faithforward

Suspect Device

2005-06-26T21:30:00.000-05:00

--Decided to re-post this after a friend announced the birth of his second daughter. From the wayback machine:

A Pastor's Notebook October 28, 1999
Suspect Device
Norm T., the domesticated engineer and mad tuba player, recently sent me an e-mail from the howling tundras of the St. Paul suburbs in response to my APN entry on meeting baby Celeste. He writes:

I don't disagree with a single thing you said, however as a father it goes beyond that, in that those same feelings of "total trust", "undying love", "Absolute awe" continue through their lives. Kelly, although 5 and very independent, still has moments where she wants nothing more than to be that little baby again, curled up in your arms being totally dependent on you. As long as you (as the adult) accept that this time decreases with age, but is still absolutely necessary (if not from her point of view, from mine) you too can have those same feelings throughout your child's life. (At least I hope it lasts that long.)

I still am in wonder every day at how she grows and changes and how she sees the world and people around her. I guess this has less to do with being a parent and more to do with just being there and seeing it happen each and every day.

To which I can only reply: I wonder if this is the way God sees us? We began our lives with God as wholly dependent, if you take the story of Genesis at face value. Over the years, we've become more and more independent, perhaps necessarily, perhaps not. Nowadays we hardly write home at all to let the old man know how we're doing. Things aren't going well, of course, despite the Clinton economic boom. There have been too many Kosovos, too many Rwandas, for us to believe seriously that the human race is ready to manage its own affairs without some timely parental intervention.

You’d think that we would turn to God more often than we do, given our state of affairs. It seems like an obvious statement, even a platitude. But how often does it really come true? Our ability to keep focussed on the God of love, mercy and peace gets more spotty every day. We distance ourselves with television, numb ourselves with the polite fiction of the stock market, and reassure ourselves with the outright lie that those countries have always been like that. Which is not to say that the good is entirely erased from us; there are still saints and angels who walk amongst us. Even the ordinary people of faith can accomplish something good once in a while. We did finally do something about both Kosovo and Rwanda, after all, though probably too little too late. But our hearts and minds remain our own, and as always, we remain erratic children, prone to saintliness one day, bestiality the next.

Fortunately, I have yet to meet a child given to devil worship, so I'll skip the discussion of "walking in the ways of the Lord" as compared to "walking in the ways of the devil." I will say this, however. Part of the pain, yet part of the joy, of being a parent is that you never know what the little monster is going to do next. Give you a hug or break your kneecap? Draw you a picture or smash your favorite vase? Sit in his room listening to punk rock, or become a pastor? And so on.

Again, I am only guessing at what that looks like from the perspective of a parent. But having been a "difficult" child myself—hell, let's not beat around the bush: I was nuts—I can extrapolate. One night when my oldest niece was turning two, she was so enthused about blowing out her birthday candles that she almost stuck her face into their flames. There were eight adults around the dinner table. Each one of us, seized by the same instinct, lunged forward, yelling and ready to pull her back by her overalls. She looked up, bewildered by all the commotion, and we had a good laugh. It occurred to me much later that that moment, played out more often than a Yankees world series must be what parenthood is like. That shouldn't take away from the awe and the joy and the pride of being a parent, but it does set it in a background of terror, something like seeing a diamond, then becoming aware of the sweat and sacrifice it took to bring it out of the earth. Labor was painful, some mother said, and after that, things only got worse.

My point in all this is two-fold and (mercifully) brief. The first is something along the lines of a lesser-to-greater argument. If it's ennervating for a human parent to watch their children grow, what must it be like for God to watch the entire human race come into their own? It's tempting to want to abstract the issue, to say that by and large, we get along okay, and God doesn't have much to worry about. But Jesus said that not a sparrow flew nor a hair fell that God didn't know about, which suggests to me at least that God is much more intimate with our ups and downs that we'd give a deity credit for being. It's hard to get a hold of, that idea. It's been gone over so many times before that it begins to look like that squirrel that got flattened on your street last Sunday. Think of it this way; God is like an extra family member to each of us. God's the brother we never had, or the sister; God’s like a third parent, a fifth grandparent, even a second cousin.

I won’t hyperbolize by saying that God loves us more than any of these could. Leave it at that God loves us as much as any of them. If we are struck by cancer, God knows. If we—or our wife—becomes pregnant, God knows. If we're feeling on top of the world, God knows that, too. The point is not so much that God knows each of us individually, however. It’s more that God knows all of us individually. The miracle of the divine is that God is able to laugh, shout, cry, weep and moan with the best of us—and with the rest.

More to the original point, the parental feelings of love, trust, and awe never leave God. For the divine being, we are an ever-unfolding act of wonder and beauty, children in the same way that we see our children grow and change. There are hard times with any kid, there's no denying that. But as Norm seems to be pointing out in his e-mail, the hard times are more than compensated for by the good times, and if you're lucky, the good times keep coming. Can you imagine that God is as proud of as your father? That God is as attached to you as much as your own mother? That God is as surprised, baffled and entertained by the continuing process of your life as you were when your children were babies? Seems outrageous, doesn’t it?

Which brings us to point two.

I love my God, but sometimes I wonder if "he" is not an anarchistic bomb-thrower. God has given us the gift of freedom, which sounds good in principal, but leads to a lot of chaos in practice. But for that matter, so does the birth of a child. We are each of us a suspect device, unpredictable and potentially quite dangerous little packages found tucked away under the benches in airports and railway terminals. The potential for mischief is enormous—Rwanda, Kosovo, Chechnya, the streets of New York City—but then, who said all mischief had to be bad? We could be high-explosives of love if we wanted to be, not violence or indifference. As the Northern Irish band Stiff Little Fingers once sang, "A suspect device/can score an own goal," a metaphor taken from soccer games, where a player accidentally punts a ball into his own goal. The Fingers were referring to the ability of Irish kids to subvert the structures that led to ever-increasing violence in their homeland, but the point is general. Each child is a suspect device, a love-bomb in the making, as it were. Why shouldn't we "blow up in their face," and refuse to take part in the dumb hurt and sadness that makes up our daily lives? I imagine that God looked at Jesus on the cross and said, "Well, I didn’t know he was going to do that, but he’s sure made me proud."

That may seem contradictory when stacked against my claim that God is intimate in our lives, but it's only an apparent contradiction. We all know—or at least hope—that our children will stand up and walk one day, but foresight doesn't privilege us with the exact time and date. Nor does God's awe and wonder at the progress of our lives mean necessarily that God knows exactly what's in store for each of us at a certain moment. Rather, God is Immanuel—God with us—as parent, friend, and comforter. God is being there, and God sees it all happen each and every day—and nothing could tickle the Eternal One more pink.

What're you looking at?

2005-06-20T21:08:00.000-05:00

From Egarwaen at Booman Tribune:

Evangelism, Southern Baptist Style

2005-06-20T20:37:00.000-05:00

Agape Press reports on a speaker at the recent Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville:

Baucham explained himself further. "What you do is like what we do in a courtroom; you [ask], 'Do we have any eyewitnesses? Do the eyewitnesses tell the same story?' Yep! 'Friday, dead -- Sunday, risen!'"

Baucham is co-author of a resolution that encourages Southern Baptist churches to investigate their local public school districts to determine if any homosexual influence exists. The resolution may come up for a vote on Wednesday during the SBC business meeting.

You let us know how this works out, okay?

Geekery upon geekery

2005-06-20T20:32:00.000-05:00

This story has got it all, man: religion, pop science, historical intrigue...

The world's oldest monastery plans to use hi-tech cameras to shed new light on ancient Christian texts preserved for centuries within its fortress walls in the Sinai Desert.
Saint Catherine's Monastery hopes the technology will allow a fuller understanding of some of the world's earliest Christian texts, including pages from the Codex Sinaiticus -- the oldest surviving bible in the world.

The technique, known as hyperspectral imaging, will use a camera to photograph the parchments at different wavelengths of light, highlighting faded texts obscured by time and later overwritings.

It should allow scholars to understand corrections made to pages of the Greek Codex Sinaiticus, written between 330 and 350 and thought to be one of 50 copies of the scriptures commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine.

I'm drooling, I tells ya...

This is how I want to go

2005-06-20T20:28:00.000-05:00

What a moron I've been. All these years, I thought it would be some kind of comfort to be buried. Seems I could have been ushered out of this world with a whole lot more class:

The ashes of a Lutheran pastor who was a fireworks enthusiast will be shot into the sky over Marine on St. Croix during the town's July 4th celebration.

The canister that will include the ashes of the Rev. Gordon Bergin will display gold crosses, a traditional part of the town's fireworks show.

Bergin, the longtime pastor of Diamond Lake Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, died in February at age 93.

Brothers and Sisters,

2005-06-19T16:12:00.000-05:00

For our fathers, who have given us life and love,
that we may show them respect and love,
let us pray*...
For fathers who have lost a child through death,
that their faith may give them hope,
and their family and friends support and console them,
let us pray*...
For men, though without children of their own,
who like fathers have nurtured and cared for us,
let us pray*...
For fathers, who have been unable to be a source of strength,
who have not responded to their children,
who have not sustained their families,
who have actually injured their families,
let us pray*...
God, in your wisdom and love you made all things.
Bless these men, that they may be strengthened.
Let them set an example of love and decency.
Grant that we, their sons and daughters,
may honor them always in word and deed.

*meditate, hold in good and active thought

Crucifixion

2005-06-19T14:03:00.000-05:00

Please tell me this is a joke. Please.

A Romanian Orthodox priest, facing charges for ordering the crucifixion of a young nun because she was "possessed by the devil," was unrepentant as he celebrated a funeral ceremony for his alleged victim.

"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," Father Daniel, 29, the superior of the Holy Trinity monastery in north-eastern Romania, told an AFP reporter before celebrating a short liturgy "for the soul of the deceased", in the presence of 13 nuns who showed no visible emotion.

Oh, but that's not even the worst part. Here's the worst:

Vitalie Danciu, the superior of a nearby monastery at Golia, called the crucifixion "inexcusable," but a spokesman for the Orthodox patriarchate in Bucharest refused to condemn it.

"I don't know what this young woman did," Bogdan Teleanu said.

Now Screening

2005-06-19T13:31:00.000-05:00

Six counties around Waco, Texas are implementing a new mental health screening system:

The program is part of a statewide effort to ensure mentally ill people who end up behind bars receive appropriate treatment. That could entail anything from their receiving medication to making sure their mental illness is considered as a factor in prosecution.

The system is referred to as the CARE match program. CARE is the acronym the state uses for its Client Assignment & Registration System, which tracks people's involvement with the public mental health system.

CARE has been around for decades. What's new is that regional mental health centers are beginning to cross-reference the database with lists of people booked into jail. The idea is to take some of the guesswork out of identifying inmates with special needs.

In itself, not something that particularly raises an eyebrow. But then you read something like this:

A universal screening program that would identify children with behavioral disorders before age 5 is being prepared in the county as a way to head off severe mental health problems among school-aged children.

Nothing else has worked, said Kent Paxton, an official with San Bernardino County's Children's Network, an agency that helps at-risk youngsters.

Both of these initiatives could potentially help at-risk individuals receive mental health services sooner and more efficiently. But they could also lead to people being labeled and stigmatized--in the case of San Bernadino, at an age far too young to escape.

And I wonder about the kind of information being collected on people. Here in Lancaster, there's a computer system in place that allows the local homeless shelters to track individuals--whether or not they've been kicked out of another shelter in the past few days, what kinds of services they've been receiving through county-funded programs--and it's only a short step from there to including Mental Health/Mental Retardation data, or arrest warrants, for that matter.

And yeah, you've got to worry that what's driving these things is not concern for those in need of services, but money.

The Word For the Week

2005-06-19T09:07:00.000-05:00

Matthew 10:24-39

Last fall, my wife and I got a phone call from the children's home where our goddaughter lives. An alumna of their program, a good friend of the goddaughter's, had died. Would we come to the memorial service?

We would have anyway, but it didn't hurt that the goddaughter was singing at the service.

And not just singing, but singing. We didn't know until the kid opened up her mouth that she was going to do an a cappella rendition of "His Eye Is On the Sparrow." Wow! It wasn't technically perfect, but she sang it loud and clear. More important, she sang it with heart. There was no mistaking the message: His eye is on the sparrow, and so is mine.

I don't know how the kid made remembering a dead friend an act of defiance, but she did. Mrs. Pastor and I were dabbing away tears by the time she was done.

Remembering that story helps me put together the disparate parts of this morning's lesson. It's a collection of sayings stitched together to make a point, which is not unusual in the gospels. The first half of the reading is reassurance of God's love and protection; the second half an assurance that disciples are going to need that love and protection.

About that second half: it isn't so much that Jesus wants to run around blowing up families (quite a message for Father's Day). Instead, as one of my commentaries explains, disciples will inevitably have to make decisions about their priorities. To follow to Jesus' radical path leads inescapably to conflict, even within one's own family.

It's important to step back for a moment and remind ourselves that these words were not written for us. They were written for a group of people committed to beliefs that walked that fine line between "radical" and "insane." It was crazy--and contentious--enough to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. But on top of that, they added the completely insane idea that that reflected God's preference for the poor and dispossessed!

Early Christians, in other words, challenged the conventional wisdom in both religion and social priority. These folks were a menace to the status quo.

We can try to live out their faith, but I doubt we'll ever be pulled into the kind of conflict they must have experienced. Still, there are people who come close.

Norman Kansfield, for one:

SCHENECTADY, N.Y., June 17 - In the first trial of a minister in 100 years, the general assembly of the Reformed Church in America found Friday night that the Rev. Dr. Norman J. Kansfield, a leading Protestant theologian, had violated church law by officiating at the marriage of his daughter, Ann, to her partner, Jennifer Aull, a year ago.

The delegates also voted to suspend Dr. Kansfield, 65, from the ministry until he changes his views to fall in line with church doctrine, and to strip him of his standing as a professor of theology in the church.

Dr. Kansfield said the decision was "going to be very hard to deal with.

"My life," he said, "has been the ministry." But he was encouraged that at least one-third of the delegates - those who did not vote against him - were willing to consider a "far more open stance on the inclusion of gay people."

Dr. Kansfield's "family" here is not his own biological family, but the extended family of his church. One might fairly charge that he "loved his daughter more than Christ," but I don't believe so. Kansfield in fact acknowledged Christ before the world in testifying to his love and grace in uniting his daughter and her partner in a sacred bond.

You don't even have to claim that these two women face special challenges in the world, though of course they do. Any two lovers entering into matrimony face an uphill battle these days. Newlyweds are automatically qualified for sparrow status--especially, I think, when they get to their first arguments about who's going to balance the checkbook and who's going to make dinner after a long day at work.

