the Religious Right’s controversial political agenda.

Americans United obtained a recording of DeLay’s and Frist’s comments. Americans United believes this recording underscores the growing power and influence of ultra-conservative fundamentalist organizations on our political system. AU released it to the media and public because the organization does not believe that powerful groups with controversial and narrow fundamentalist agendas that they seek to impose on all Americans should be permitted to plot and scheme in secret.

Listen to the spooky tape at the Americans United link.

Then look at the new ad in Daily Kos
Kos concludes:

"This is going to get ugly. And surreal. But the American Taliban have Frist in their grip, and won't relinquish until they have their Afghanistan-style theocracy."

James Dobson's political action division shows that the extreme right is in full in-your-face-mode, urging supporters as follows:

Please relate the following message, respectfully and in your own words, to the Republican senators listed below:

Many of those who put you in power care passionately about the unborn child, about marriage, about the evil of cloning, and about religious liberty. The liberal judiciary threatens our beliefs about every one of these issues. You have been made the majority in the House, in the Senate, and a Republican occupies the White House. Together they represent the coveted "Triple Crown" of American politics. If you fritter away the responsibility to reform the courts, and if you ignore the "values" that motivated those who supported you at the polls, you do not deserve the trust given to you. It's time to fish or cut bait.

Where do progressive people of faith fit into this conversation? How do we at once condemn extremism and assert our own values of inclusion, fairness, justice and desire for peace? FP concludes we have to work to stop the Christian Right to save our rights as Americans and to preserve the dignity of our faith. Chuck Currie has an excellent post that includes this quote from a Statement from Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs and Dr. Nazir Khaja:

Sen. Frist is on dangerous grounds in setting one American against another. He disgraces all faiths and the work that we have done in the interfaith community to establish "common ground" that leads us to higher ground, regardless of one's political affiliation or faith.

Talking Donkeys had a post up Friday calling for adoption of April 24th as Social Justice Sunday We agree with the sentiments but find this kind of reactive-the right is calling the shots and we are just reacting. We need to set our own agenda on our own schedule. Or maybe we're missing something?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Open Letter Strikes Nerve

Our Open Letter to Liberal Bloggers struck a nerve and the discussion was picked up on several blogs. (Including Avedon Carol’s excellent The Sideshow and old friend Disenchanted Forest)

Even more interesting, later the next morning a very similar but perhaps meatier post was made at Donkey Rising.
The title said it all: "Do Elitist Attitudes Toward Religion Undermine Democratic Prospects?" Click on this link to link the excellent articles he cites from The Boston Review.

Here's that post in full by Ruy Teixeira, a Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress:

The current issue of The Boston Review has a series of articles "The Believers," which shed light on the evolving relationship of religion and politics in America. Two of the articles in particular merit a read by Dems concerned about developing a strategy that addresses moral and religious issues in a more effective way. "Taking Faith Seriously: Contempt for religion costs Democrats more than votes" by Mike Gecan argues that Democrats who disparage or ignore religious faith make the party appear elitist to many. As Gecan notes,

the contempt of the progressive elite for ordinary people—for their faiths, their speech patterns, their clothes, their hobbies, their hopes, and their aspirations—has driven scores of millions of Americans out of the Democratic Party and into either the Republican Party or a no man’s land between the two. The willingness of many Republicans to simply show respect for the habits and interests of these mixed and moderate Americans has paid growing political dividends. The Republicans have understood that communicating respect is more important than offering programs or incentives. The Democrats have failed to realize that multiplying programs or policies designed to meet people’s needs is doomed to fail unless and until those people sense a fundamental level of recognition of who they are, not just what they need.

In "Losing Faith: The Democrats called, but they didn’t call back," Ari Lipman describes an incident revealing a clueless disrespect for local religious leaders at the Democratic convention. Lipman concludes,

"We transform our private religious values into public action at the ballot box. As the Democrats are now discovering, parties ignore this fact at their peril. Engaging religious Americans does not necessarily mean altering the fundamental values and platform of the Democratic Party...Democrats need more than a pious new vocabulary. Party leaders must drop their thinly veiled scorn for religious Americans and seek to engage them sincerely around common interests, both in houses of worship and on convention floors."

Althought the perceptions Gecan and Lipman discuss may be worse than the reality among most Democrats and their leaders, it is no less destructive to Democrats' hopes for the upcomming elections. Both writers seem to be saying that respect is at least as important as policy in winning the support of religious voters.

What's striking is that that's exactly the point we were making in our Open Letter, which we concluded as follows:

Please remember that we have been involved in every struggle for justice, peace and civil rights this country has ever had and that many of those battles would not have been won without these efforts. Unlike some on the religious right, moderate and progressive people of faith do not seek to tell you how to live your own life. But we do demand respect, just as we attempt to give it to others who disagree with us.

Will We Let Radical Right Churches Become Political Cells?

Over the past weeks we’ve taken our eye off the Christian Right a bit to try to develop a more positive message of economic fairness that ties into longstanding American values like fairness and support for the little guy. Meanwhile, the extremists continue their single-minded march toward eliminating the separation between church and state. The ultimate has to be the so-called House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act. It appears designed to allow radical right churches to become de facto political cells for the extreme right political agenda.


What are the purposes of this benignly framed piece of radical right legislation? The website states as follows: "HR 235 was introduced to liberate clergy from the muzzle imposed by the absolute ban on all speech that may be regarded as "political," and thereby enable them to speak out on all vital and moral and political questions of the day. It will free houses of worship from the fear and anxiety and uncertainty created by the threat that the IRS will impose financial penalties or revoke tax-exempt status altogether."

Here is extremist amateur historian David Barton’s take on it.

Alexander Sharp, Executive Director of Protestants for the Common Good, writes with alarm about extreme new measures at the national and local level being undertaken by the Christian Right:

“There is a bill before Congress right now that poses the same challenges to basic constitutional protections. It is advanced under the euphemistic name “House of Worship Free Speech Restoration.” What would the bill permit? Churches would be allowed to endorse candidates without losing tax-exempt status."

We need to be vigilant because fundamental freedoms that Americans take for granted will be ever more at stake if extremists are allowed to preach their disturbing politics from the pulpit. People for the American Way has a useful analysis of this bill.

Read an update on David Barton from Mainstream Baptist.

Read FP's piece on Barton from our series on the Christian Right.

Our Friend Public Theologian

Those who say that friendships made on the Internet are less real than those made in person have no idea how fond FP is of Rev. Tim Simpson, the brilliant and caustic theology professor who publishes Public Theologian. It’s just one of Tim’s many contributions to discourse and direct action, including political activism and editing the journal Political Theology. Any way, Tim’s mother sends word that he has had a serious eye surgery and we ask you for your prayers and best wishes for Tim’s speedy recovery. Typically, Tim downplayed his eye surgery when he thoughtfully e-mailed me earlier this week. FP expects to speak with Tim this weekend and will pass on any comments.