My goddaughter would hate hearing this--she doesn't believe in same-sex marriage--but her example of fidelity, and Dr. Kansfield's, help to bolster my resolve when things get contentious. What she's too young to understand yet is how love for a friend or a family member is often a springboard for more abstract concern.

So it's her example, among others, that strengthens me when read about someone like Albert Mohler attacking the United Church of Christ again.

See, a few conservative churches in New Jersey have put up a resolution for the denomination's national gathering in July. It's a stalking horse; while on its face, there's nothing objectionable about it, if it is accepted, it will trap the denomination in the same kind of fundamentalist crap that overtook Mohler's Southern Baptist Convention twenty-five years ago. He says:

The resolution proceeds to remind the denomination that the UCC Constitution states that the body "claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers." Accordingly, the resolution "provides an opportunity for General Synod to unashamedly, unabashedly proclaim that the UCC is a Christian denomination where Jesus is Lord."

Believe it or not, the resolution has attracted significant opposition, and some observers do not expect it to pass. Consider this reaction from a New Jersey pastor: "Religiously speaking, it sounds like apple pie," commented Rev. Raymond Kostulias of the First Congregational Church of Park Ridge. Nevertheless, he's not a supporter of the statement. He described the resolution as having "a judgmental quality to it that implies very strongly that those who do not agree with us are condemned or damned or hopeless -- and that's exactly the thing that UCC is against."

Well, Rev. Kostulias, that's what the Apostles and the early chuch called the defining line between orthodoxy and heresy -- between genuine faith and a false gospel. A denomination that cannot stand together in affirming the Lordship and deity of Jesus Christ is a denomination that has set itself against Scripture and the faith of the Christian Church.

But as Chuck Currie explains,

Mohler's interpretation of the resolution is misleading. He bears false witness to the United Church of Christ. Why would we actually oppose such a resolution?

The UCC respects freedom of individual conscience, and there are no "tests of faith" mandatory on our 1.4 million members, but we do honor the historic testimonies of our spiritual ancestors as they explored the Bible and applied its insights.

The resolution as worded would create a "test of faith" and in doing so would violate our church polity. In short, the resolution is an attempt (which I hope will fail) that seeks to make the UCC adopt a fundamentalist view of scripture that is common in Mohler's denomination. Click here to learn more.

...

The United Church of Christ is a denomination quite obviously committed to the Christian faith. We are not, however, a doctrinal church. Our members are not required to sign pledges that align us with one theological school or another. We trust our members to be faithful disciples and feel forcing dogma on them does nothing to further that discipleship. We put our faith in God before we put it in human tests of faith.

To which I can only add two things. First, that we also put our love in people before we put it in human tests of faith. Principles are no match in our church for the face of God in the face of a brother or sister.

Second, and more important, is this: in our very "Basis of Union," the agreement that brought the UCC into being, we declared that

denominations exist not for themselves but as parts of [the greater Church], within which each denomination is to live and labor and, if need be, die

It was originally meant as a commitment to the ecumenism that drove the formation of the UCC, but it is a reminder as well that the work we do is not our own, but Christ's.

And the last time I checked, Christ's eye was definitely on the sparrow, not theologically "sound" doctrine that happened to exclude whole categories of people from the grace and love of God in Christ Jesus.

So it's the sparrows I'm willing to take up my cross for, for whom I would lose my life and would be glad to lose my denomination's. I owe it to my goddaughter, and the memory of her friend.

Screw orthodoxy.

They hate you too...

2005-06-17T21:37:00.000-05:00

From Atrios, My Cat Hates You.

Church Growth Lite

2005-06-17T21:35:00.000-05:00

The Gutless Pacifist on the religious right chimera that people are leaving liberal churches in droves:

So the notion that people are fleeing liberal churches in favor of conservative ones is simply false. Nevermind the strange contradiction that usually comes with such arguments, where "ear tickling liberalism" is supposedly appealing to the masses with the "broad way" while at the same time conservatives are congratulating themselves for their huge church growth. However, as we have seen, that church growth is actually an illusion... It's a matter of growth in the population and mobility, not a growth in membership. For mainline churches, people remain extremely loyal to them or to their denominational families, and though they may leave for a brief spell, they almost inevitably return. In urban centres, these churches are trending towards growth as well.

Bob Mutton

2005-06-17T21:30:00.000-05:00

Jonathan is writing about his teen years in a UCC congregation in Webster Groves, Missouri.

The youth pastor of that congregation, Robert Mutton, is a longtime friend and colleague of my parents. Good to see a decent guy getting his due.

4.3 Percent

2005-06-17T21:25:00.000-05:00

New research:

An estimated 4.3 percent of Americans suffer from bipolar disorder or its milder forms, far more than previous estimates which placed the number at about 1 percent, a new study finds.
"When the entire spectrum [of bipolar disorder] is taken into account, the percent affected by that syndrome is higher than was recognized," said Ronald C. Kessler, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School. He presented the findings Friday at the Sixth International Conference on Bipolar Disorder, in Pittsburgh.

The new estimate finds that 4.3 percent of adults suffer from a bipolar disorder or a "sub-threshold" bipolar disorder, Kessler said. The latter group includes persons who don't fit the precise clinical criteria for bipolar disorder but who have symptoms nearly as bad that severely affect their ability to perform their daily routine.

Making Baby Jesus Cry, Again

2005-06-17T13:20:00.000-05:00

Another one I can't add to, this one from Chuck Currie:

In the coming weeks you’ll read a lot about the United Church of Christ in the media. Our General Synod begins July 1st in Atlanta and many of the issues considered will be difficult and controversial. I’ve written about several of those issues – including gay marriage and divestment from companies that profit from the occupation of Palestine. But there are other issues that will also cause a stir in the media and among critics of the UCC in the religious right.

Danforth

2005-06-17T13:04:00.000-05:00

Basically ripping off Armando's front-page post on the Daily Kos:

Republican Former Senator John Danforth says no
to the Dobson/Bush/Frist Extreme Agenda:
Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be
translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but
because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like
conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.
But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love
our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the
Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to
follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be
codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state,
one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.
When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.
We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.
For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to
encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the
separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to
holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

Well done Sen. Danforth.

I'll add an amen to that.

Operation Yellow Elephant

2005-06-16T20:57:00.000-05:00

Don't forget to ask them in which gospel Jesus says "Go forth into the world, kicking Muslim ass as you go."

More beds in South Carolina

2005-06-16T20:51:00.000-05:00

Back on Sunday, I mentioned that South Carolina was selling its state mental hospital. Now comes word that they're adding beds:

The state Mental Health Department plans to open 26 new long-term, psychiatric-care hospital beds in Columbia and Spartanburg.

The new beds are intended to relieve backlogs of mentally ill patients now being treated in hospital emergency rooms.

It's not all hunky dory:

The department's critics say 40 to 60 long-term-care beds are needed to address shortages created by years of downsizing. Some also say the department should be focusing on opening acute-care beds for patients needing emergency — not long-term — help.

"Right now, the state mental health system has no emergency system," said Gregory B. Gattman, vice president of Palmetto Health, which operates Palmetto Health Richland and Palmetto Health Baptist hospitals in Columbia.

"They’re addressing it from the back end of the system, but any kind of beds that are opened by the state to offer more options for folks to get to the proper kind of treatment they need is an improvement."

Still, not as bad as simply closing the place down.

Watch Out! United Methodist Women!!

2005-06-16T20:46:00.000-05:00

Beyond idiocy from Crosswalk:

By now, we've all heard the pejoratives leveled against the so-called religious right and its alleged role in the confirmation of what the Democrats like to call "extremist judges."

But what role has the religious left played in all of this?

According to the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the United Methodist Women's organization launched a "Save the Filibuster" campaign.

The head of The National Council of Churches sent a letter to Senator Majority leader Bill Frist trying to protect the filibuster against judges they don't like, while the bishop in charge of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America accused Frist of "political manipulation" on the issue of judges.

The United Church of Christ in D.C. lobbied in support of the filibuster.

And, the clerk of the Presbyterian Church, USA was part of a media conference call that complained about the role religious conservatives played in the opposition to the filibuster.

You know, I've always thought there was something sinister about those Methodist ladies...

Realignment?

2005-06-16T20:43:00.000-05:00

Trial balloons in the Anglican world:

A draft of a constitution detailing a proposed realignment of the worldwide Anglican Communion became public this week, outlining for the first time how divisions over homosexuality may change the face of the more than 70-million-member church.

The unsourced and undated four-page document, named "The Organizing Constitution of the Anglican Global Initiative," has been circulating among some executive members of the Episcopal Church since January, after it was brought to the church's New York headquarters following a meeting of African bishops in Nairobi.

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a group of clergy and lay people, made the document available on its Web site. Its existence was first reported this week by the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain.

We do?

2005-06-16T20:39:00.000-05:00

Raw Story, quoting Sen. Nancy Pelosi:

"Religious denominations also support legal access to medical marijuana, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church."

Dude, my denomination's cooler than I thought!

Jazz, Schizophrenia, & Side Effects

2005-06-15T21:33:00.000-05:00

Forbes.com:

NEW YORK - Side effects have taken center stage in the $14 billion market for schizophrenia drugs.

To understand why, take the case of Tom Harrell, a renowned jazz musician and composer. Harrell, dubbed "the greatest trumpeter of his generation" by Entertainment Weekly, is also schizophrenic. For years, he has fought not only his disease, but also the crippling side effects of the drugs used to treat it.

Compare that $14 billion to the $690 million Lilly is paying to settle claims against its Zyprexa brand, and you begin to get a sense of the scales involved here.

God and money

2005-06-15T10:03:00.000-05:00

At first, I thought this article from USNews.com would be just a puff piece on faith and/in the market, but it turns out to have an interesting point:

religious participation is highest in those places where there is a high density of people sharing the same religious preferences; and second, that for those who are part of it, this 'higher market density' leads to all sorts of good things according to key economic indicators such as income, levels of education, dependence on welfare, and marriage and divorce statistics.

So when people live around people who are members of the same Christian denomination, for example, economic indicators rise. That ought to be good news for somewhere like North Dakota or Utah, where overwhelming majorities belong to the same faith.

Ah, but there's a twist:

The positive effects of living around a lot of people who share your religion are offset if most of those people belong to the same ethnic group. In other words, Italian Catholics go to church more often and do better economically if they live in an area where there are not just Italians but other ethnic groups—Poles or Irish, say—that share the Catholic faith.

What that suggests about the ties bind us—and the ones that boost us—is provocative indeed.

Indeed.

A Pastor's Heart

2005-06-13T19:23:00.000-05:00

Jeff Sharlet of The Revealer is apparently also posting at dKos these days.

He links there to an excellent set of stories from the Colorado Springs, CO blog Non-Prophet. The piece that really caught my eye concerned an e-mail exchange between Pastor Ted Haggard of New Life Church (the US' largest) and a new member put off by Haggard's apparent desire to tidy the place up for national television crews.

It's so damn easy to make a mistake as a pastor, to react angrily when you should be listening. And Lord knows I wouldn't want my e-mail with a parishioner to be published. But it's hard to see anything pastoral in an exchange like this:

Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:44:56 -0400
From: [removed]
To: [removed]
Subject: Re: Think Clearly

Pastor Ted,

Thank you for your response, I will tell you that I first emailed you based more on emotion than really giving thought to what I wanted to really say, for that I apologize. We have only attended New Life for 2 months and have really enjoyed your teaching. I do know that emails do not always convey what we really want to say.
If possible, perhaps we could meet some time in the near future just so we can clear the air and I can have a good understanding of your vision for New Life church. Please know that I in no way want to disrespect you as a Pastor or person.
I just want to know without any doubt that we are in the right church.
Hope to hear from you soon.

God bless

[name removed]

------

> From: [removed]
> Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:16:26 EDT
> Subject: Re: Think Clearly
> To: [removed]
>
[name removed],

I didn't like your note at all. New Life doesn't operate that way. My guess is that you are not in the right church. I think you need to look on.

-------

Read the full exchange.

They write columns, too

2005-06-13T19:20:00.000-05:00

Well, if George Michael says it's okay...

UCC 1, Rupert 0

2005-06-13T19:18:00.000-05:00

Bloomberg:

The U.S. Supreme Court, rejecting bids from Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and other media businesses, refused to question federal limits on the number of broadcast stations and newspapers that companies can own.

The justices made no comment today in turning away five industry appeals that said the Federal Communications Commission isn't allowing enough consolidation in the media business. The Bush administration urged the court not to grant a hearing.

The rejection is a victory for consumer groups, which say the ownership limits help ensure diversity of local news and programming. It's a setback for News Corp., Viacom Inc., Gannett Co., Clear Channel Communications Inc. and General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal Inc. in their bid for more freedom to acquire new radio and television stations and newspapers.

The UCC has a long history of media advocacy, going back to the fight against a Jim Crow television station in the 1960s.

Now if we can only get those damn commercials on the Big Three networks...

Heartland

2005-06-13T19:13:00.000-05:00

Lake Wobegone Lutherans can't come through for gays and lesbians, though it's interesting to see how sympathetic the press coverage is, almost apologetic that the synod voted for the ELCA's bans on gay clergy and same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, in the City of Big Shoulders, the Rainbow Sash folks won't go quietly.

It's not just Pennsylvania

2005-06-12T21:11:00.000-05:00

South Carolina is selling its state hospital for the mentally ill:

The sale of the 178-acre State Hospital grounds could bring as much as $14 million to the Mental Health Department for one-time building improvements.

A temporary law approved last month allows most state agencies to keep half of what they make from the sale of property.

The agency has considered spending $2 million to renovate the now-closed Crafts-Farrow State Hospital on near Interstate 20 and moving the few patients remaining at the downtown Columbia facility there.

About 70 of the most severely mentally ill children in the state remain hospitalized at the downtown facility, but patients are supposed to be moved in the coming year.

Awful

2005-06-12T21:07:00.000-05:00

From an editorial in the Poughkeepsie Journal:

Unlike 36 other states, New York does not require insurance carriers to provide mental health coverage. Deep differences have divided Assembly and Senate versions of a bill to require insurance carriers to treat mental illness in the same way it treats physical illnesses. The Assembly has resoundly supported the effort for the past two years, while the Senate continues to have concerns about its effect on the business community, particularly small companies.

But how will they play in Peoria?

2005-06-12T21:03:00.000-05:00

Pretty good, apparently:

One man from Canton stood up to tell his story. He opened by stating he was gay and that he and his partner have adopted two boys, ages 4 and 6.

"My partner came running out after seeing the [God Is Still Speaking] commercial," the man said, "and said that there was a church that would accept us for who we are. . . . This church has completed my family."

Brothers and Sisters,

2005-06-12T19:46:00.000-05:00

Love is patient and kind,

O God, help us to be patient with people,

even when they are foolish and annoying;

and help us to be as kind to others

as we would wish them to be to us.

Love is not jealous or boastful.

O God, help us never to grudge other people

their possessions or successes,

and keep us from all pride and conceit,

that we may never boast of what we are,

or have, or have achieved.

Love is not arrogant or rude.

O God, make us at all times courteous,

and no matter who the other person is,

help us never to look on anyone with contempt.

Love does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.

O God, help us never to find pleasure in any wrong thing,

but to find happiness only in doing the right,

and in helping others to do it.

Love bears all things.

O God, help us to bear insults and slights,

and never to grow bitter.

Love believes all things.

O God, help us never to lose faith

in you or in one another.

Love hopes all things.

O God, help us never to despair,

however dark and difficult and discouraging life may be.

Love endures all things.

O God, help us to stick it out the end,

and never to give in.

Love never ends. For faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

O God you are love;

help us to show your love to others each day of our lives.

This we ask for your love's sake.

(From William Barcaly's Epilogues and Prayers.)

The Word For the Week

2005-06-12T19:43:00.000-05:00

Romans 5:1-8

It's been an interesting couple of weeks over at Daily Kos. For what it's worth at this late date, I have no real position on the pie fights. I thought everybody had good points, and I think those points got overplayed on all sides.

It's the nature of an open-source community: the strength is being open to many perspectives, many contributions from many different sources. The downfall is that that same openness means that it's hard to put the brakes on a destructive cycle of argument. It just grows and grows until it burns itself out. Call it the "wildfire principle" if you will.

As many people have pointed out, the place has been through these meshugas before. I wasn't around but for the very tail-end of the Kerry vs. Dean vs. Nader vs. everybody fights, but I understand they got pretty bad. There were the Shut Your Fucking Piehole diaries, the rolling recriminations after the November elections, Schiavo, NARAL, the Pope, the Pastor Dan diaries.

I'm not very interested in rehashing any of these debates. Most of them were silly, and needless.

Needless, that is, in the sense that they got misdirected into personal territory. Once the insults--real or perceived--start flying, the useful discussion comes to an end. The underlying perspectives were often valid, and I for one learned much from them.

It's also true that conflict is a normal part of life together. People build up friction whenever they rub elbows; it happens in virtual communities just like in meatspace. When the friction goes away, you've got real problems, because it means that people have stopped taking one another seriously, stopped talking to one another.

In this sense, then, the opposite of conflict is not so much peace (the absence of conflict), as it is reconciliation, a productive balance that allows the creative sparks to fly all over again.

As Paul notes in his letter to the Romans, reconciliation is something hard-won:

...We also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us...

For Paul, of course, the process of reconciliation begins and ends in Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. It's that sacrifice that reconciles us with God the Father, and that allows us to be reconciled one to another.

But you need not be a Christian to find the insight here. Follow the chain in slightly different terms: we can be proud of the conflicts we've been through, because conflict makes us stronger, and that strength forges a common identity, and the common identity enables us to believe that we are doing will make a difference in the long run. And that will indeed not disappoint us, because we are making a difference, if only in how we are changing ourselves.

It works for the grizzled veterans who stick with the community: Well, I was here when we went after one another tooth-and-nail over Ginger and Maryann, and here's what we learned... But interestingly enough, it also works for the folks who have left. Many of them have ended up together in new communities (this time, at Booman Tribune or Women Kossacks), and their departure is suffering enough to create a common identity.

Can the various parties be reconciled to one another? I don't know. It might take some kind of divine intervention. The online communities I've taken part in have a tendency to attract strong personalities with stronger opinions.

We'll see.

But here's something that I hope all sides can take away from this. It's the end of Paul's chain of logic: "hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us."

I'll leave it up to you to decide if it's necessary to have the Holy Spirit to receive God's love. My point is simply this: that hope doesn't arrive from hurt and anger and conflict. Not by themselves.

Instead, it comes about by the way in which those things remind us of the attachments that motivate us, and lead us to new ones. If the Pie Fights lead us to understand better who and what we love, and why we fight for them, if the conflicts and the crazy-making we go through widen the circle of our compassion, then as idiotic as they may seem, they will have been worthwhile.

Amen, and pass the lemon meringue.

Constitution Party, anyone?

2005-06-11T22:07:00.000-05:00

WorldNetDaily notices that having Mary Carey dine with the President doesn't, uh, exactly fit the traditional definitions of moral values:

The spokesman for the NRCC, Carl Forti, told WND: "[Carey and soft-core porn king Mark Kulkis] paid their money. No matter what they do, the money is going to go to help elect Republicans to the House."

Would the Republicans take money from anyone? Would they take money from neo-Nazi skinheads who coughed up $5,000? Would they take money from environmental polluters or just polluters of our moral eco-system? Would they take money from mobsters? Maybe so, since the mob is known to be a major backer of pornography.

Millions of Americans may realize that morality is essential to good governance. But they have nowhere to turn to express themselves politically – at least not within either of the two major parties.

$690 million

2005-06-11T21:58:00.000-05:00

Just in case you need to be reminded how much money moves around in the treatment of mental illness:

Trial lawyers say they agreed to an unusually early settlement with Eli Lilly and Co. on 8,000 claims of damages over the company's top-selling drug Zyprexa, as both sides saw the value of avoiding prolonged litigation that was full of uncertainties.

The $690 million settlement, announced Thursday, came after only five plaintiffs had given depositions in the mass litigation and before any substantive depositions had been taken from Lilly executives or scientists, said one trial attorney, Ramon Rossi Lopez, of Newport Beach, Calif. Also, the first trial from the hundreds of lawsuits was at least six months off.

"A lot of things came into play" to drive the seven months of talks that led to the proposed settlement, Lopez said. But both sides in the high-stakes litigation knew one thing: "There were too many variables out there that could have falsely driven the value of the case" to hurt either side, Lopez said.

Full disclosure: the bulk of my seminary scholarship came from Lilly funds, and I have benefitted from a continuing ed program they underwrote at Lancaster Theological Seminary. In fact, Lilly gave so much money to Emory's Candler School of Theology that we laughingly referred to it as the "Prozac Seminary," and joked that it was only fitting that they should support the program, since so many students were at the shrinks'.

Just in case you were wondering how much money floats around in the study of religion...

Mass Media

2005-06-11T21:54:00.000-05:00

"People also felt a real need for something spiritual and religious in their lives," Powell said. "They wanted that but they just didn't know how to find it anymore."

The Houston Chronicle on denominational mass-media campaigns.

Linda Berglin

2005-06-11T21:52:00.000-05:00

Hot damn, principled, obstinate legislators do exist. Kudos.

Wading In

2005-06-11T21:19:00.000-05:00

From columnist Bill Wineke of the Wisconsin State Journal, writing on upcoming consideration of homosexuality-related resolutions in the UCC and ELCA:

The question of how to treat gay and lesbian people seems about to start causing even more division between church people.
...
But one example of hope comes from the Roman Catholic Church of all places. Not only that, but it comes from the man who is now the world's top Catholic doctrinal watchdog.

The Catholic position on gays and lesbians has been pretty much stereotyped as one of negativity.

Enter Archbishop William J. Levada, the man Pope Benedict XVI selected to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the job the pope held under Pope John Paul II. When Levada was archbishop of San Francisco, he found a way between competing factions.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, Levada found himself in a conflicted situation in 1997, when San Francisco adopted a law requiring contractors receiving city funds to provide health benefits to gay, lesbian and unmarried partners of their employees.

Catholic charities in San Francisco at the time received $5.6 million in funds for programs helping the poor, homeless and sick. But Levada, as spokesman for his church, could hardly condone people living in "sin."

He might have stood on a soapbox and proclaimed morality topped making deals with Satan. He didn't.

What he did, the National Catholic Reporter said was to strike "a compromise that allowed employees to designate 'any legally domiciled member' of their household to receive 'spousal equivalent benefits,' whether the recipient was a mother, a brother or a gay partner."

Makes sense to me. The compromise took the Catholic charities off the hook. It took the city - which depends on those charities to offer care - off the hook. It not only provided benefits for gay partners, it also extended those benefits to others who provide care for loved ones.

Sounds good to me, too. But then Wineke's got to ruin it with his last graf:

Most UCC congregations already bless same-sex unions. I'm not sure why the church wants to get into the political battle about marriage. It might do better to hold up a standard of committed relationship that might serve as a template for all unmarried "couples."

Wineke seems to believe that the UCC is more hierarchical than it really is. In fact, the resolution being considered was brought to our "General Synod" in a referendum-style process. Resolutions, plural, really: there are two competing measures, one that would affirm a traditional definition of marriage, and one that would defer the decision. This is the way we talk things through in the UCC; we toss out ideas, see what sticks.

More to the point, social justice is a deeply-rooted tradition in the UCC. It may cause trouble, but then, who ever said Jesus Christ called us to make nice? Sometimes the waters need to be troubled and the shit needs to be stirred. I can appreciate Archbishop Levada's commonsense dealmaking, but I'm not willing to hold it up as the model of faith in our society, thanks.

This is truly bizarre

2005-06-10T21:35:00.000-05:00

Do we even pretend to have such a thing as separation of church and state these days? The Madison (WI) Capital-Times:

An Arizona-based Christian group that provides legal help to fight same-sex marriage and similar causes asked Wednesday that the Wisconsin Legislature be made a co-defendant in a lawsuit seeking benefits for gay partners of state workers.
Six lesbian workers in the University of Wisconsin System and the Corrections and Transportation departments filed the lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court in April. The American Civil Liberties Union is backing them.

The lawsuit alleges a state law preventing state employees' gay partners from getting health benefits violates the Wisconsin Constitution's equal rights protection clause. It asks a judge to force state agencies to provide the benefits. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager is defending the state.

The Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Legislative Organization voted in May to ask the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Ariz., to represent the Wisconsin Legislature in the lawsuit.
...
The ADF motion argued that the Legislature has an interest in whether benefits are extended to gay workers' partners, because it would put more pressure on a state already dealing with a $1.6 billion budget deficit. The motion also said establishing budgets and social policy is a legislative prerogative.

So the Legislature thinks it might be on the hook for same-sex partner benefits. But rather than rely on the Attorney General, who is sworn to uphold the interests of the state, they turn to a bigots' advocacy group. What happened to the tolerant Badger State I grew up in?

And just in case we're unclear as to who's behind this:

ADF's co-founder, James Dobson, created a media stir earlier this year for criticizing a children's video that featured cartoon characters, including Spongebob Squarepants, saying it promoted homosexuality.

The AG's office calls this one exactly right:

Lautenschlager spokesman Scot Ross issued a statement saying the ADF was the one trying to inject politics into the case.

"It will be up to a judge to decide what, other than political venom, these Internet lawyers from the other side of the continent would bring to a Wisconsin courtroom," Ross said.

Bullseye

2005-06-10T21:08:00.000-05:00

Christianity Today's Weblog spares no one in Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent grandstanding bill-signing ceremony at a Fort Worth megachurch. They rake Barry Lynn over the coals pretty thoroughly, but it's the conservatives that get it the worst:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who spoke before Perry at the ~~rally~~ signing ceremony, says he's disenfranchised.
"The issue is there is intolerance against Christians in America who simply want their voices to be heard," he said.

Note to Perkins: Simply having your voices heard is what the 250 or so protesters who showed up outside the Calvary Cathedral gym got. You're not being heard; you're being obeyed. You know that "seat at the table" you're always asking for? Might want to take a look at that cushy chair you're sitting on. When people treat you like Big Brother, it doesn't make much sense to keep complaining that you're the ignored red-headed stepchild.

Actually, whether it was the protesters' rantings outside the gym ("It appears that Gov. Perry believes he was only elected to serve conservative Christians," said Texas Freedom Network president Kathy Miller) or the rantings of those inside it, it's hard to pick the most over-the-top example.
...
But the winner has to be Don Wildmon, president and founder of the American Family Association, who said it's okay to use a church school gym because "This is not the sanctuary. God ain't in here." Then, pointing at the Calvary Cathedral sanctuary, Wildmon said, "He's in there!"
...
After all the hyperbole, the harshest critique that can be honestly leveled from the left is that Perry shrewdly used legislation to curry favor among religious conservatives. The honest critique that can be leveled from the right is—nothing. The right got its way. And what can be said honestly about Perry? He really seems to want a bill-signing ceremony at Wal-Mart.

Mental note: always speak nicely of Weblog. Do not piss Weblog off. Do not even so much as look funny in Weblog's direction.

Abuse cases cost Catholic Church $1 billion

2005-06-10T20:58:00.000-05:00

...Or so the AP estimates.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe discusses the human costs:

Little children crying, locked out of their own school by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston two days before graduation. Police officers and security guards hovering over a makeshift ceremony in the square across the street. Parents standing in the pouring rain condemning the church leaders and demanding answers.
Article Tools

Images of a Catholic Church that seemed callous to the human impact of its decisions were broadcast across the state yesterday, after the archdiocese abruptly changed the locks on Our Lady of the Presentation School in Brighton Wednesday and canceled graduation ceremonies for children as young as 3. Church officials said the lockout was necessary to stop a rumored occupation of the school, scheduled to be closed permanently today.

But elected officials stood aghast, and public relations specialists could not fathom the reasoning of church officials in a city where the Catholic Church has been a dominant institution for more than a century, at a time when it is struggling to rehabilitate its image in the aftermath of the clergy sex-abuse scandal.

''We're not talking about Al Qaeda here," said George K. Regan Jr., president of the Regan Communications Group, a public relations firm. ''We're talking about nursery school kids."

A local pol gets it on the nose:

Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who graduated from Our Lady of the Presentation 41 years ago, said the archdiocese could have easily called him or any of a number of mediators in the community to help head off a possible protest.

He said the principal of the school, Sister Mary Duke, begged the archdiocese to consider locking the doors after the ceremony.

''From a public relations point of view . . . it's not likely a rally would get much attention at 4:30 in the afternoon on a Friday in June when the temperature is 90 degrees," he said. ''This whole sad, sordid episode is getting a lot more attention. They've reinforced every stereotypical bad opinion people have about them."

I was mentally ill and you admitted me to an emergency room

2005-06-10T20:52:00.000-05:00

There's not much real news in this story from the Las Vegas Sun: mental health treatment budgets are woefully short all over the country. But this caught our eye:

Carlos Brandenburg, in charge of the state Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, noted that support for mental health came not only from Democrats such as Leslie and Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, but also from conservative Republicans such as Heck, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno.

"It's been a great session for us, and the winners are all Nevadans who suffer from mental illness and their loved ones," Brandenburg said. "It's become a nonpartisan issue, a Nevada issue."