Read our FP interview with Tim here.

FP's Private Parts

FP has been in a trial this week, leaving little time for Blog. Want to know more about him and his clients? Sorry, he won't tell you. Instead, please check out this funny, futuristic ad from adcritic.

Or these privacy groups and links:

ACLU

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

PRC Links

Privacy.org


P.S. Privacy concerns are why we don't have our site meter information public, or use Haloscan comments that harvest e-mails provided by people who comment.

The FP Interview: British Baptist Matt Sellers

FP: Who is Matt Sellers?

MS: I'm soon to be 29 on St. George's Day (23rd April). St. George is the Patron Saint of England but our saint's day isn't celebrated anywhere near as much as St. Patrick's Day, although he seems to have been catching up over the last few years (the reasons for the resurgence in English patriotism are worth studying in themselves.) Shakespeare was also born on St. George's Day; and Harold Wilson, the then Labour Prime Minister, ironcially resigned on the day I was born.

I was born in Portsmouth in the centre of the South Coast, home to a major Naval Base and most famously the embarcation point for most of the D-Day soldiers in 1944 (including both my Grandads). At the age of 5 (in 1981) my family moved to Birmingham, the UK's second city, and we started attending Sutton Coldfield Baptist Church. I was baptised at the age of 16 in 1992 and from then on became passionate about mission, particularly to Muslims, and went on two summer campaigns in the South of France in 1993 and 94. In 1996 I went on a trip to North Africa. From 1994-98 I returned to Portsmouth to attend university, and I graduated with a degree in Computer Science. For much of that time I attended an Assemblies of God (AOG) church which had 16 members when I started, but had grown to about 200 when I left. I became great friends with one of the pastors, and even lodged with him in my Final Year. My pastor's background in the Anglican and even Anglo-Catholic denominations before he moved to Pentecostal ministry gave me a very wide view on church traditions that I believe really broadened my own views and experiences of the Church as a whole - from early Church Fathers to the use of icons in worship and what became known as The Toronto Blessing of the mid-nineties.

I was International Secretary of University of Portsmouth Christian Union in 1995/6 and recently went back there as a guest speaker in January this year - 10 years on! In an even more amazing piece of symmetry my brother is the current International Secretary of Aston University!

I returned to Birmingham in 1998 and married my wife Heidi in 2000 in her home town of Chorley, Lancashire (near Manchester). We are settled in Birmingham and both lead a student-aged small group, and have been blessed with many friends of that age-range - it helps to keep us young! Heidi is a youth worker in a very tough area nearby, and has major responsibility for sexual health initiatives.

I have travelled extensively, visiting France, Spain, Germany, Holland, USA (California), North Africa and Australia (Queensland), as well as passing through a few more countries.

Through travelling, especially in North Africa, I developed an increasing interest in social justice and have become more and more disillusioned with the way western governments, corporations and media treat and report the rest of the world. In September last year I became self-employed in a large part due to my disillusionment with the corporate world, and in order to experiment with a tent-making ministry (Paul made tents to supplement his missionary journeys). At the moment we are heavily involved with the student scene, but I feel this is a stepping stone to something else - probably abroad.


FP: When and why did you start your Blog?

MS: I started the blog in July 2004 as a journal of my day-to-day life and thoughts. It's since evolved into a far more political blog with some photos and Christian commentary thrown in (you will also see occasional posts on Aston Villa - the football team I have supported all my life; and a few more on my favourite sport - cricket). At the time I didn't really know where it was going to go, but I was really excited about the medium itself and the way that it threatens Big Media, much in the same way as the Pamphleteers threatened the Establishment when the printing-press was invented. Unfortunately when I started my blog I wasn't aware of the convention of creating a clever name for yourself, so MattSellers.co.uk seems a bit out of place, but at least I'm not tied to any one subject!


FP: We understand that you are a proud Baptist. How large is the Baptist Church in the UK? What is going on in the life of the Baptist Church in the UK?

MS: According to the Baptist Union of Great Britain website there are around 150,000 members of Baptist Churches affiliated to the Baptist Union in around 2,150 churches. Considering there are 60 million people in the UK this doesn't seem many, but on the other hand church attendance is much lower in the UK than it is in the USA. Each Baptist Chuch is independent of all the others and so it is difficult to talk in general terms of "What is going on in the life of the Baptist Church in the UK" - instead I think it is far more interesting to talk about Evangelical Christians within the UK. The only group that is growing are the Evangelicals, whom the media generally portray as dangerous fundamentalists, much in the same way as the "Religious Right" of the USA. However, many Evangelical Christians have socialist economic opinions, even though they have conservative moral views.

Our church is committed to the local community, and in particular the children, youth and disadvantaged of the area. We have many ongoing projects and the church buildings are used so much we are looking at expansion plans. Current membership of the church is about 550 and rising (probably in the top five biggest Baptist Churches in the country). I think this kind of community view of the church is becoming more prevalent up and down the country, and I'm hoping that some great long-lasting initiatives and reforms will come out of it - just like the great reforms of the 19th Century - we are beginning to see this with the Drop the Debt initiative and Fair Trade movements, and more recently the Make Poverty History initiative. From a spiritual point-of-view, I believe there was a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church in this country in the mid-1990s that kick-started many of these things, and I am eagerly awaiting His next wave!

FP: You wrote recently you've "looked into the Liberal Democrats a lot over the past couple of months because I am so disillusioned with Labour..." What are your biggest complaints with Labour?

MS: The Labour Party was founded by Christians and is supposed to be an agent for social justice. They have sold out to big business and pandered to the wealthy by:

1.) Doing nothing to raise income tax for the wealthy but instead increasing indirect taxation in underhand ways.

2.) Allowing private finance into schools and hospitals to the detriment of those public services. For example, cleaning contracts for hospitals invariably go to the lowest bidder and therefore they aren't cleaned properly. School meals are similarly outsourced and children's health is subsequently exploited.

3.) Allowing universities to charge fees to students - when I was at university my local government authority paid the fees. This is prohibiting poorer families from sending their children on to higher education and causing a massive increase in student debt and drop-out rates. Education should be available to all regardless of ability to pay - the same as healthcare, because it ultimately benefits society as a whole.

4.) Following a right-wing agenda on Foreign Policy - and of top of that lying to us about it! The UK never sent troops to Vietnam and our "special relationship" didn't suffer, so why sell out this time?
5.) Following a right-wing agenda on crime and "terrorism". Tony Blair famously said that Labour would be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" - we haven't seen anywhere near enough action on "the causes of crime". Trying to institute ID Cards for all British Citizens. Keeping suspect terrorists under house arrest with no knowledge of what they have supposed to have done, and no idea of how long they will be imprisoned for.


FP: What do you take to be the biggest differences in the political culture of the US and the UK? How, if at all, are these differences shaped by religion?