But he cautioned against complacency. "According to our prevalence study, we're serving only half of the severely mentally ill in Nevada," he said.

"Even with this (increase), 30 to 40 percent of the mentally ill are not going to be receiving services. We're not going to rest on our laurels."

Best case scenario. Meanwhile, back in our home state Pennsyvlania, the Department of Public Welfare is said to be running a $400 million deficit this year.

So glad to know we can take care of the least of these in the good old US of A.

They've noticed

2005-06-10T20:41:00.000-05:00

The Richard Scaife-funded Institute on Religion and Democracy has a belated report on the "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Right" Conference. Amongst all the usual crud, they give Fred Clarkson and Chip Berlet kudos of a sort:

There were occasional voices of moderation among the more secular speakers. "If we are going to ask the Christian right to stop engaging in demonization, we need to inspect some of our own language," suggested Berlet. He asked conference participants to "avoid terms of derision" such as "extremists" and "radical religious right." Berlet later expressed his disagreement with Bokaer's call to "shut down the government." He drew loud expressions of protest when he urged his audience to "acknowledge that the majority of Americans don't see the world the way we do."

Clarkson similarly encouraged participants to "be civil," noting that "radical religious extremist" is "just an epithet" with no descriptive value. Porteous said that liberals should not be afraid of "proclaim[ing] our ethics and our values" through opposing public indecency and working to reduce the number of abortions. The latter remark provoked a loud "No!" from the audience.

Wonder what they'll make of Talk To Action, where Fred, Chip (and I) are blogging?

Neat Things from the Guardian

2005-06-10T08:12:00.000-05:00

The interior of St Paul's Cathedral has been restored:

The interior of St Paul's Cathedral gleamed whiter than its architect Sir Christopher Wren ever saw it yesterday, as a four-year renovation project that has cost nearly £11m was completed.
With bright early summer light streaming through the windows, the cathedral's great interior was revealed in all its shining glory, including some details scarcely seen since the building was completed and others shown for the first time since the Victorians painted them over.

"When it was murky you could not see the differences in the architecture or the carving as Wren intended," said Sir Christopher's successor as surveyor to the fabric, Martin Stancliffe, who has supervised the project, eight years in the planning and four years in the execution. "We have now installed new chandeliers and more lights but they are still using less energy than we used to need."

Not even the great Wren saw it like this. During the 35 years of its original building the architect had the Portland stone coated in several thick layers of oil and paint to protect it from the elements before the roof was put on, so it never was as white as now.

That sticky surface absorbed the dirt and smoke of the surrounding city for several hundred years,

Progressive N.C. Churches Organize

2005-06-09T21:26:00.000-05:00

A bit old, but still good.

Well, yes

2005-06-09T20:42:00.000-05:00

I don't expect much out of Albert Mohler, but this has got to be one of the most mendacious, hostile columns I've seen in any paper, ever. He recycles the worn-out argument that liberal churches lose membership due to political stances, a position that hasn't been tenable in 15 years, and he uses the most sophomoric statistical dodges to bolster his argument:

Citing a study published in 2000 by the Glenmary Research Center, Shiflett reports that the Presbyterian Church USA declined by 11.6 percent over the previous decade, while the United Methodist Church lost "only" 6.7 percent and the Episcopal Church lost 5.3 percent. The United Church of Christ was abandoned by 14.8 percent of its members, while the American Baptist Churches USA were reduced by 5.7 percent.

On the other side of the theological divide, most conservative denominations are growing. The conservative Presbyterian Church in America [PCA] grew 42.4 percent in the same decade that the more liberal Presbyterian denomination lost 11.6 percent of its members. Other conservative denominations experiencing significant growth included the Christian Missionary Alliance (21.8 percent), the Evangelical Free Church (57.2 percent), the Assemblies of God (18.5 percent), and the Southern Baptist Convention (five percent).

Percent of what? If I start a church consisting of myself, and I add my wife as a member, that's a 100% growth rate. Without the overall membership numbers, these percentages are meaningless.

And so the shit goes.

But onto every cowpie a little sun must fall, and Mohler provides an unintentional gem in quoting the conservative partisan Hugo Blankenship on what liberal churches preach:

"God is love, God's love is inclusive, God acts in justice to see that everyone is included, we therefore ought to be co-actors and co-creators with God to make the world over in the way he wishes."

Okay, I'll take that.

American Religious Devotion?

2005-06-09T20:39:00.000-05:00

Booman diarist hfiend wrote about this poll yesterday, but I want to renew the conversation here.

The results, I thought, didn't actually say very much. 2% of Americans say they don't believe in God, and better than 60% want religious leaders to keep their nose out of politics. Those figures are much lower than some other countries.

But this study mixes apples and oranges: unless I'm missing something fairly significant, the US and South Korea are quite different in socio-economic measures. And how in the world can you compare Mexico with Western Europe?

Even where there are points of comparison--as between the US, Canada, and Europe--it's long been acknowledged that the US is a religious anomaly. We've also had a distinct history. Go figure.

For that matter, judging a nation's religious fervor by asking if its citizens believe in God is a piss-poor measure. Though these responses match those of other polls on the subject, it's the wrong question to ask. A better one would be frequency of participation in worship. Ask that, and you'll discover that while the US is still more religious than other countries, the gap between them is smaller than the AP/Ipsos poll shows.

As for whether or not religious leaders should try to influence government decisions, let me just say two things.

First, I am a religious leader. Should I not try to influence government decisions? I'm not being facetious here. I just want to bring out a quintessentially American point: while I may be a pastor, I am also a citizen, and as such, entitled to my First Amendment rights.

More important, what is unique about America is the paradox at the heart of our separation of church and state: while the church may have lost formal power with the state, it has gained informal power, the power of moral persuasion, in our society. It's as if the further dance partners stood from one another, the more clearly they could speak to one another.

Which is not an argument for or against the separation clause or the normative position religion holds in American society. It is to say, however, that as long as there is a separation of the two elements, the one will have the ability to speak truth to the other--and their relationship will remain fraught. As long as there is the separation of church and state, in other words, the church will criticize the state and suggest that changes be made. That in turn will make folks in civil society very nervous, which in turn...

This democratic experiment of ours looks like high-wire act sometimes, doesn't it?

Originally posted at Booman Tribune.

Pray for Fred Phelps

2005-06-05T19:37:00.000-05:00

I try not to give Phelps or Westboro Baptist publicity, so I'll just say the good folks of Lexington, Massachusetts have got the right idea:

The Rev. Susan Morrison, pastor of Lexington United Methodist Church, said members of her church voted in 2000 to become a ''reconciling congregation," meaning church members ''celebrate people's gender identity, sexual orientation, race, and economic status, and open our doors to everyone."

Asked about the Kansas church's interpretation of Christianity, Morrison said, ''I just see that their intention is to condemn anything that is different than themselves. It appears that there's no room for any difference."

''It's not the same Gospel that I preach and teach," she said. ''The Gospel that I preach is one of forgiveness, loving one's enemy, everyone at the table."

The Bedford Board of Selectmen approved a statement Tuesday night calling the Kansas church's planned demonstration ''an insult to the values of this town and to all its citizens."

''With a united voice, we strongly condemn the language and underlying message of hate as a violation of human decency," the resolution said.

Brothers and Sisters,

2005-06-05T19:36:00.000-05:00

I ask your prayers* for our community, the world, and all those in need.

For our community:

For those who suffer from fibromyalgia or other painful afflictions, and for those whose health insurance is exorbitantly expensive or is too limited in its coverage;
For those who continue to feel the repercussions of childhood, and who are anxious about their own worth;
For those who feel held back from taking on a new career, for those who are stuck in work without meaning, and for those who discover that their career is not what they had hope for;
For those who have tangled with another member of the community, with another online conversation partner, or who have borne the weight of another's displaced feelings;
For those who struggle with parenthood, whether their children are young or approaching adulthood;
And in thanksgiving and hope for those who embark on new beginnings: new marriages, graduations:

We pray* to you, O Source of all Goodness.

*Meditate, hold in good and active thought.

For the world:

For the victims of senseless violence;
For those who lose out in inequitable economic systems, and for the souls of those who win big;
For those who suffer the horrors of rape used as a political weapon;
For those who cannot control their anger, and for their victims;
For the gifts of nature, that they may be used wisely, not exploited, and for those who suffer from natural disaster;
For those who must bear the costs of war:

We pray* to you, O Source of all Goodness.

For all those in need:

For the young, and the old, that they may be safe from abuse, exploitation and thoughtlessness;
For immigrants, exiles and refugees, and for all those who long for their home;
For the GLBT community, and for all who suffer oppression for being different;
For the poor of all nations;
For the sick, the sorrowing, and the suffering;
For Norman and Mary T. and their family, struggling to come to terms with the death of an 8 1/2 year old daughter;

We pray* to you, O Source of all Goodness.

The Word For the Week

2005-06-05T19:34:00.000-05:00

Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

The theme suggested for today by the UCC worship planners is "restored". It's apt: the Old Testament reading concerns Abraham, called by God to found the nation of Israel at age 75, long past the age when sane men start families. Paul picks up on Abraham's story in the epistle lesson, telling us the patriarch

Did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for he was about a hundred† years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb.

To be restored, in these terms, means to have one's body returned to its full potential after having lost that ability.

In that sense, restoration is a hidden theme in the world, a yearning that often goes unvoiced. In America, we have entire industries devoted to it: beyond the obvious fields like medicine or health supplements (Bill in Portland recommends omega 3 fish oils), there's Hollywood, which thrives on selling stories about the magic of childhood, or how to recapture that magic once it's lost. If you have any doubts about what's at stake there, think about the number of male actors partnered with much younger female counterparts. Restoration, indeed: Viagra is a billion-dollar industry all by itself.

If you wanted to go further afield, you could look at funeral homes as being in the business of selling preservation, extending your chances of being restored even after you're deader than a doornail.

And I'm not pointing fingers here. You could make a fairly solid case that religion sells restoration as well--spiritual and emotional, if not physical. Walk down the "inspiration" aisle of your local bookstore if you don't believe me.

In any case, you wouldn't think such a concept would have political consequences, but restoration does.

You can see them at work in today's gospel lesson. In the first section, we read about Jesus' calling of Matthew the tax collector††. Through Jesus' grace, Matthew is restored socially; he goes from being an outcast to being a welcome member of the inner circle. When Jesus is challenged on this score, the metaphor he reaches for is one of physical healing: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."

I wonder who would be an equivalent outcast in today's society?

We skip over a brief controversy story, which only underlines the political divisions between Jesus' camp and the Pharisees.

And then the evangelist moves in for the kill: we read the remarkable double-healing story of the girl thought to be dead and the woman who touches the fringe of Jesus' garment as he is on his way to the child's bedside.

The implications here are inescapable and unsettling. Jesus' power to restore us, to heal us physically, are linked to his power to cut across social divisions. The same grace that allows Jesus to bring a little girl back to life allows him to reach out to those found socially unacceptable. The woman who touches his garment understands this, and so she breaks social convention.††† Her boldness earns her not just healing, but a blessing from Jesus: "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well."

It's easy to read these words and congratulate ourselves as progressives on being "accepting" types. But if we confront them honestly, the answers might not seem so comforting.

Take the issue of stem cell research, for example. It seems like an easy call, right? Democrats are the party that advocates stem cell research, Republicans are the party that rejects it on religious grounds. Open and shut.

But what are we to do with the information that egg donors for such research have been paid for their contributions? This is not an abstract question; the donation process is invasive, painful, and carries a significant amount of risk for infertility and even death. At the same time, the therapies developed from such research will almost certainly be expensive, at least initially. We therefore run the risk of paying for the restoration of the bodies of the wealthy at the cost of the bodies of the poor.

Don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying that stem cell research is unethical, or that it should not be conducted. I am identifying a potential problem, however. How is it that we restore the bodies of poor women to their full potential without exploitation, while simultaneously restoring the bodies of those who would benefit from stem cell-derived therapies? More generally, how do we honor the priorities of such poor women, who are often economically and physically exploited, while doing the same for those who suffer from terrible diseases around the world?

You tell me.

Walk With the Least of These

2005-06-03T09:49:00.000-05:00

A birthday present fromAgape Press:

...[T]he vast majority of conservative Christians have disregarded that truth and the hundreds of other Scriptures that deal with the poor, the disenfranchised, the widows and the orphans. Dr. Diane Leclerc of Northwest Nazarene University pushes us further. It's not just that we intellectually disregard such scriptural teaching, she suggested recently at an academic conference; it is that we do so practically. Ask a Christian whether he loves the poor and he knows the correct response -- 'Sure.' Go a step further and ask for the names of the poor he has loved ... well, you may well get a steamy silence.

Republicans and the many conservative Christians that make up a good portion of that party need to face up to the teachings on compassion in Scripture. That doesn't mean, as [Howard] Dean would preach to us, that government ought to take more responsibility (although reasonable people can disagree on that one without calling each other hypocrites). And, frankly, without name-calling, I disagree with him and his party on a whole host of political concerns whether taxation, abortion, education, welfare, defense, etc.

But what we should all be able to do is this -- answer: 'What are the names of the poor people in whom I invest personal relationship, time, energy and money each week?' Howard Dean should be able to answer that adequately. As should Matt Friedeman. As should you.

If all the recent partisan bickering that has been going on among (and around) Christians leads to more of us committing ourselves to serving the poor, then that bickering will have been worth it.

Read this article, if for no other reason than it will probably be the last time you see Emma Goldman namechecked on this reliably conservative site.

God--bless them...

2005-06-03T09:17:00.000-05:00

Reuters:

The name of the Lord may no longer be taken in vain in the Dutch village of Staphorst.

Staphorst, in the so-called Dutch 'bible belt' of eastern towns where religion holds sway, approved a ban on swearing by 13-4 council votes.

But the caveat that swearing is not banned when it is an expression of the constitutional freedom of speech may make it difficult to punish offenders.

'A ban on swearing can be seen as a signal,' the council's proposal said, adding a change in moral values was needed to address the underlying problem."

Dangit

2005-06-03T08:22:00.000-05:00

The Guardian:

A hospital trust is considering removing Bibles from patients' bedsides for fear that they may be spreading the superbug MRSA, it emerged today.

The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust is meeting on Friday to discuss the health risks from copies of Gideon Bibles provided in patient lockers in Leicester's three main hospitals.
The trust wants to consult on the whether the books could increase the risk of spreading MRSA if they become contaminated with body fluids.

Gideons International, which distributes the Bibles widely in hospitals, hotels, cruise liners and prisons, said their removal would be 'outrageous'.

Take Action

2005-06-02T20:34:00.000-05:00

From the United Church of Christ Justice and Peace Network:

The Bush Administration has renewed efforts to develop a "bunker busting" nuclear bomb that would penetrate the ground before exploding in order to destroy underground targets. Two committees of the House of Representatives have blocked the Bush Administration's plans to fund development of the "bunker buster" bomb. The Senate is now slated to take up the Administration's $4 million funding request for the "bunker buster" weapon as part of the defense reauthorization debate beginning next week.

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or "bunker buster" bomb is a reconfigured nuclear bomb that would burrow into the ground to destroy deep bunkers. It would have an explosive capacity approximating 70 Hiroshima-sized bombs. Because it explodes deep in the ground, it would generate a huge amount of long-lasting radioactive fallout.

Pusuing development of the "bunker buster" nuclear bomb could well undermine U.S. efforts to convince other countries not to develop nuclear weapons. The United States has strongly criticized Iran and North Korea for moving to obtain equipment to produce weapons-grade nuclear materials and the ability to deliver them as nuclear bombs. There is real danger that in restarting a nuclear arms race by pursuing the development of new nuclear weapons, the United States will lose its credibility and leadership in the already struggling international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

Contact your senators and urge them to oppose funding for the "bunker buster" weapon.

To send a fax or e-mail message to your senators, click http://www.ucctakeaction.org/ctt.asp?u=3735004&l=95342

A Response to Atrios (Moral Polemic in 4 Easy Steps)

2005-06-02T20:09:00.000-05:00

Dear Duncan:

The other day, you asked us to show you how to turn progressive issues into moral ones. If you have a minute, I'd like to take you up on your offer.

A couple of preliminaries before we begin: first of all, despite my handle, I don't lead a congregation, other than the "congregation" on Daily Kos. So I'm not going to talk very much about educating the people in the pews, since I can't actually, er, practice what I preach on that score.

Second: I'm going to use this situation in Ohio as a case study. I'm assuming you've heard about it, but for the folks who are too lazy to follow the link, a conservative group is trying to politicize evangelical congregations, apparently to help Republicans generally and Ken Blackwell specifically. To my untrained eye, they're not breaking any laws, but they're sure bending the heck out of them.

Okay, so let's get down to it.

Start with the obvious: if you're going to make this a moral issue, you have to identify some kind of principle at stake. This is an area where being partisan won't cut it. "My team got screwed" is not a moral issue. Nobody with a brain in their head will hear it as a moral issue. This is dead as a moral issue. We need another angle.

The angle needs to give voice to a value that most or all Americans could agree with. That means it has to be oversimplified, to give it the broadest possible appeal. We're laying the groundwork here, and a lot of sophistimicated columbojumbo won't cut it. So "we keep politics and religion separate in this country" is good. But here's one that's even better: "it's not fair to use churches for politics. It hurts our politics, but more important, it hurts the people in our churches."

Now, before the secular crowd jumps on me for this one, let me explain why this works. It's true, for one thing: the separation clause is for everyone's benefit. But by framing it in those terms, we can tap into an even more deeply-rooted American value: it's not fair to screw the little guy. For better or worse, Americans think of politics and politicians as Fat Cats, and churches and church people as Regular Folks. That's not always the case these days, but it's the society's perception, and it'll win out over the facts. We might as well use it to our advantage.

So what's our moral issue? "It's not fair to use churches for politics. It damages the roots of our government, and it corrupts our faith. People come together to church, to the synagogue, to the temple, to worship in unity, not to be divided by partisan politics." (Notice how I'm working in the bit about division as well.)

Now, the right-wingers have thought this far ahead, and they have a response ready: "Oh, we're not doing partisan politics. We're just trying to live out our values. Why do you hate our values?" At this point, you may be tempted to slash one of them with a samurai sword while leaving the other in the hands of an angry, shotgun-wielding Ving Rhames. You must resist this temptation, as it does not help build a moral case.

Instead, you will need to apply the abstract principle to the specific details. If you've chosen your principle carefully, this shouldn't be too difficult. And in fact, if you look at the Ohio Restoration Project's examples of "Spiritual Warfare", you should be able to do this pretty quickly:

Teaching creation in our public schools has become a federal lawsuit.
Biblical definitions of marriage are being tragically altered by some judges who think they are smarter than God and begin to legislate secular dogma from the bench.
American universities have become the arteries of spiritual toxic waste.
"Homosexual marriages" are being paraded in 50 states
In some cities, abortions nearly outnumber births
HIV and sexually transmitted diseases will kill more Americans than every war this country has ever fought.
Secularists have hijacked our culture--one year at a time.
Denominational bigotry, division within the Body of Christ, and apostasy have weakened the voice of Biblical reason.
Around the globe, ministers of the Gospel are being threatened with "hate crimes" legislation.

Notice the same thing I do? Of nine bullet points, seven are connected to government activity in one form or another. Not one of them even attempts to discern what God is calling people to do. Not one cites a Biblical text. Nor is it difficult to discern which political party most closely represents these "values." This is less a list of values than it is the Republican party platform, coded negatively to fit the format. So if people disagree with these principles--which is to say, if they disagree with Republican social policy--then they are going to be told that they are not "really Christian." We've already seen it happen once; what's to say it's not going to happen again and again in Ohio? It's not nice to bully people in the pews with politics, and when you force them to take sides on government policy, that's exactly what you're doing.

Next, you need to throw in something about where you're coming from in particular. This is almost a paradox: in order to defend a universal principle, you have to talk about how you see it from anything but a universal perspective. But at the same time, you can't give it too individualistic a twist, because then you're just bloviating. What people want to hear is that you have the best interests of a particular group at heart.

For me, that's pretty easy. As a Christian pastor, I'm comfortable with reminding these folks of the lesson of the Hebrew prophets: that God's will may indeed be expressed through political faction or alliance, but that when it is, it always comes in the form of a concern for the poor, the powerless, and the vulnerable in society. And I see nothing in the list above that makes the life of the widow or the orphan any easier. Until they can come up with something that does that, I'm going to see this as nothing more than partisanship infiltrating the church.

For you, as a secular kind of guy, this might be a bit more difficult in that the angle isn't quite as obvious. But you can do it. Just keep in mind that whatever you say, it needs to be a.)true and b.)heartfelt. Don't pull any punches; do try to say something that helps build a bridge between you and your listener.

Because the last thing you're going to do is lay out an alternative vision. This is what makes Martin Luther King's rhetoric so captivating; he understood the need to give his listeners something positive to hold on to, after he made one of his withering critiques of the situation at hand. A moral issue is more than just a bitch session. In fact, that's one of the great shortcomings of Conservative Christianity these days: it's too focused on what other people are doing wrong, not enough on building a better world for everyone. So you've got to tell folks that you've got a better idea.

"I'd like to see all these preachers go jump in the lake" is a fine idea, and one I've heard many times before. Hell, I've even agreed with it sometimes. A better one might be "I'd like to see a country where churchgoers didn't feel like they had to toe the Republican party line to be people of faith." (I'm using that last phrase deliberately, as a way of recapturing the vocabulary.) Even better: "Ohio would be much better off if politicians would stop trying to corrupt churches to win votes." Or, if you want to throw another little twist in there: "Ohio would be much better off...win votes...Because elections aren't about values. They're about money, and those damn politicians will do anything to cover that up."

Let's put it all together:

It's not fair to use churches for politics. It hurts our political system, and it hurts the people in the pews. People come together to worship, not to be divided by politics, and that's exactly what happens when you force them to take sides on government policy. And as a pastor, I have to ask: where's the concern for the poor? For the powerless? For the vulnerable, for the widow and the orphan? It's not there. That's not faithful, not in the Christian tradition I know. So I have to say, I think this is a bad idea. I think Ohio would do a whole lot better if their politicians stopped trying to corrupt churches to win votes, and started trying to take care of people who have nothing to their names, and deserve a little help. Because isn't that what it's all about?

Well, someone can probably say it more eloquently than I can, but you get the idea. That's how you turn a progressive issue into a moral issue.

Hope that helps,

pastordan

WTF?

2005-06-02T20:04:00.000-05:00

Seriously. W. T. F.?

I hope all Texans will feel welcome Sunday at Calvary Cathedral.

Gov. Rick Perry is going to the church to sign bills restricting abortion and setting a vote on a definition-of-marriage constitutional amendment.

Sounds like this will have less to do with praise than with politics.

...

Asked about the choice of a church, he first said: "I try to go to church on Sunday."

He called Calvary Cathedral -- one of the largest churches in town, the home of the private-school Calvary Academy Conquerors -- a "great setting" for a bill signing and said he hopes for a "large and boisterous" crowd.

"Most Texans get it," he said, belittling the question. "The two issues talk about values. A church is an appropriate place to come together and celebrate a victory for the values of the people of Texas."

Ten-gallon hattip to jensequitur.

Call Him Malcolm

2005-06-02T13:26:00.000-05:00

Minister Hired By MN Church:

A 27-year-old minister, who had sex-change surgery from a woman to a man has been hired by a church in Minneapolis.

The Reverend Malcolm Himschoot, one of only a few transgendered clergy, will serve as an outreach minister at the 1800-member Plymouth Congregational Church. For the past year, Himschoot has been associate pastor at Denver Inner City Parish.

The transgendered minister, who's married to a woman, is the subject of the documentary 'Call Me Malcolm.' The film was produced by the United Church of Christ, which ordained Himschoot.

At Plymouth, Himschoot will work on affordable housing and at a center for the mentally ill, and will preside at weddings, funerals, baptisms and other church events.

One quibble, and it's one that even I fall into: one is "called" to a ministry, not "hired." God's the boss, is the idea.

Jeers! to disappointment

2005-06-02T09:29:00.000-05:00

Bitter, bitter disappointment:

"Their strategy is laced with contemporary humor and ageless pathos, but not always warmly received by all Christians. Why not?

For starters, their Web site is called, "XXXChurch.com--the No. 1 Christian porn site."

They titled their upcoming campaign, "National Porn Sunday," hoping 200 churches will simultaneously discuss from the pulpit pornography's evils, then invite parishioners back in the evening to see a documentary film explaining how Craig Gross and Mike Foster fashioned their Southern California ministry to rescue people from porn, offering love and, of course, accountability software, a 30-day confidential, "revolutionary new way to get help from pornography," books, CDs and T-shirts.

We were so hoping for Pope Benedict XVI pics.

Patricia Owen's Church

2005-06-01T20:27:00.000-05:00

Found this through one of those blog-chains that's almost impossible to describe.

So I won't.

The Revealer:

Blogger Too Beautiful catches an important omission in a Fort Worth Star-Telegram profile of controversial Bush judicial nominee Priscilla Owen. In what appears to be an attempt to humanize the widely-feared nominee, reporter Dave Montgomery notes Owens' involvement in her church's Sunday school. Fine. But should Montgomery have also noted that the church is as much in the fray as Owens? Too Beautiful did his homework and discovered that Owens' congregation left the Episcopal Church last year in protest of homosexual ordination. Seems like a salient detail, and one that the paper overlooked not because they were whitewashing it, but because reporters and editors likely file "church" under one catchall, feel-good category.

More here.

Whaddya mean Belafonte's already on the Enemies List?

2005-06-01T19:40:00.000-05:00

Talking Donkeys:

quote of the day

Bono when asked if he liked George W:

"Yes. As a man, I believed him when he said he was moved to also do something about the Aids pandemic. I believed him. Listen, I couldn't come from a more different place, politically, socially, geographically. I had to make a leap of faith to sit there. He didn't have to have me there at all. But you don't have to be harmonious on everything -- just one thing -- to get along with someone.

Harry Belafonte, one of my great heroes, an old-school leftist, told me a story about Bobby Kennedy, which changed my life -- indeed, pointed me in the direction I am going now politically.

Harry remembered a meeting with Martin Luther King when the civil rights movement had hit a wall in the early Sixties: "I tell you it was a depressing moment when Bobby Kennedy was made attorney-general. It was a very bad day for the civil rights movement.

"Bobby Kennedy was Irish. Those Irish were real racists; they didn't like the black man. They were just one step above the black man on the social ladder, and they made us feel it. They were all the police, they were the people who broke our balls on a daily basis.

"Bobby at that time was famously not interested in the civil rights movement. We knew we were in deep trouble. We were crestfallen, in despair, talking to Martin, moaning and groaning about the turn of events, when Dr King slammed his hand down and ordered us to stop the bitchin'.

"'Enough of this,' he said. 'Is there nobody here who's got something good to say about Bobby Kennedy?'

"We said: 'Martin, that's what we're telling ya! There is no one. There is nothing good to say about him. The guy's an Irish Catholic conservative badass, he's bad news.'

"To which Martin replied: 'Well, then, let's call this meeting to a close. We will re-adjourn when somebody has found one thing redeeming to say about Bobby Kennedy, because that, my friends, is the door through which our movement will pass'."

Well, it turned out that Bobby was very close with his bishop. So they befriended the one man who could get through to Bobby's soul and turned him into their Trojan horse.

Harry became emotional at the end of this tale: "When Bobby Kennedy lay dead on a Los Angeles pavement, there was no greater friend to the civil rights movement. There was no one we owed more of our progress to than that man."

Whether he was exaggerating or not, that was a great lesson for me, because what Dr King was saying was: Don't respond to caricature -- the left, the right, the progressives, the reactionary. Don't take people on rumour. Find the light in them, because that will further your cause."

They have faith, too

2005-06-01T19:37:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Carlos Stauffer for catching this:

E. J. Dionne Jr. writes:

The Catholics Reese's magazine spoke to, and often for, are loyal to their tradition but also understand, as the philosopher Michael Walzer has put it, that "traditions are sites for arguments." Traditions stay alive by nurturing a spirit that is at once loving and critical. If every question is kept open, there are no answers. But if too many questions are closed, the answers the tradition offers become steadily less compelling, less fresh and less persuasive.

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead," wrote the great religious historian Jaroslav Pelikan. "Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Father Reese stands for a living faith serene enough to argue with itself. I worry that's why he was asked to leave his post.

Nice of you to come--now sign this!

2005-06-01T19:23:00.000-05:00

Religious News Service:

Washington, June 1 - As Congress gears up for another go at expanding the Bush administration's faith-based initiative, dozens of mostly conservative black ministers have signed on to a statement endorsing the bill's controversial "charitable choice" provision, long a point of contention for Democrats.

Staffers from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives circulated the letter for signatures in advance of and during a private May 23 meeting between the black ministers and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The meeting's topic was ways the faith-based initiative could be expanded to aid Africans victimized by the spread of HIV.

But some critics say the letter, which endorses a domestic provision allowing American charities to discriminate based on a job applicant's religious beliefs, was the real point of the meeting.

...

Circulation of the letter at the Rice meeting helped the administration gather more signatures and drum up more support among black pastors.