MS: The emphasis on religion is the biggest difference between the political culture of the US and UK. I heard someone say last week that you can guarantee the two Presidential Candidates will always have to make a statement on abortion, for example. That kind of moral issue is almost never talked about during political campaigns over here, and if I had to say why, I suppose it would be that most people are disturbed by the politicization of specific moral issues. The head of the Catholic Church made a statement on abortion a couple of weeks ago and the debate was about whether it was right for him to become involved in trying to politicize this issue, and there wasn't really much debate about the issue itself. Also, it is generally accepted to be political suicide to mention God in any political speech, and it is well known that Tony Blair's own political advisors have removed the 'G' word from his speeches on at least one occasion. People are very suspicious and even cynical of any politician who mixes his faith and his politics. This has been one of the major problems for Blair in being associated with the "right-wing fundamentalist Christian" President Bush.

FP: Who are your favorite thinkers and writers in the areas of theology and politics?

MS: Theology: by far my favourite author would have to be Richard Foster, author of Streams of Living Water and Celebration of Discipline.

Politics and Journalism: John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, George Monbiot , Robert Fisk (Middle East correspondent for
The Independent.

FP: Are there one or two posts you are most proud of?

MS: The Shade of Swords
Faith Schools Undermine Citizenship

An Open Letter to Liberal Bloggers

Over the past couple of weeks our theme has been trying to find ways to promote an agenda of economic fairness as a way of expressing our moral values as a society and our religious values as moderate and progressive people of faith. In some of its most central economic and tax policies, the Bush Administration has favored the economic interests of the wealthiest two percent and opposed attempts to help the less advantaged such as recent efforts to raise the minimum wage. Two things are clear from responses to our recent posts. First, many (especially white) secular liberals are uncomfortable with those of us who express our values in moral or religious terms; second, there is a longstanding history of such action among African American church leaders and there seems to be a greater comfort level in doing so in the black community.

In her recent FP Interview, BlackandChristian.Com founder Jacqueline Trussell expressed the second point very well:

"FP: We have been very impressed with the unity and progressive agenda of the various mostly Black Baptist groups (Please see our post: Black Baptists Unite on Progressive Agenda) Do you have any thoughts on this effort?

JT: Yes in fact my mother attended the meeting and is active in one of the Black Baptist groups that convened. The four Baptist groups that met represent a significant portion of Black Christians. They have the ability to reach a great number of people every Sunday morning and through various other media. There is potential for great things to happen around an agenda that speaks of "uplifting the race" through social, political and economic change. What remains to be seen is how this will be implemented. The Black Church, whether Baptist, Methodist or Church of God In Christ, has always been at the forefront of any movement for change as it relates to people of African descent."

FP found it very interesting that when 15 million Americans came together and united on a common progressive agenda after the election it received almost no coverage in the liberal press. The fact that it happened under the auspices of Black Baptist groups that had been battling each other for decades made this story all the more newsworthy. But there was almost no coverage in the liberal magazines, still less on the lefty blogs. If 15 million Move On activists had met after the election, FP suspects we would have heard a little more about it! But a black friend told me the lack of response from the liberal press is "nothing new."

Why do I raise this potentially controversial issue? Certainly the last thing we want to do is create any hard feelings between groups that need and respect each other. FP simply asks that even the most secular liberals afford some respect to people of faith.

So here's our advice, which I seriously doubt will be followed, but which I hope you will at least consider before you post some anti-religious screed on a blog or snark about people of faith of the left or right. Please remember that there are tens of millions of us black, white and brown Americans whose participation in the political system is largely inspired by our religious and moral values. Please remember that we have been involved in every struggle for justice, peace and civil rights this country has ever had and that many of those battles would not have been won without these efforts. Unlike some on the religious right, moderate and progressive people of faith do not seek to tell you how to live your own life. But we do demand respect, just as we attempt to give it to others who disagree with us.

Peace, FP

Of Serve-a- Meal, Leonard Pitts & an Impatient Jerk

Just after the election, Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. wrote a column that stuck with me and that is probably one of the reasons I started writing this blog:

Christian Left Hard to Find
Here is an Excerpt from that column:

“ No political tactician am I, but I think Democrats made a fundamental mistake when the Christian right rose as a political force: They watched it happen, ceded God to the GOP without resistance, without so much as a beg your pardon. Democrats, fearful of unsettling the secular West and Northeast, only shrugged as the Almighty was packed up and shipped South, where he is to this day routinely trotted out to endorse various would-be governors, senators and school board members.

Small wonder faith has come to seem inextricable from voting the straight Republican ticket.

And if you are, as I am, a Christian who remembers what Jesus told Simon Peter, it is galling to see him reduced to a GOP shill, wrapped in a flag and used as a prop to advance a conservative agenda. Which, by the way, stands the Bible on its head.

After all, the book says Jesus consorted with lepers and prostitutes. It says he talked with women - which was beneath a man of his time and place - and washed the feet of his followers.

And it tells us he said things that seemed to make no logical sense.

If someone takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well.

If someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the left.

Love your enemies.

This was crazy talk. There was nothing conservative about this man.

So I look at the success conservatives on the so-called Christian right have had in claiming him as their exclusive property and I wonder, where in the heck is the Christian left? Where are the people who preach - and live - the biblical values of inclusion, service, humility, sacrifice, and why haven't they coalesced into an alternative political force?

Instead of a movement like that, we have an old peanut farmer building houses.

You wish there was more. You wish there were Christian people shouting from the rooftops that these other people, with their small minds and niggardly spirits, do not represent all of us. And that the faith exemplified by the politics of exclusion is not the faith the rest of us celebrate, not the faith that lifts us and settles us and makes us whole.

But nobody's shouting these things. It occurs to me that maybe they're all too busy building houses for poor people. And that maybe I should be as well.

God bless you, Jimmy Carter, wherever you are.”


That column still speaks to me on many levels, and one of the issues is raises is what I would call the Volunteer Model of faith-based service. Many religious people think that if we go to the food pantry or soup kitchen once a month, we're off the hook. There is a lot to be said for this approach. The most obvious advantage of the volunteer model is that it is emotionally satisfying because you make personal contact with others.

I remember going to help with a meal that my old church served the night after a murder had occurred right in front of the neighborhood center where we served dozens of kids. It wasn’t my week to go, but when someone called to say that they wanted me there because someone else felt unsafe, I was happy to oblige. It felt right to be there that night-- to tell that kids that life would go on and that one act of violence didn't have to shatter their own sense of safety in the neighborhood. Fewer kids turned out that night, and a couple of them said they wondered if we would still show up in their dangerous neighborhood. There was a palpable sense of the distance between their lives and the safety and comforts of my own middle class suburban lifestyle. I didn't feel quite as good about myself as I had on the way over. The most frustrating thing was the sense that what we were doing was just a Band-Aid--that it was not only a bit paternalistic but not even close to what was needed. This is the down side of the individual volunteer model--it doesn’t really get at the roots of problems.