But the Rev. Timothy McDonald, chair of the Washington-based African American Ministers in Action and minister at First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, said the administration had been dishonest about the real reason for the meeting with Rice, and the fine print of the letter.

"What angers me is the whole way they called the meeting talking about Africa and HIV and then they just sprung the letter on them," McDonald said. "The way it's being promoted is that you'll be able to get more money for your church to help with their programs, but they're not being told that they're signing something that condones discrimination."

McDonald said the letter had not been released to the public because many of the ministers had not known what they had signed.

"That's why they're keeping it so private, because they know once it goes public they won't be able to use them," he asserted. A similar thing happened, he said, when the Bush administration sought black support for government vouchers that could pay for religious education.

Towey said the letter had been circulating for about six weeks and had collected signatures from more than 30 prominent African-American pastors. He said his office would probably release the statement later this month because staff members were still trying to get more signatures.

I think I'll be very interested to see what that letter has to say.

Ve-e-e-ry interested.

Take a chill pill

2005-06-01T15:14:00.000-05:00

I don't know that I entirely agree with this CT Weblog post, but it's cute, and it does have a point:

Those worried that evangelicals' participation in politics may produce a theocracy may take comfort from Western Europe, where church and state have mingled for centuries. The closer church and state get, the more the church looks like the state.
Almost two years ago, a Danish minister said, "There is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection." After making the statement in an interview, Thorkild Grosboell was suspended by his bishop. But because the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the state church of Denmark, the bishop could not fire the disbelieving pastor. Only the government can do that, and "the government refused, saying he should be given another chance to explain himself to Jan Lindhardt, a regional bishop who has been one of his few defenders," according to the Associated Press. "Lindhardt has said that although he disagrees with Grosboell's views, there should be room for him in Denmark's state church."

On Sunday, Grosboell returned to his pulpit in Taarbaek. Grosboell recently renewed his ministry vows, but said his views about God have not changed.
In England, the intricacies of church/state relations have produced a strange requirement for gay clergy who are now allowed to register for civil unions. "The new law leaves [church officials] little choice but to accept the right of gay clergy to have civil partners," says the London Times. Despite the legal requirement, the church still requires gay clergy to remain celibate.

So the church compromised. "Homosexual priests in the Church of England will be allowed to 'marry' their boyfriends under a proposal drawn up by senior bishops, led by Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury... They will, however, have to give an assurance to their diocesan bishop that they will abstain from sex."

That's far from the Puritan requirement that a marriage be consummated before it is official.

Though the requirements may be changed before a final draft is approved by the House of Bishops, some bishops are already uncomfortable with them. "We all have clergy in gay partnerships in our dioceses, and there is a genuine reluctance on the part of a number of us to make their lives more difficult," said one bishop.

It seems those fearing theocracy have little to worry about.

Blending church and state has a tendency to defang one of those players. And when one of them slides off in an unexpected direction, things get interesting. (CT doesn't mention it, but the Greek Orthodox church has managed to tie the government in some pretty decent knots with one corruption scandal after another.)

Still, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to place money on the Dobson-Perkins-Robertson-Falwell-crowd losing their bite overnight. And given the kind of corruption that Ralph Reed has shown a propensity for getting into, neither am I confident that mere moralism is the issue here.

But ain't those Danes wacky?

Have You Ever Read Walt Whitman?

2005-05-31T14:53:00.000-05:00

It's Walt Whitman's birthday today, and The Writer's Almanac excerpts "Crossing Brookyn Ferry" in his honor:

It avails not, time nor place-distance avails not,
I am with you, you men and women of a generation, or ever
so many generations hence,
Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt,
Just as any of you is one of a living crowd, I was one of a
crowd,
Just as you are refresh'd by the gladness of the river and the
bright flow, I was refresh'd,
Just as you stand and lean on the rail, yet hurry with the
swift current, I stood yet was hurried,
Just as you look on the numberless masts of ships and the
thick-stemm'd pipes of steamboats, I look'd.

...

What is it, then, between us?
What is the count of the scores or hundreds of years
between us?

Whatever it is, it avails not-distance avails not, and place
avails not,
I too lived, Brooklyn of ample hills was mine,
I too walk'd the streets of Manhattan island, and bathed in
the waters around it,
I too felt the curious abrupt questionings stir within me,
In the day among crowds of people sometimes they came upon me,
In my walks home late at night, or as I lay in my bed, they came
upon me,
I too had been struck from the float forever held in solution,
I too had receiv'd identity by my body,
That I was I knew was of my body, and what I should be I
knew I should be of my body."

Happy 186th, you crazy old coot, wherever you are.

Guardian: Strawberry fields not forever

2005-05-31T14:48:00.000-05:00

According to the Guardian, the Strawberry Fields children's home is closing:

A spokeswoman said the building was shutting because it was now preferable for children to be cared for by a foster family or in a small group home, rather than within large residential institutions.

It's hard to argue with that logic; I agree with the principle of placing children in the least restrictive environment.

Still, it's a bit hard to take. I dunno about you, but when I was a kid, I thought Sgt. Pepper's was a children's album, same as Peter, Paul and Mommy.

So what can you say? Thanks for the memories, for all the good work, and God bless the children.

Ah, but do they have to sing in the choir?

2005-05-31T14:39:00.000-05:00

CNN.com:

LONDON, Kentucky (AP) -- A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab -- a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.
District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to "help people and their families."
"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.

Trust me, there are some choir directors who would be happy to pick up members this way, particularly if they could sing alto.

Surfacing

2005-05-30T15:33:00.000-05:00

I've been gone so long I hardly remember why I left in the first place.

It's a blur now: there was the Affirmation Project, which I failed to get off the ground in the way I intended. There was the Spiritual Progressives Online Conference at the Rockridge Institute, which actually worked out rather well. And there was the day job, and a couple of weeks of back problems (I still have to have four weeks of physical therapy for that), another week of allergies, a Daily Kos meetup in Harper's Ferry, and a general desire to have some kind of life.

By which I mean, of course, work in the yard.

So I'm going to blame it on the wild strawberry, and whatever other creeping vines have invaded my lawn. It's not their fault, but they were the last things to aggravate me, and they do make handy scapegoats. It's the least the little bastards can do, after all the time I've spent uprooting them.

In any case, I'm back. I apologize to the folks who tried to help with the Affirmation Project, and if there are any folks out there still reading this, I promise you some exciting things ahead. But not tomorrow, maybe. I still have to finish the office payroll.

To wrap up the Affirmation Project, it seems appropriate to hear from the Big Man Himself, an affirmation transcribed by "Wahoo":

My name is Jesus.

I believe the poor in spirit shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

I believe the meek shall possess the land.

I believe those who mourn shall be comforted.

I believe those who hunger and thirst after justice shall have their fill.

I believe the merciful shall themselves obtain mercy.

I believe the clean of heart shall see God.

I believe the peacemakers will be called the children of God.

I believe those that suffer persecution for justice' sake have obtained the kingdom of heaven.

I believe one should love one's neighbor as oneself.

I believe that what one does to the least among us is done to me.

I believe I already made this pretty clear. Can someone explain to me the confusion?

Scott M.

2005-05-30T15:12:00.000-05:00

My name is Scott Mitchell and I live in Everett, WA. I am an Episcopalian whose father and uncle are both priests and both Republicans. I am a progressive Democrat who believes that violence and aggression is wrong and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am an advocate for the homeless.

My belief in Jesus and my attempt to conform to his teaching requires that I put feeding the hungry and housing the homeless before amassing wealth and achieving social status.

I believe God is entirely capable of working in other people's lives to achieve His aim without my interference. I also believe God is immensely larger than I can imagine and that He gave His son as sacrifice for everyone's sin and wrongdoing. I believe God loves Hindus, Muslims, etc. no less than He loves me.

I believe my faith makes me a better citizen even though many of the views I hold distress my father. I believe in equal rights for every man, woman, and child in this nation I hold dear, regardless of their sexual identity, color, or choice of religion.

I believe we are heading towards a fascist theocracy that is contrary to the spirit of inclusiveness exemplified by God's desire to enter into a loving and healing relationship with each person on this earth.

As the earliest believers refused to be silenced by political and religious oppression, so do I refuse to be silenced by the oppression of those in this nation who seek to require submission to their own narrow and exclusive view of God.

I believe that people and nations reap what they sow, and because of that I pray for God's mercy on America.

Kate L.

2005-04-27T19:49:00.000-05:00

I am Kate L. I am a (not-yet-ordained) minister of the United Church of Christ. I am also a liberal Democrat, and an American. Raised in a non-religious household, I came to faith freely and uncoerced through the urging on the Holy Spirit. The Jesus I fell in love with in the gospels is a Lord who invites. He never forces. He offers us God, and he offers us himself. He makes no deals with the powers and principalities:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! for it is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.'" (Matthew 4.8-10)

Christian freedom and American freedom are not so different. Both call on us to work together in community. Both ask us to treat others with respect. Both emphasize freedom of conscience. Both ask us to act for the greater good, not merely our own self-interest. Both ask us to take time to discern what is true and good, rather than what confirms our own prejudices. Both ask us to include our opponents in the conversation, so that all have a voice and no one is unfairly silenced. Both stand against the harmful exercise of power.

I believe that I walk in Christ's spirit when I live my Christian beliefs rather than battering others with my particular brand of Christianity. I show solidarity with Jesus when I refuse to use power against others to have my own way. I obey him when I extend his hospitality to all kinds of people, even those who see the world very differently from me. To the extent that graces helps me do any of these things, however imperfectly, I believe it is helping me to be a pretty good citizen, too. I pray that Christians not continue to place stumbling blocks on the path to Jesus by our outrageous words and deeds. I pray we pause and consider whether we are bringing disgrace on the name of Jesus and driving good people away. I pray...

Eileen

2005-04-27T19:46:00.000-05:00

My name is Eileen and I live in Sterling, Virginia. I have been a Democrat since 1990. I am a Progressive...and I am a religious Jew.

I categorically reject claims made by some that Progressives are against people of faith. I am a Progressive because of my Jewish faith.

Judaism teaches me that we were all created in the image of God. Therefore, in faith, I work toward a world of respect and love for all, regardless of differences in faith, ideology, race, class, gender, age, abilities, or sexual orientation. Judaism teaches me to work for peace, as well as for the sustenance of the planet. Judaism also teaches me not to use God for my own ends, but rather to pray for God to use me for His.

When Bill Frist and the Family Research Council talk about people of faith, he isn't talking about me or my six million Jewish-American brothers and sisters. They aren't talking about the 10 million American Muslims, the 1.1 million American Hindus, two million American Buddhists, or even the tens of millions of Christian Americans who consider themselves politically progressive, liberal or moderate.

Because to Bill Frist and the Family Research Council, these people are not "People of Faith." The only true "people of Faith" in their eyes are Fundamentalist Christians who align themselves politically with the right-wing of the Republican Party.

Bill Frist and the Family Research Council do not speak for me. And I will not be silent while they pervert faith for their own political ends. I will not be silent while they take the Lord's name in vain.

Millions of Americans of Faith oppose the appointment of radical right-wing judges who seek to impose their religious will on the rest of us. And they oppose the overturning of longstanding Senate tradition in order to appoint those judges. They reject the selfishness, arrogance, and cruelty of the right-wing of the Republican party that ignores the poor, perpetuates hatred and division, contributes to the destruction of our environment, and wages immoral wars overseas.

Millions of Americans of Faith envision an America of tolerance, and peace, an America that uplifts the poor and defends the downtrodden and outcast among us, an America that lives in harmony with other nations and with our planet.

Millions of Americans of Faith are Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans. And millions of Americans of Faith are Progressives.

I am Jewish. I love the Lord my God "with all my heart, with, all my soul, and with all my might," in the words of my forbearers.

And I am a Progressive.

And I will not be silent.

Patricia P.

2005-04-27T19:43:00.000-05:00

My name is Patricia Puzzo and I'm a Christian who attends church
regularly and tries to live my life according to Jesus's teachings. I'm
currently a registered Democrat and my political leanings are to the
left, but I've been belonged to other political parties in the past. I
love Jesus and believe if everyone followed his path, the world would be
an incredible place filled with love and charity and devoid of wars and
hatred. But I also believe that Christianity isn't the only way to be
loving and charitable towards others. There are so many wonderful things
we can learn from all religions and spiritual paths, most of which are
far older than Christianity and from which Christianity has taken a
great deal.

I have many wonderful friends of various spiritual beliefs. Among them
are Christians, Jews, Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, Humanists, and people
who practice a mix of beliefs or none at all. And yet, each are caring,
loving, generous people who wouldn't hesitate to help me in times of
need as I would help them. I love all my friends dearly and respect
their spiritual decisions, as they are the only ones qualified to choose
the spiritual path that is best for them.

It's with deep sadness and anger that I hear and read the inflammatory
rhetoric of the fundamentalist Christian right that Democrats, and
actually anyone whose beliefs differ from those of the fundamentalists,
are anti-Christian. How dare they say such a thing! We Dems are in no
way, shape, or form anti-Christian. We *are*, however, firmly against
shoving our religion down other people's throats and trying to make our
country over into a Christian theocracy. This country was not founded on
any particular religion, but rather on religious freedom for all. One
need only read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to see
there is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere, and even God is referred
to by several ambiguous terms that could apply to many religions. This
country has always been, and must remain, a place of religious freedom
for all as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

My moral values tell me that every person in the world has worth and
that I should treat others with tolerance and respect, and that includes
not making a judgment about their beliefs, forcing my beliefs on them,
or discriminating against them because they don't believe the way I do.
However, the religious right obviously disagrees, and to them I simply
say, "Don't call yourselves Christians when you aren't willing to act
with true Christian intent." The God I was brought up believing in loves
every living thing, and we owe it to God to do the same.

Developments

2005-04-22T18:54:00.000-05:00

Apologies for not being able to post very much in the past couple of days.

There have been a number of developments today:

The LATimes, with the assistance of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) has broken a story on a Justice Sunday organizers' meeting in March that revealed some of their real agenda. More here.
DriveDemocracy and allied organizations are organizing a counter-rally in Louisville on Sunday. George Lakoff of Don't Think of An Elephant fame announces it here. Meanwhile, the church hosting the main event has tightened security.
The National Council of Churches has released a statement denouncing Justice Sunday. Of particular interest:
Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, plan to conduct a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast. The program is sponsored by Christian conservative organizations that want to build support for Dr. Frist's filibuster proposal.

Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.

"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."

Thanks to dKos' Newsie for providing the link.

Laura F.

2005-04-22T18:48:00.000-05:00

I am a Democrat who appreciates faith. I was raised in a Roman
Catholic household where faith was a very important matter. Each of
the children was expected to attend weekly mass and during school
expected to attend religious training. My faith is very important to
me and has proven to be a source of great strength during difficult
times. I admire anyone of faith for their faith.