My wife serves regularly at a neighborhood food pantry and they are often swamped. The numbers sometimes suggest the distance between the services volunteers can offer and the severity of the problems they are being asked to address because of default by the government in providing these services. It's simply a moral scandal that we don't feed and provide health care to everyone in this country, at a time when the wealthy are getting multi-million dollar tax breaks.

At least since reading that Leonard Pitts column, I now think quasi-political action on poverty is a better use of my time than volunteering. So we’ve highlighted many people who have felt the need to go beyond the volunteer model to raise a new vision of grass roots people of faith shouting from the rooftops, as Leonard Pitts suggested. People like Rev. Jennifer Kottler, of Protestants for the Common Good, whose motto is “people of faith advancing justice in public life.” In a recent FP Interview, Rev. Kottler said, “I have a deep commitment to justice and the common good, my Christian faith leads me to understand can best be used in influencing public policy. I believe deeply that it will take structural change, at least changing the hearts and minds of many Americans to bring justice to our public debate. Poverty and deep economic injustices that go hand in hand with racism keep me awake at night.” That’s exactly where I find myself in my own struggle to live out my faith.

Remember, as Mr. Pitts reminds us, influencing public policy is exactly what the Right has done so successfully. Our own series on the Christian Right revealed that members of the GOP Values Action Team meet with Congressional staffers on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, we hear very little from the people on the frontlines serving food, stocking food pantries, meeting people face to face. But, of course, the choice is not either volunteering/or broader advocacy--there’s plenty of need for both. The problem is that people only reserve so much time for the civic obligation of being a good citizen--we are so busy going off to the next soccer match, or book club, or grocery store. This leaves us feeling like it is a choice between volunteering and advocacy. And for me, it's a struggle not to get frustrated with people who are not at the same place.

In a meeting trying to organize local churches to pick up the grass roots advocacy banner this week, I let my current impatience with the volunteer model show in my voice in a way that I immediately regretted. There was years of frustration behind it, but what the heck was I thinking being impatient with someone much more devoted than me to serving both God and the poor? Of course I wasn't thinking, I was just being an Impatient Jerk (sounds like a new Blog-no?)--and not for the first time. Oh well, no one's perfect: especially not old IJ, er, FP. We'll try to keep shouting from the rooftops, and we'll try not to be an impatient jerk as we do so.

There is no one way to serve. There is no real "progression," in even the most progressive walk of faith. There are simply daily struggles to do what one feels called to do. As Paul writes in First Corinthians, 12: “There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is served."

Heroes of Enlightened Faith: Moses Mendelssohn

FP has been reading Hans Kung’s Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow, and highly recommends it. It is more readable than On Being a Christian, and it is full of golden nuggets of fine writing. Here is Thomas Mann speaking up for Enlightenment values while describing Germany in 1945 and, some fear, the U.S. in 2005. The Germans, Mann wrote, were then “a people of the Romantic counter-reformation against the intellectualism and rationalism of the Enlightenment.” Doesn’t anti-intellectual, Romantic counter-reformation describe many of the extremists we have been describing in our series on the Christian Right?

We don’t want to just be negative, so today we begin a new feature: Heroes of Enlightened Faith. We will honor religious leaders, past and present, who value dialogue and understanding between faith traditions and humility about discerning God’s will for themselves and others. We are proud to make Moses Mendelssohn our first hero of enlightened faith. A true giant of the Enlightenment, Kung writes that Mendelssohn was “the initiator, symbol and idol of the 'Haskalah,' the Jewish Enlightenment. Moses Medelssohn, close friend of Lessing, was the proto-type for Lessing's Nathan the Wise. Wikipedia picks up the story.

Mendelssohn publish(ed) his most important contribution to the problems connected with the position of Judaism in relation to the general life. This was the Jerusalem (1783; Eng. trans. 1838 and 1852). It is a forcible plea for freedom of conscience, described by Kant as "an irrefutable book." Its basic thrust is that the state has no right to interfere with the religion of its citizens. Kant called this "the proclamation of a great reform, which, however, will be slow in manifestation and in progress, and which will affect not only your people but others as well." Mendelssohn asserted the pragmatic principle of the possible plurality of truths: that just as various nations need different constitutions—to one a monarchy, to another a republic, may be the most congenial to the national genius—so individuals may need different religions. The test of religion is its effect on conduct. This is the moral of Lessing's Nathan the Wise (Nathan der Weise), the hero of which is undoubtedly Mendelssohn. The parable of the three rings is the epitome of the pragmatic position. One direct result of this pragmatism was unexpected. Having been taught that there is no absolutely true religion, Mendelssohn's own descendants—a brilliant circle, of which the musician Felix was the most noted—left the Synagogue for the Church.

But Moses Mendelssohn remained a very loyal and devoted Jew, who improved the social and legal relationships between Christians and Jews, and recognized the need for "a correct biblical Hebrew and a German translation of the Pentateuch and the Psalms." Further, as Kung writes, "by the thoroughly humanistic style in which as a convinced Jew he argued for tolerance, humanity and good taste."

Bath Maine UCC Church Blog

Now that's a faithful and progressive church! Check out the Bath Maine UCC Church links that include FP, Chuck Currie, Faith in Society, The Village Gate, etc. Is that a subtle enough way to thank them for being the first local congregation to link us?

Faith Blog

News and views from the faith community of Bath United Church of Christ (Congregational) in Bath, ME. Their post has stolen some my thunder on the mega-churches:

The Megachurch Today

Exceedingly long (over 8,000 words) article in the yesterday on the megachurch phenomenon. "The Soul of a New Exurb," written by NYT contributing editor Jonathan Mahler, profiles Radiant, a church in the town of Surprise, Arizona, which "has a drive-thru latte window and a $16,000 annual budget for Krispy Kremes," says Jeff Sharlet at The Revealer, in his comments on the article.
Sharlet finds the article noteworthy especially for distinguishing "today's megachurches from their 1980s incarnations": "In the town of Surprise ... Radiant acts as more than a gathering place. 'In sprawling, decentralized exurbs like Surprise,' writes Mahler, 'where housing developments rarely include porches, parks, stoops or any of the other features that have historically brought neighbors together, megachurches provide a locus for community. In many places, they operate almost like surrogate governments, offering residents day care, athletic facilities, counseling, even schools.'"

Mahler writes, "'In his recent book The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith [widely reviewed, at The Center for Progressive Christianity, at Crisis: Politics, Culture and the Church, and in the Boston Globe, and excerpted at Beliefnet], Alan Wolfe, a professor of political science at Boston College, writes that "American faith has met American culture -- and American culture has triumphed." Radiant seems the embodiment of this assertion. And yet not exactly. [Radiant Pastor]McFarland's long-term plan for his congregants involves much more than playing video games and eating doughnuts. He says that his hope -- his expectation, really -- is that casual worshipers will gradually immerse themselves in Radiant's many Christ-based programs, from financial planning to parenthood and education, until they have eventually incorporated Christian values into every aspect of their lives.'" Sharlet's comment on this is, "I wish Mahler had gone further with this analysis. What's striking about megachurch evangelicaldom is that it combines the passion of separatism -- purity -- with the ambition of assimilation -- ubiquity."

# posted by: mw at: 3:08 PM

FP's Note to MW: keep up the fine work!

Unions, Churches and Legislators Demand Fairness in Health Care Costs and Availability

As we consider health care cost and availablity issues, we need to debate how to proceed with respect to corporations that do not seem to carry their weight relative to benefits they literally suck out of the economy.This is one of the economic fairness issues we have to ponder in the next weeks. The AFL-CIO has some ideas and they are close to the workers-including those that have tried valiantly to organize the notoriously anti-union Arkansas giant Wal-Mart.

Trinity U.C.C. church in Chicago, one of the sites linked in Ms. Trussell’s inspiring interview this week, has some ideas, too. Rev. Reginald W. Williams urges TUCC’s large and vibrant congregation to Continue Boycotting Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart in this week’s church bulletin. Rev. Williams, a fellow UW law school alumnus, notes a recent study of 13 states that found that Wal Mart was shifting the costs of health care unto the public by not providing health insurance. Rev. Williams quotes Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is among the most shocking and inhumane.” The congregation is led by the dynamic Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) since March 1, 1972.

The state legislature in Maryland has some ideas as well. A new bill was recently passed that requires large employers to start carrying more of the costs in providing health care-- or, if they fail to meet the target health insurance spending, to supplement money that taxpayers would otherwise have to pay through programs like Medicaid.

As Ono’s Thoughts, notes.

"Walmart" Bill Advances in Maryland
Bill Obligates Firms on Health Spending

By John Wagner and Michael Barbaro
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 6, 2005

Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide.

"We're looking for responsible businesses to ante up . . . and provide adequate health care," said Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles), the Finance Committee chairman, as the Senate approved the measure with a majority wide enough to survive an anticipated veto. A similar bill has cleared the House of Delegates, and legislators expect to reconcile their differences easily.

Lawmakers said they did not set out to single out Wal-Mart when they drafted a bill requiring organizations with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on health benefits -- or put the money directly into the state's health program for the poor.

But as debate raged in the Senate yesterday, it was clear that the giant retailer, which has 15,000 workers in Maryland, was the only company that would be affected.

POSTED BY ONO AT 9:58 AM

Joe Hill’s Dispatch reminds us that there are companies out there that more fairly pay their own way and are fair to workers and yet still succeed. This piece is almost ten months old, but still telling. Earth to Joe Hill Dispatch: we need more frequent updates.

Costco Shows That the Wal-Mart Model Isnt the Only Path to Success

The FP Interview: Jacqueline Trussell of BlackandChristian.com

FP: Who is Jacqueline Trussell?

JT: Jacqueline Trussell is the founder and president of BlackandChristian.com, a native of Chicago and a part time university instructor, teaching courses in religion and African American Studies. As founder of BAC, I am responsible for the overall management and direction of the website and my son, Bryan is responsible for all things operational. I am a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, Northeastern Illinois University and Roosevelt University. I am a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois and the American Academy of Religion. I am also currently serving as co-chair of the Black Alumni Network of Harvard Divinity School.

FP: When and why did you start your website, BlackandChristian.com?

JT: BlackandChristian.com began on Feb. 26, 2000 launched between my home in Chicago and my son, Bryan's home in Maryland. It was started to provide information and inspiration and an online presence for Christians of color and others interested in the Black religious experience.

FP: You have been writing about the history of the Baptist church--what lessons does that history have for Christians today?

JT: I began researching the history of the Black Baptist church as an undergraduate at Roosevelt University majoring in journalism and public relations. My senior thesis was on the "The Black Baptist Church: Its History and Influence on Black Political Leadership." I learned of the importance of African American's religious history to the overall history of the world and gained a greater appreciation of leaders such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for standing on the shoulders of those who came before him.

FP: We have been very impressed with the unity and progressive agenda of the various mostly Black Baptist groups (Please see our post: Black Baptists Unite on Progressive Agenda) Do you have any thoughts on this effort?

JT: Yes in fact my mother attended the meeting and is active in one of the Black Baptist groups that convened. The four Baptist groups that met represent a significant portion of Black Christians. They have the ability to reach a great number of people every Sunday morning and through various other media. There is potential for great things to happen around an agenda that speaks of "uplifting the race" through social, political and economic change. What remains to be seen is how this will be implemented. The Black Church, whether Baptist, Methodist or Church of God In Christ, has always been at the forefront of any movement for change as it relates to people of African descent.

FP: What issues do you think are most important to black Christians in the Chicago area?

JT: Chicago is an interesting place in that you have arguably two of the most recognized Black leaders based here: Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., and Minister Louis Farrakhan. You also have a number of "mega-churches" in the city and surrounding area, that potentially, can impact the lives of people of color if all can find some common areas and concerns to address such as affordable housing, jobs, health care, education, poverty, homelessness and HIV/AIDS. A fair distribution of contracts and access to resources for small businesses are other issues that are important to Blacks in Chicago, not just Black Christians. Black Christians, however have a greater responsibility to heed Christ's call to take care of the "least of these,"--the poor and oppressed.

FP: What are your favorite web-links of other religious sites?

JT: I actually do not get to spend that much time on other religious sites, when I do they tend to be more academic in nature such as the American Academy of Religion or the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning or news sites such as the Religion Newswriters Association or the Religion News Service.

FP: Who are your favorite thinkers and writers in the areas of theology and politics? Why do they move you?

JT: In the area of theology, I would have to say University of Chicago professor Dwight Hopkins, James Cone, Peter Paris, Cornel West, Renita Weems, Delores Williams, Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, Harvey Cox, Peter Gomes and the sermons of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. who combines theology and politics. All are gifted writers, scholars and theologians and have contributed, in some way, to my knowledge and understanding of God, Jesus and what it means to be Black and Christian in the modern world.

FP: Many people feel frustrated by both the perception of religious people and with the direction of the Bush Administration--what can they do to change things?

JT: The simple answer is to pray--I do believe that prayer changes things. Whether its Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Lincoln or George Washington, this nation has persevered and survived through good leadership and not so good leadership. Black people, led often by Black Christians such as Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Harriet Tubman, Henry Highland Garnet, Sojourner Truth or Martin Luther King, have survived. If we, as Black folk have learned nothing else, we have learned how to survive.

FP: Are there one or two articles you are most proud of?

JT: I am proud of the articles written on Black Church history and on Rev. Martin Luther King, because they are educational, informative and often, inspirational. I especially like a story I wrote about Tselane Tambo and her efforts at helping women living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa is important because it helps to connect BlackandChristian.com to the Continent. Tambo found us while searching the Internet, contacted me, and came to Chicago on a tour of the states to promote the crafts made by the women. Her father was Oliver Tambo, a contemporary of Nelson Mandela.