I disagree with Senator Frist's characterization that Democrats are
"against people of faith." Nothing could be further from the truth. I,
for one, am appalled that the Senator would stoop so low as to smear
Democrats of faith such as he has done. Using religion as a brickbat
against Democrats is hypocritical and not worthy of his high office.
All people of faith regardless of their political affiliation should
demand that he retract such statements and apologize to Democrats.

Apologize, Senator Frist!

Regards,
Laura FitzPatrick
Seattle, WA

United Church of Christ

2005-04-22T18:44:00.000-05:00

Here's what the UCC Justice and Peace Network has to say about Bill Frist:

It is deeply disappointing that Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) has decided to polarize and divide the nation by joining with the Family Research Council to promote "Justice Sunday" on April 24th. The telecast event is intended to send the message that anyone who disagrees with President Bush's judicial nominees and anyone who supports the Senate filibuster rule is "against people of faith." Sen. Frist's support for this campaign moves the public dialogue to a new level of mean- spiritedness.

To suggest that faith and morality is only on one side of any policy issue severely damages public dialogue in our country. It runs counter to our country's cherished tradition of religious respect, tolerance and pluralism.

In an April 20th UC News release, UCC General Minister and President John Thomas notes that, "With all that threatens to divide Christians today, we don't need U.S. senators driving a wedge between us for self-serving political gain."

It is incumbent that people of faith urge Sen. Frist to reconsider his participation in "Justice Sunday", and to encourage all elected officials to uphold the values of fairness, integrity and mutual respect for differing viewpoints which are essential to a healthy democratic process.

To contact the office of Sen. Frist and urge him to reconsider his participation in "Justice Sunday" click here.

To link to the UC News release on "Justice Sunday" click here.

That second link should take you to a story quoting UCC President John Thomas on the story. Good stuff.

Harriet K.

2005-04-22T18:30:00.000-05:00

I am a Sunday School teacher at University Christian Church in Seattle, Washington.

Next Sunday is Earth Sunday. It's traditional in many churches to do special things to commemorate Earth Day.

After the children's sermon, each child is going to take an animal toy and put it on the altar.

The reader will call out the animals and the congregation will respond:

Thank you God for elephants

Thank you God for elephants

Thank you God for zebras

Thank you God for zebras

Thank you God for gorillas

Thank you God for gorillas

Thank you God for cows

Thank you God for cows

Thank you God for horses

Thank you God for horses

Thank you God for eagles

Thank you God for eagles

Then each child will light his or her candle, and we'll walk downstairs for a snack and another lesson.

To Whom It May Concern:

Why are you calling this day Justice Sunday? Judges protect families from environmental hazards. Judges impose sentences based on the law. Judges follow the decisions made in prior cases. When they change a precedent, I accept their decisions whether I like them or not.

It is especially shameful that you do this in a church. Many judges go to church!

If you are in a position of power, I would prefer that you spend your time figuring out how to do something useful on Earth Sunday, like making policy to help prevent mega-wildfires in the western United States. We have a lot of problems to solve and you should be planning for the long term.

Julia H.

2005-04-22T18:21:00.000-05:00

My name is Julia Hamilton. I will be entering seminary this Fall at the Harvard Divinity School to study for the ministry. I am a Unitarian Universalist.

I am American, and I consider myself a person of strong religious faith, but I am not Christian.

I reject the idea that one cannot be a good American without being Christian.

I reject the idea that my faith is judged by who I vote for.

I reject the idea that God has bestowed special favors on America over other nations.

My President is not my minister, or pastor, or rabbi, or imam, or pope.

My television is not my pulpit.

My congressmen and women are not my spiritual intermediaries.

I respect the Christian faith, as I do the Hebrew, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and the multitudes of other faiths that make up this great country of ours.

My faith is personal to me. I will share it with you, but I will not seek to convert you.

I am dedicated to keeping faith free, and that means a necessary separation of church and state.

I am proud of the role that my faith (Unitarian Universalism) has had in the hearts and minds of the leaders of our country, such as John and Abigail Adams and Thomas Paine.

I believe that people of all faiths should have the opportunity to be leaders of this country. There is no theological test required for the Presidency or any other office.

We the People established the constitution to secure the blessings of Liberty, not God. Any mention of deity was purposefully omitted from the Constitution of the United States of America.

The only hope we have of establishing a More Perfect Union is to allow each individual to find their own way to faith. For those of us who feel strong in our faith, it can be a source of inspiration and power. But for many, faith is a fragile, new and gentle thing, easily trampled by the will of the majority. We need to make room for this tender faith, and allow each person to blossom in time. This cannot be achieved by turning faith into a blunt political tool of intimidation, an inquisition of morality and righteousness, or a tidal wave of public anger.

Namaste.

Faithful America.org

2005-04-19T19:57:00.000-05:00

Has the Religious Right Gone Off the Deep End?
April 4, 2005

The far religious right, led by a radical right-wing political movement, is now trying to get their own ultra-conservative judges appointed to the courts by a shameless and decidedly Un-American tactic – touting those who differ with their views as anti-faith!

Take Action NOW or read on:

The far religious right, led by a radical right-wing political movement, is now trying to get their own ultra-conservative judges appointed to the courts by a shameless and decidedly Un-American tactic – touting those who differ with their views as anti-faith!

In an unprecedented display of bravado disclosed in an article by the New York Times , an ultra-right wing para-church organization, The Family Research Council, has organized a telecast scheduled for Sunday, April 24 that will portray those who oppose certain judicial nominations as "anti-Christian” or “anti-faith.” The event is entitled, “Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against Faith.” Senate majority leader Bill Frist has agreed to participate in the event!

Let me repeat. Your U.S. Senate majority leader Bill Frist has agreed to participate in an event that portrays those who oppose their choices for judicial nominees as 'anti-Faith' This must not stand, and we need your help to change it.

Think about it. Can anything be more Un-American? Has radical Christian fundamentalism now become the “state religion?” As people of a rich tapestry of faiths and beliefs, are we ready to roll over and let a fanatical right in power now use religion as a weapon to take political ground?

The systematic extermination of public opinion in the name of religion should give us all – regardless of our faith – reason for grave concern.

This so-called “Justice Sunday” is, in truth “JUST-US” Sunday. Their views are not the views of faithful people across this nation, but they may have their way in Washington if we don't speak up now!

The head of the para-church organization who is heading this event said:

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism… For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms." Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Exercising our right to question our politicians constitutes robbery? Can they really mean it?

We who love this country, who value its diversity of thought, its protections under the law, its respect for human dignity, must NOT sit idly by and watch our nation's leaders use religion to choke dialogue and turn people of faith against each other. The fact that the nation's Senate Majority leader is a participant in this affair signals a dangerous and unprecedented turning point in our nation's history.

Take Action NOW

Stacy J.

2005-04-19T19:55:00.000-05:00

My name is Stacy Jarrell and I live in Bristol, Tennessee. The same Tennessee that has Bill Frist as our Senator.

I AM A CHRISTIAN, although not always the best one, but I try to follow what Jesus wanted us to do. And when I falter, I know he will forgive me and still hold me in his hand. I ask him to guide my life and pray not for what I may want, but what He thinks is best.

I AM A CHRISTIAN who wants everyone to know of God's everlasting love. I look at the people Jesus hung around with and I shudder at what He would be called today. Somewhere, somehow those that judge us as "non-believers" because we don't agree with them forgot who Jesus ministered most to. He is the one that told us not to judge others and if God said it I believe it. And, as they say, that's good enough for me.

I AM A CHRISTIAN and I always thought - and still do think - that my life should emulate Christ's life. That I should do nothing that would be a stumbling block to anyone else coming to Christ. That it is my actions and not my words that make me a Christian.

I AM A CHRISTIAN, but that doesn't mean I should throw God's name around to make my opinions the right one. No one should claim to know the mind of God. He gave us the Bible to guide us, prayer to talk to him and free will to decide for ourselves. Swearing is not the only way of taking God's name in vain.

I AM A CHRISTIAN and a liberal. I believe God wants us to take care of those that need it. Whether it's a financial, spiritual or health burden. The least I can do is help my neighbor. If I have one and my neighbor has none - how can I not share?? It's what God told us to do. He was very pointed on how hard it is for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I pray for Him to provide what I need and trust in Him to do it.

I AM A CHRISTIAN that dreams of a world that shows the loving, inclusive nature of my God. Yes, He is capable of striking us down at any moment or forcing us to come to Him. Instead, in His wisdom, He has given us the joy of coming to Him of our own accord. I dream of a country - MY country - that allows us to use the free will he gave us to make our choices instead of one that berates or condemns us when our choice is not what the "Christians" in politics think it should be.

I AM A CHRISTIAN and more than anything I want people to know it without me ever saying a word to them. I want my life to show my faith. I will pray for those that would do me, and my faith, harm. It is the least I can do as a Christian. And I believe that Senator Frist is at the top of that list right now. I hope he will search his heart and listen when God speaks. It is never too late for forgiveness.

Stacy Jarrell,
Bristol, Tennessee

Bob

2005-04-19T19:54:00.000-05:00

Oh, those wacky Lutherans. Linky. Make sure you check out the "modified" picture...

Sheri D.

2005-04-19T19:50:00.000-05:00

Sheri D.

I am a lifelong Democrat and an ordained minister. I am more spiritual than I am religious and believe that the 5 major world faiths have more in common than differences so we need to unite and come together in love.

I walk in Spirit and know in the deepest regions of my being that we have been given a great national treasure and it is called the United States Constitution.

In the next 10 days the Republicans will try to use the "nuclear option" to seize absolute power to appoint judges who will roll back decades of progress in protecting worker rights, the environment, and privacy. The "nuclear option" is a parliamentary trick to eliminate the filibuster - the right to extend debate on controversial judicial nominations. Today our democracy is hanging by a few threads and if the "nuclear option" is successful then our democracy as we know it is gone.

One of the first judges the "nuclear option" would force through is Janice Rodgers Brown of California, who is nominated for the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, a common stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

Judge Brown follows an extremist judicial philosophy that calls for the courts to block Congress from guaranteeing such things as the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

If a federal judgcial nominee cannot gain the approval of both Democratic and Republican legislators, as our Constitution requires to ensure a fair court, then they have no business being considered for a lifetime judicial appointment.

I strongly oppose rolling back the filibuster in the Senate because the Democratic Senators represent more than than half the population of this country and these "minority" voices have the right to speak and exercise their power. The Republican leadership is behaving like power-drunk tyrants. Our founding fathers never intended for one political party to run this entire country. Indeed, it is our brilliantly vital system of checks and balances that has enabled America to survive 229 years.

I consider the Republican theocratic platform repugnant, arrogant, mean-spirited and a threat to the survival of America. The Christian right believes they know what is best for everyone, defines Christianity in a stifling way while catering to our lowest moral common denominator which is a puritanical zealotry. The Christian right's allies are corporate America (companies like Walmart) which care about little except furthering their capitalistic, short-sighted agenda.

My God is about love, unity, faith, choice, hope, grace, courage, redemption, wisdom and the circle. All are One and always will be.

From the minute Bush and the Christian right stole their way onto the
national political stage in 2000, he has sought to tear this country apart based on war, a cynical use of race, homophobia, class warfare and pettiness used as distractions. Due to a reckless, dishonest and dangerous leadership of the past four years, America is now in a downward spiral.

The good news is that all is in divine order and this is what America must go through in order to reclaim our system of checks and balances, remember what it means to truly participate in American democracy as citizens beyond simply voting, heal our relationship with the rest of the World and begin the process of spiritually cleansing ourselves.

I am 38 years old and was born and raised in America. Up until I discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I took a lot of things for granted, such as the assumption that Democratic and Republican politicians would always respect the US Constitution's separation between church and state, checks and balances, privilege logic over emotion, operate based on moderation and respecting the United Nations as the greatest hope and source of international unity. No more.

There comes a time when decent, reasonable Americans must take a stand and speak on their terms and organize and fight for the heart and soul of America and, by extension, the World. A grimy evil has come brazenly to the fore for all to see on American television during the Terri Schiavo televised tragedy and it must be rebuked by any means necessary.

As an ordained minister, my divine path is the fusion of spirituality and politics. The day is gone when we expect that it is enough to simply vote. We must fully participate in all aspects of democracy (organize, protest, lobby, write, run for office and inspire reform from the outside and inside our political system) as was done during the Civil Rights Movement which was the last great fusion of spirituality and politics. The time is here again.

By the end of George W. Bush's reign, America will no longer be a Superpower - and perhaps that is not a bad thing. For America's greatest promise and strength is the ability to inspire hope with our Constitution, humility and bridge-building. At our best, we inspire possibilities, healing, justice, wise moderation and choice.

We must commit to fight to retain the best parts of our American identity grounded in a progressive faith and politics of balance and love.

David R.

2005-04-18T21:06:00.000-05:00

My name is David R. I am a lifelong member of the United Church of Christ, having wholeheartedly embraced Christian discipleship beginning during confirmation class in my early teens. My faith has carried me through many times of personal struggle. I am a lay leader both in my home congregation and in my local Association of the United Church of Christ. My faith in God informs not only my participation in the life of my congregation and denomination, but my career, my civic involvements, and, yes, my political beliefs as a Democrat.

I was not always a Democrat. I grew up in a non-churchgoing but conservative family, and was confirmed in a rural UCC congregation that was and still is quite conservative. The pastor had little use for what he called "the social gospel." But we had a lay minister in the congregation who preached in the pastor's absence from time to time--and invariably his text was Jesus's parable of the sheep and the goats as recorded in Matthew 25. The lay minister's sermons reminded me that Jesus's test of discipleship was not orthodoxy of belief, but concern for "the least of these"-- that as we feed (or do not feed) the hungry and clothe (or do not clothe) the naked, we follow (or do not follow) Christ. The sermons of that lay minister have stuck with me, in a way that my childhood pastor's ruminations about the Second Coming have not.

My transition from Republican to Democrat began in my college years, when I attended a UCC church near campus in which the pastor, the college group leader, and many of the student members engaged in regular discussions of nonviolence and hunger issues, and saw this as part of their path of discipleship. While I did not at that time share these priorities, I learned to respect those who did. The transition accelerated in my 20's, when I came out as a gay man in the late 1980's, and spent much of the next several years in hospital rooms and memorial services, as friends and acquaintances, one after another, died of AIDS. Many of these friends and acquaintances died alone, estranged from or abandoned by families of origin, disowned by their faith communities, and cut off from their partners and "families of choice" due to the hospital visitation policies of the time. I could not reconcile what I saw happening to my friends with the heartless rhetoric about God's judgment coming from conservative churches, nor could I remain in a Republican party that tried to justify death-dealing policies with glib rhetoric about "God's will".