This is an example of the power of the Internet reaching out to people and bringing people together for a greater good. BlackandChristian.com is a vehicle for spreading the gospel message and sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Walking In Faith and Footsteps

Standing on Big Shoulders: The Rev. Martin Luther King

Part Two: Transforming the Political Debate on Economic Issues

In our last post we discussed the idea of moving beyond protest to demanding a new vision of economic relationships that value fairness and correspond with long held American values. But how do we make this type of change when conservative elites hostile to these ideas control every branch of government and much of the debate? As the therapists and self-help books always advise people in dysfunctional personal relationships: start with the changes you can make, start with your self.

There are signs that this type of self-criticism is happening in the Democratic Party. Among them, former Sen. Bill Bradley’s urgent call in the New York Times to transform the Democratic party. His editorial was about building a party that has an existing and continuing structure (a literal institutional base) whether it has a charismatic candidate or not. He is absolutley right in his diagnosis of the problem. But of course it’s one thing to call for a Plan to transform the institutional structure of the Democratic Party, and it’s quite another to actually write such a plan. We intend to do our part and we ask that you also do yours. Here's our first suggestion:

In our view, the Democratic Party should logically represent the interests of the working poor and the middle class because the Republican Party has so completely become the party that cares almost exclusively about the economic interests of the very wealthy. The Republicans tax cuts benefit primarily those people earning over $250,000 per year. Its fiscal and economic policy is simply not in the economic interest of the vast majority of Americans. The Democrats need to again become the champions of economic fairness issues. This is a group of issues on which there is nearly universal agreement within the Party-from moderates to the most liberal. These were the issues that President Bill Clinton was so successful at articulating. One of his mantras was: those people who play by the rules and work hard should be rewarded with a decent standard of living. Remember when our President talked like that? FP does, the economy and even the stock market was in much better shape. But for various reasons these issues took a back-seat in the recent election. How to begin bringing them back to front and center?

An excellent summary of the problem is provided by the Call to Renewal's "Living Family Income" Campaign:

Having a "living family income" means a family's wage, housing,transportation, medical care, food, child, and other basic needs are met. This essential level of security is becoming harder to maintain as the cost of living rises without wages and key supports keeping pace. The result is families that work hard remain poor, making dignity a myth for those doing their best to work responsibly and play by the rules. Simply put, when it takes 70 hours working at minimum wage to stay above the federal poverty line, "work is not working." Rising costs for basic human needs make it even harder to provide for a family – regardless of how much one works.

A joint study sponsored in 2004 by the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations shows that 9.2 million working families in the United States - one out of every four - earn wages that are so low they are barely able to survive financially. There are 20 million children in these low-income working families -- one-third of all the children in American working families. According to the U.S Census Bureau, the poverty rate has risen each of the past three years. In
2003, 35.9 million people were in poverty. For children under 18 years old, both the poverty rate and the number in poverty rose between 2002 and 2003. More than one in every three poor people in 2003 were children.

These families and children need support for staying together, becoming economically stable, and seizing opportunities that come with work. Low-income families simply are not getting by in America.

The Democratic Party has to first and foremost get that message out, and provide a real and lasting agenda that does benefit the 98 percent of Americans who are not rich. This will transform not only the Party but the nation. The hard-working people who work two jobs and yet do not have health insurance or any real hope of a better life have to have the courage to demand it for themselves.

The Blog Centerfield had an excellent recent post that referenced an Economist article that found that social mobility is on the decline in the U.S. What could be more un-American than that? What goes to the heart of traditional American values more than our pride in being a land of opportunity? This is an issue that moderates and progressives need to address. How to do so?

The best statement of an affirmative agenda was that issued by the group of African American Baptists who met in Nashville this January as reported in The Chicago Tribune: They called for a higher minimum wage, discontinuation of recent tax cuts, investment in public education and reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, some provisions of which are up for review in 2007... (Black Baptist) leaders also demanded that Bush stop privatization of prison construction, and reinvest in children's health insurance...

Beyond the specific legislative agenda, part of what is needed is the type of galvanizing sense of purpose and drive for a better life that Dr. King described. The working poor need to claim a better reality for their own lives in the same way Ms. Parks claimed the better seat on public transportation. Obviously, the labor movement has an important role to play. But if labor unions are not successful in organizing them, some new efforts must be undertaken to inspire a sense of solidarity and identity among low wage workers. These efforts will contribute to building the party from below.

Finally, our "protests" need go beyond personal expression to be actively focused on a particular change, such as the recent successful boycott of Taco Bell led by church leaders. Some bloggers have been calling for consideration of a boycott of Wal-Mart because of its seeming unwillingness to be a good corporate citizen and provide health care to as many of its employees as some of its competitors. This may be worth consideration, if only to shed some light on the issues raised by Wal Mart apparently shifting the cost of health care to state taxpayers in the form of increased Medicaid costs.

This is only a starting point for what we hope will be a broad dialogue among moderates, progressives and liberals about how to re-frame economic fairness issues to transform the debate and return to the traditional American values of fairness, equal opportunity and social mobility. We invite your comments and further discussion.

Part One: Beyond Protest, Demanding Change in the Democratic Party & Beyond

A reader e-mailed me this American Prospect piece by Ohio University Prof. Kevin Mattson.The article has an interesting discussion about the limits of the 1960's, and the role of protest in particular, as a viable model for transformation and change. Because the piece discusses the Civil Rights movement, the reader suggested that "this piece seems to refute" your recent post on the early civil rights movement, Lessons from the Deep South. However, while I appreciate the e-mail, I really don't have any problems with the argument of Prof. Mattson. I agree with many of his points, and I certainly don't see any great conflict between my post and this article. Why not?

First, I agree with Prof. Mattson that there is a risk of the trivialization of protest if one of its central purposes is about projecting the authentic self of protestors rather than shaping relationships betwen people and interests in a pluralistic society. I also strongly agree with him, and with former Sen. Bill Bradley, that building grass roots structures and institutions is far more valuable than, say, the emotional thrill of a million member march. More on this tomorrow.

Further, there is also a very important distinction between the psychology and practice of "protest," which involves the gestures of disapproval that pre-figure change, and the transformational process of demanding and achieving actual "change" itself. Change, whether it comes by way of a change in psychology or in institutional structures, involves transformation of what is into something new.

Prof. Mattson correctly notes that protest can become a means of providing personal identity and expression--it can get bogged down in self-congratulation at one's own purity. Ralph Nader voters, especially in 2004, were "protest" voters. Many Nader voters or radical protestors are really not so much interested in change as in a personal expression of disapproval of both of the major parties. Fair enough, some people have a strong need for personal expression and to assert their own ideological or moral purity. But others have a greater need for change and have the courage to demand it in specific and concrete ways.

In refusing to give up her seat, Ms. Rosa Parks was not merely protesting anything--she was demanding change and asserting her right to it directly. She stayed where she was on the bus because she had the self-confidence to demand the seat and the ultimate result was transformational change in relationships between members of southern society. The Bus Boycott was more than a protest, it was a demand for change--nothing would be the same until this demand was sorted out. Dr. King wrote that it was this growing self-assertion that inspired a "new determination to struggle and sacrifice until first-class citizenship becomes a reality. This is the true meaning of the Montgomery story."

This is a different story than the story of 1968 and the Democratic Convention described by Prof. Mattson. The Montgomery Bus Boycott story still rings true, and it still has valuable lessons to teach. How can we demand more fairness in our economic relationships in a way that appeals to traditional American values and history? How can we spark a new sense of identity and energy among the vast majority of Americans whose economic interests are not served by the policies of Preident Bush? Tomorrow we will describe how this type of change can revitalize the efforts of moderate, progressives and liberals to take the initiative in the political debate.

When Your Government Stops Caring: The Working Poor in the Age of Bush

What happens to ordinary working Americans when their government ignores their needs for five straight years? Former Sen. John Edwards had it about right when he talked about there being Two Americas. President Bush seems to care about only one of them, and it's not the one inhabited by the working poor. Many of us know very little about that Other America.

The Quad-City Times and Lee Enterprises have been doing an incredibly important and comprehensive series on poverty in Iowa, that misguided Upper Midwest state that narrowly supported President Bush. The series, which hopefully will earn them a Pulitzer nomination, is called: "Getting By, Getting Lost," and is principally authored by Tory Brecht of the QC-Times and Todd Dorman of the Des Moines Register, another Lee paper. The series puts faces on the working poor who seem to have no where to turn with the Bush Administration and Congress devoted to other matters that simply do address the real problems that millions of Americans face in making ends meet. The Congress and the Administration seem to have time only for end of life issues, bogus bankruptcy reforms that help the wealthy, steroid use in baseball, etc etc. The government has failed to consider the economic interests of the working poor for 5 years, and it is taking a terrible toll on millions of lives.

From the series:

“One in four families in Iowa is low income — defined as a household of four earning less than $36,784 — according to the policy group Iowa Fiscal Partnership. And their numbers are growing.

The sluggish economy, coupled with high health costs, has begun to erode the foundation of job-based health care. Coverage, which settled in at about 70 percent of the population in the 1990s, now stands a shade over 63 percent...Furthermore, slow wage growth in a weak economy has made it harder and harder for working families to get by.”

Minimum Wage issues

During 2004, roughly 74,000 Iowa workers, or about 6 percent of the state’s work force, earned between $5.15 and $6.65 per hour — the threshold reached if lawmakers upped the minimum wage by $1.50 per hour. The figures were complied by the Washington D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute, or EPI, which based its analysis on U.S. Census data...Among those workers, 56 percent are 20 years old or older and 59 percent are women. According to the report, 37 percent worked between 20 and 34 hours per week, while 28 percent worked full-time. Thirty-four percent worked fewer than 20 hours per week.

Medicaid

“Wages have been stagnant, family incomes have been growing only because people are working more hours or taking extra jobs...Meantime, housing, health care and other costs are going through the roof. Social support networks and government programs that help struggling families have been cut as well...That is making more working folks in the Quad-Cities turn to the government for assistance, said Cathy Taylor, the Scott County administrator for the Iowa Department of Human Services, or DHS...According to DHS statistics, the average number of cash assistance recipients — what most consider traditional welfare — fell from 5,357 per month in 2001 to 4,387 per month in 2004. Medicaid enrollment increased from 16,315 per month in 2001 to 19,214 in 2004. Food assistance recipients also increased from 10,876 per month in 2001 to 13,919 in 2004..."When families are on the edge and one thing goes wrong, it can throw them over the edge and put them back into poverty..."

This is good old fashioned journalism, and both the reporters and the parent company, Lee Enterprises deserve major props. Please write them both and tell them how much you appreciate their work.

Note: Ruth Group's Bob Z pointed me to the series, with a link to a related editorial, Blessed Are the Poor.

Grazie, Santo Padre

Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those who have loved and been touched by Pope John Paul II, a truly inspiring man of faith who understood the importance of religious dialogue.

Plight of US Poor So Bad that Lutherans Urge Action!

FP sometimes jokes about being back in a Lutheran church, after so many other stops on his own very ecumenical faith journey. Born into two Lutheran families, FP was an agnostic and then a Buddhist in college, seriously considered converting to Judaism before becoming an Episcopalian in New York in the early 80’s, became a regular visitor to both Catholic and Anglican churches while living in Italy, matured as a longtime member of a UCC church as he raised his own family--only to find himself back in the ELCA Lutheran fold in his 40’s. As a group, Lutherans value God’s grace above almost everything else-though of course there are many different perspectives even within ELCA Lutherans--many feel that doing ‘good works’ is almost a sign of vanity.

This is probably not so surprising given their history. Luther was a theological progressive but a political reactionary, as he demonstrated “when many peasants mistakenly believed that Luther's attack on the Church and its hierarchy meant that the reformers would support an attack on the social hierarchy as well.” As Wikipedia notes, “Luther came out forcefully against the (Peasant) revolt; since Luther relied on support and protection from the princes, he was afraid of alienating them. In Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants (1525), he encouraged the nobility to visit swift and bloody punishment upon the peasants. Many of the revolutionaries considered Luther's words a betrayal.”

Even a few of us non-revolutionary moderate Democrats have always kind of held in against the great German theologian--or at least FP has. But, as Luther would agree, nobody’s perfect. FP still finds very much to admire in Luther’s theology. And the modern Lutheran church has come a long way to learn from many other traditions that faith has a way of shriveling up when it is not watered with the love that moves one to action.

All joking aside, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson has demonstrated time and time again that modern Lutherans care deeply about the millions of Americans who live in poverty. Bishop Hanson makes me proud to call myself a Lutheran. For example, yesterday FP got this e-mail from the ELCA Advocacy:
Your help is desperately needed again on the FY2006 federal budget.
Large spending cuts will harm millions of children, elderly, and
working adults:
- Too many children will not get the education they need to succeed,
and fewer sick children will be able to see a doctor outside of an
emergency room
- Vulnerable elderly people could lose critical nursing home services
- Promises to our nation's veterans will be broken
-Take action! Please write your members of Congress immediately and ask
that they adopt a fair and just budget!

What is the context which would get moderate Lutherans so fired up? The US already lags way behind in the way we treat our poor children. AS EXPRESSED IN OUR POVERTY RATE, THE US DOES NOT VALUE ITS CHILDREN AS MUCH AS ANY OF THE OTHER WEALTHY NATIONS. This story from the BBC is old news to many people around the world, but it didn’t get much play here in the US.

US high in UN child poverty table

The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world's wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN. The US, which is second only to Mexico in the UN children's agency report, is nonetheless one of few countries to see a recent decline in child poverty. In total, Unicef says up to 50 million children are living in poverty in rich nations and the figure is rising.
Children in Nordic countries are best off, due to higher social spending.

Think about it, America: we have already shown the world that we care very little about our children. Do we really want to prove that we care about them even less? Shame on us if we do-- and shame again on President Bush and his allies in the Congress.

The FP Interview: Dr. Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist

FP: Who is Dr. Bruce Prescott?

BP: I am a husband. My wife, Kylene, and I have been married for more than thirty years. I am a father. My son, Bill, is a graduate student in professional writing at the University of Oklahoma. My daughter, Candice, will soon graduate from OU with a degree in Spanish education.

I am a Baptist minister. I have an M-Div. (1978) and a Ph.D. (1986) from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I have pastored two churches in Texas. My last pastorate was at Easthaven Baptist in Houston, TX (1987-1998).

I am an educator. I taught philosophy and religion classes at Tarrant County Junior College (1983-1986) and, at times, for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I consider my current employment as related to the field of education. Most of what I do as Executive Director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptist is educate people about historic Baptist beliefs and convictions and point out how the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention has changed Baptist beliefs and practices.

FP: When and why did you start your Blog, Mainstream Baptist?

BP: When I first started my blog (in June 2004), I was just doing it to learn why it was so popular among young people. In a very short time I began to realize that blogging made social networking more proactive and was much easier and more effective than the work I was doing to keep fresh material on the Mainstream Baptists website.

FP: What is a Mainstream Baptist? Are you really a Mainstream Baptist in the context of fellow Baptists in your state?

BP: First, I need to emphasize that on the Mainstream Baptist blog I represent no one but myself. On the Mainstream Baptists website I speak as a member of a large group of Baptists, with organizations in several states, who identify themselves as moderate, Mainstream Baptists. Mainstream Baptists are Baptists who are standing up and facing the fundamentalism that has taken over the Southern Baptist Convention. We educate people about historic Baptist beliefs and convictions and we raise a dissenting voice whenever Southern Baptist leaders fire professors or missionaries and persecute people and churches that refuse to submit to their control. At times, we pass an offering plate and help find other places of service for those who we feel have been unjustly terminated for holding fast to their historic Baptist convictions.

Most of the Baptists in the state of Oklahoma are either fundamentalists or people cowed by fundamentalism. Most Baptists in Texas and Virginia are Mainstream Baptists.

FP: You have been President of the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Please tell us about your work with that group and what sparked your efforts in that regard. How does it relate to your deep religious convictions?

BP: A number of informed and respected historians say that separation of church and state is the Baptist legacy to the history of Western Civilization. There is no doubt that Baptists were some of the earliest and most articulate spokespersons for religious liberty for people of all religions. Baptists were instrumental in assuring that the First Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. Until the Fundamentalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention, Baptists in America were united in supporting the work of the Baptist Joint Committee in Washington, D.C. The Baptist Joint Committee is a watchdog agency with the mission to protect and preserve the First Amendment. Nearly sixty years ago, Baptists decided they needed some help in watching over First Amendment liberties. We were instrumental in starting an organization called “Protestant Ministers for Separation of Church and State.” Later, the name was changed from “Protestant Ministers” to “Americans United.”

I have been involved with Americans United for more than a decade. While I was a pastor in Houston, I became active in the Houston chapter when there was a strong push for private school vouchers at the state legislature. I pastored a church with a private, religious school and the voucher money would have helped us financially, but I was also a Baptist and, like Baptists historically, I am firmly convicted that using public money for religious schools is wrong.

I was President of the Houston Chapter of AU for two years 1997-98. I also served on the National Advisory Board of AU from 1997-2002. I am currently serving my second year as President of the Oklahoma Chapter of AU. Since 2002 I have been on the Executive Board of the National AU organization.

FP: You live in a very Red State-- how could moderates and progressives appeal to the voters there that you know so well? What issues would have the most appeal to sensible but more conservative voters in your state?

BP: I don’t hear a lot of support for privatizing Social Security in Oklahoma – even on the right. I think moderates and progressives need to stand firm in their support of Social Security and work to strengthen it.

Most Oklahomans, including most moderates, have not yet learned to separate support for the men and women in the military from support for the war in Iraq. I think progressives need to find ways to demonstrate support for the men and women in the military while challenging the administration’s handling of the war.

I think there is concern from both the left and the right that the Patriot Act has gone too far and threatens our civil liberties.

I think moderates and progressives need to stand with Sister Dianna Ortiz and her “No tolerance for torture” campaign.

FP: Who are your favorite thinkers and writers in the areas of theology and politics?

BP: Other than, Jesus, my favorite thinker is Paul Ricoeur. I discussed his hermeneutic method and adopted it in my doctoral dissertation. He is the most profound modern thinker that I have read. A close second to Ricoeur is Martin Buber and after him is Emmanuel Levinas. All three of them have written extensively on both theology and politics. Another thinker I greatly appreciate is Shadia B. Drury.

FP: Tell us about Philosophical Hermeneutics, which you list as one of your passions?

BP: Philosophical hermeneutics wrestles with some of the most fundamental questions of life. There is a sense in which everything we do involves interpreting something – sense data, sounds, images, signs, symbols, metaphors, thoughts, dreams, texts, etc. It makes sense to examine the phenomena and practice of interpreting in a systematic and thoughtful way.

FP: Many people feel frustrated by both the perception of religious people and the Bush Administration--what can they do to change things?

BP: I am among those who feel frustrated by the perception that all religious people fit the mold of what passes today for being conservative. Baptists came out of a religious tradition that has been called the “radical reformation.” We were radical because we contended for the “progressive” or “liberal” idea that each person should have the freedom to worship as they please – without help or hindrance from the state. The early Baptists did not use the words “separation of church and state” to describe their beliefs as much as they spoke of “liberty of conscience.” What they were asking for was spelled out and made explicit in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is true that the specific words “separation of church and state” were not used in our constitution. Neither were the words “separation of powers.” Both ideas were spelled out in the Constitution.

The radical idea that church and state should be separate was written in the First Amendment and now it is more than 200 years old. After 200 years, people who want to preserve the First Amendment ought to be considered “conservative.” What passes today for being “conservative” is really theocratic. They want to repeal the First Amendment and return to the established state-churches of pre-revolutionary America.

The most important thing that moderate and progressive religious people can do to change things is to start standing up and speaking out on behalf of separation of church and state. Religious liberty for everyone – not just Christians – is our first freedom. It’s the first freedom because it is the bedrock foundation upon which every other form of freedom rests. It secures our right to a free conscience and protects the rights of minorities. If you can strip away the right of any minority to worship as they please, to be free from indoctrination into someone else’s religion, and to be exempt from paying taxes to support someone else’s faith, then you can undermine any other right that minorities enjoy in our society.

FP: Are there one or two posts you are most proud of?
(NOTE: subject sends 2, FP picks 1)

BP: Here is one of my favorite posts:
America's First Prophetic Voice