As a Democrat, my political priorities are in line with the values of my faith. The same Christian beliefs that lead me to volunteer at my church's food cupboard also motivate me to support legislation to increase the minimum wage, provide food stamps, and otherwise create a safety net to keep people from starving. The same Christian beliefs that lead me to welcome strangers at church and visit or telephone those who are sick and shut-in also motivate me to support social policies that are inclusive and supportive of people who are vulnerable and marginalized. The same Christian beliefs that motivate me to forgive others on a personal level and occasionally to visit those in prison, also motivate me to work for policies that gives offenders a chance at rehabilitation. The same Christian beliefs that lead me to sing hymns such as "For the Beauty of the Earth" also lead me to support environmental policies that maintain the beauty of the earth.

And yes, I'll say a word about gay marriage, since it is a hot-button topic today. My partner and I have been together now for nearly 16 years. We've been through some very difficult circumstances together, especially during our first decade together, and have come through the stronger for the experience. At the inception of our relationship, my partner was extremely hostile to the church, reflecting the hostility he had always experienced from organized religion. As time marched on and our relationship progressed, he began to drop in at church occasionally. After my current congregation voted to become Open and Affirming, his occasional visits became more frequent. Several years ago he joined my congregation. Within a year thereafter our pastor blessed our union with a covenanting ceremony, with most of the active members of the congregation in attendance. Far from being a stumbling block, our relationship and our faith commitment have been mutually supportive.

In short, my Democratic political affiliation is not in conflict with my faith, nor is it a substitute for faith, but it is one way in which I attempt to act on my faith.

Carolyn M.

2005-04-18T21:04:00.000-05:00

As a woman who is a Christian, praying daily and helping whoever I can in
the course of the day, as Jesus would have us to do, I believe that
telling truths is Christian, helping people to do the best they can is
Christian, casting no judgements on those I do not agree with is
Christian, respecting the needs and rights of each individual is
Christian. To this end, I work, with God's help. If getting rid of the
fillibuster so that human rights are further trampled on, I as a Christian
will be in great sorrow.

Carolyn Modeen,
Sun City AZ

Karen P.

2005-04-18T21:03:00.000-05:00

I am Karen Price, an ordained lay minister of the Community of Christ. Along with my fellow progressives, I am not hostile to faith, but must bravely state my opposition to the tactics of the Right and their anti-Christian behavior carried out in the name of Christ. We Progressives have been falsely accused in an age-old power-grab attempt.

When I was converted, my nature began to respond more and more to the progressive political agenda in this country until in 1987, I changed to the democratic party. I was and still am devoutly converted to Jesus Christ whose call to action is spelled out in the sermon on the mount. I have not found perfect people anywhere, but to grow spiritually I must identify with progressives who are in the forefront of those organizations striving to serve Jesus. "And they will say, 'Lord, when saw we thee sick, afflicted, hungered, naked, and in prison and ministered unto thee?' And I will say, whenever you did it unto the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me."

Just as today, Religion was used by the powerful at the time of Christ to increase their own power over the people. They were finally successful in preaching to the fearful that Jesus would destroy their religion and bring down their nation. I believe that I am on earth to become like the gentle teacher I worship, to never to tire of turning the other cheek. The sword He promised was a separation from sin, even if we had to separate ourselves from those closest to us, but the sword He spoke of was never an advocacy to violence. Instead He told us to leave the 90 and nine to save the one sinner, the one lost, the one fallen, not to turn our backs on a sinner.

He walked and talked and ate with the sinners and held up for example those who deeply repented of their sins. He lived to serve the lost, the fallen, the poor, the helpless. He never demonstrated the value of worrying about the things spoken divisively by the Christian right. In fact, the only righteous indignation He demonstrated was against the commercialization of the place of worship.

And now His religion is being politicized by the right and some followers are being taught to fear me and my fellow progressives falsely teaching that we would destroy their religion and bring down their nation. (Our nation.) They suppose they see our hearts and our sacrifices and call that which is good evil. These unauthorized judges will one day see the errors of their false judgments and at last follow the truth as detailed in the book they misread and at last hear the whispers of the One they misrepresent.

Sincerely,

Karen Price

Barbara M.

2005-04-18T21:01:00.000-05:00

My name is Barbara Medlock and I have worked in nursing and mental health for 30 years. I was raised a Catholic, hence am Christian. My beliefs in social justice, peace, choice, church/state separation, tolerance and true democratic principles put me in line with a progressive democratic domestic and foreign political agenda. I am no less a Christian for these beliefs nor for opposing the destruction of civil rights, oppression of the poor, corporate welfare and the imperialist agenda of our right-wing Republican government and the Christians they say they speak for.

I want all people to be represented by our elected government and a government who respects all people.

Barbara L. Medlock

Shawn A.

2005-04-18T20:58:00.000-05:00

My Name is Shawn Anthony. I am presently living in Lancaster, PA. I am
finishing my first year of seminary studies and tracking towards
parish ministry in the Unitarian Universalist Association. Yes, I am a
registered democrat and an espouser of a progressive philosophy of
life and being.

I believe in God.

I believe in the God of Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe in the religion of Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe in the Kingdom Jesus of Nazareth pointed toward. It is a
Kingdom of egalitarianism, freedom, equality, and justice.

I also have a wonderful wife and three children. I too love family. I
too adhere to a "family values" system.

I am a man of faith. I have faith in humanity, God, and love. These
things are not the property of republicans or democrats - they belong
to a universal humanity which refuses to be branded by the iron of
political power moves.

I am a human being who happens to be a progressive, a democrat, and a
religious liberal.

I would greatly appreciate the immediate cessation of your continual
practice of making those human beings who are different from you into
something they aren't for the sake of perpetuating your own political
power. This continued action on you part is seriously anti-religious,
anti-Christan, and anti-Christ. You need to stop it.

Thank you for not misrepresenting progressive religion, people, and
ideology any more. Perhaps you dignity will begin growing back at any
moment.

Sincerely,
Shawn Anthony

Karl W.

2005-04-18T20:56:00.000-05:00

I'm Karl Weber, a 51-year-old Christian, a member of the Episcopal church, and a proud progressive Democrat.

Raised in no religion, I attended Quaker meetings for a time when I was a teenager (along with my girlfriend, now my wife of 31 years). We became Episcopalians soon after our marriage and have been active members of four parishes in the years since then. In my case, I was drawn to the church partly by the writings of such great Anglicans as George Herbert, John Donne, and C.S. Lewis, as well as by meeting people of faith and social conscience who touched and inspired me--for example, the priests who founded and ran Emmaus House, a half-way house for ex-cons in New York's East Harlem.

For the past fourteen years, we've lived in Westchester County, New York, and worshiped in the church where our son was married, where our two grandchildren were baptized, and where all three of our grown-up children still attend from time to time. I have served as a vestry member, a Sunday school teacher, a lay reader and chalice bearer, and the editor of our parish newsletter.

I'm grateful to have a personal relationship with the God who created and loves me (although I don't always maintain my end of the relationship as faithfully as I should). And though there is so much about my God that I don't understand, there are some things I know to my marrow.

I know that God does not hate or reject any of the creatures that he made. I know that God gave all human beings intellects to be freely used, hearts with which to freely love, and talents to be freely shared, not hidden or repressed.

I also know that God is seeking a pathway into every human spirit, that each pathway is different, and that many of these are pathways that I will never fully comprehend. Recognizing God's presence in the deeds and words of Gandhi and Rumi, Nelson Mandela and Dorothy Day, Walt Whitman and H D Thoreau, Albert Einstein and Sojourner Truth, I know that God is not white or Black, male or female, gay or straight, Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Jew, but that he embraces them all.

And I know that anyone who professes to speak for God while sowing among his children seeds of dissension, resentment, jealousy, bitterness, arrogance, hatred, and fear is telling lies.

Katy T.

2005-04-18T20:44:00.000-05:00

My name is Katy T. I am a Democrat of faith. I am a member of the Greek Orthodox church. I love God, and I revere the teachings of Jesus. I am a Democrat because of my faith not in spite of it.

Jesus wanted us to care for the poor. Democrats think the needs of the poor come before the needs of the rich.

Jesus wanted to heal the sick. Democrats believe in people being able to afford medical care.

Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers. Democrats value peacemaking and diplomacy and try to make it work.

In addition to my faith, I fervently love my country, a country that was founded on liberty and the separation of church and state. I feel my country is in danger now, in danger of having its traditions of liberty stripped away, in danger of having its core, the Constitution, undermined by those who put partisan politics and their own thirst for power before the good of their country. That is why I am speaking out.

I can no longer stand silent while politicians demean my faith by playing politics with Christianity. Jesus did not allow himself to become a political tool.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Luke 20:25

I can no longer stand silent while hypocrites claim Jesus as their leader, but turn a deaf ear to his teachings.

"Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." Mark 11:17

Finally, I can no longer stand silent while false prophets claim to fight in Jesus's name, but instead do the Christian faith and our beloved nation harm in the pursuit of their own glorification.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-16

I am a Christian. I am a person of faith. I am a proud American. I am a Democrat. I ask that religion no longer be used as a partisan weapon in this country. The Senate fillibuster should be preserved because it is a valued American tradition that preserves the rights of the minority from oppression by the majority, not because it has anything to do with religion.

Robert E.

2005-04-18T20:40:00.000-05:00

That's the Rev. Robert Edgar to you, also known as the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches USA.

Thanks to Chuck Currie for the link!

Rick L.

2005-04-17T20:40:00.000-05:00

My name is Rick Ledbetter, and I follow the teachings of Jesus, as written in the Gospel of St. Thomas. I was brought up Presbyterian in the Deep South, then turned to Eastern philosophy in my 20's. I studied Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Buddhism, Confucius, as well as the Hindu faith. I learned about the spirituality of the American Indians. I read Doors of perception while "altered", and the books of Alan Watts, principally "Psychotherapy East and West". I learned Kung Fu as a spiritual discipline. I have gone to a lot of Christian churches, Catholic as well as Protestant. Had a relative who was a priest and attended a Jesuit college in a heavily Catholic town. One day, I reread the New Testament words of Jesus, and saw the remarkable similarities between what is taught in the East and what Jesus was saying to the people of Israel. I found the Gospel of St. Thomas and that became the foundation of what I follow today. I believe that no person should tell another what to believe unless asked. I believe that everyone should learn how to hear the voice of on their own. I do not believe on professing my beliefs in public, rather, through my actions and how I can help and inspire others. I do not believe in the idolatry of Jesus. that all said, I believe that this country has lost its way, and those in power are running us over a cliff. I am willing to stand up and make my voice heard to return this country to the principles of its founders. It is time to stand for what we know is right. It does not matter what faith a person may have, the principle of treating each other as we would ourselves is nearly universal, and should be the bedrock for all humanity. Bur wresting power from the corrupt ones that hold it now will not happen without a fight. And I will, as the person who stands against evil in the name of good.

Zoe W.

2005-04-17T20:08:00.000-05:00

My name is Zoe W, and I believe in the teachings of Christ and try to apply
them in my life, but I cannot call myself a Christian for personal reasons.
Still, I am a person of faith who reads the bible and who tries to live my life
according to the word of God.

It angers me that our elected officials have begun to define God as only
supporting the conservative agenda of the far religious right. They represent
but a tiny fraction of people of faith, yet they are pandered to every time
they scream about being "persecuted". None of these people has ever had to
suffer for their beliefs, and they have no idea what persecution is.
Persecution is being marched into a gas chamber en masse to be slaughtered.
Persecution is having everyone know you were sent to die, and having them all
shrug and turn away because they believed you deserved what you got. The Jews
were persecuted, and now the Muslims are being persecuted in their own
countries, but you on the religious right, whose lives have never been
threatened, you have never even imagined what real persecution is. You are all
hypocrites, and woe be to you for your follies.

I believe in an America where I as a person of faith can live in peace with
people of secular belief and other religions.

I believe in an America where justice is defined by the law, not by a few
religious extremists who think America is only for them.

I believe in an America where politicians discuss issues of substance like the
economy, education reform, or foreign policy, not which judge or politician is
what religion.

I believe in the America that our forefathers built, and that my ancestor
helped refine over the years. In our short history, we have accomplished so
much for the greater good of all our people, and to have all of that threatened
by the religious right is a travesty that cannot be met with silence. I will
stand up and let my voice rise at every suggestion that God is on the side of
the religious right, because God is not a politician.

Zoe E W.

Thurman H.

2005-04-17T20:05:00.000-05:00

Since when did it become necessary to become a
Republican to be a Christian?

My name is Thurman Hart and I live in Jersey City,
NJ. I was raised in an independent Church of Christ
and am currently a member of the United Methodist
Church. I was taught the Bible was the basis of
Christian belief from the time I could read. Much of
my childhood was spent memorizing Bible verses and
learning how each of these small bits tied together
into a cohesive theology. I stand today as a
Christian man to say that I oppose Senator Bill Frist,
Representative Tom DeLay, and anyone else who attempts
to twist the holy words of Jesus to further their own
political goals.

Jesus spoke these words almost two thousand years
ago, and Republicans would do well to remember them:
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All
therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that
observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for
they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and
grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders;
but they themselves will not move them with one of
their fingers." (Matthew 23: 2-4).

The Bible speaks harshly of leaders who mistreat the
poor and the weak while building their own wealth.
One of the Ten Commandments says very specifically,
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in
vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that
taketh his name in vain." Yet this is exactly what
the Republican leadership is doing when they say that
Democrats are opposing their judicial nominations
because they hate Christians. Republicans are lying
through their teeth and they are shaking their first
at the very Bible in which they say they believe.

The fact is that every single judicial appointment is
opposed because of a specific record of acts against
the best interests of justice. The fact is that the
very same people that Republicans are trying to put on
the bench are being put there because, and not
despite, they have issued a significant number of
verdicts and opinions that are not in keeping with the
mainstream view of justice. They certainly do not
reflect the words of Jesus who said, "Love each other
as I have loved you." Remember – Jesus loved us
enough to die for us. I don’t see Republicans even
opening their wallets for the rest of us.

Betsy

2005-04-17T19:56:00.000-05:00

My name is Betsy and I live in Southwest Florida. I'm an agnostic who is still pondering the truthfulness that a God exists, but I have studied the lessons of Jesus and believe in his message wholeheartedly. For that reason, I am a Democrat, because I believe in helping the poor, caring for the sick, clothing the naked, housing the homeless. Jesus was a liberal, his views are not synonymous with exclusion or targeting certain people for hatred. Those who want to intertwine politics with the Christian religion in hopes of creating a theocracy don't seem to care about the poor, the power they wish to use will not provide for anyone who is suffering on any grand scale, instead that power is a weapon to be used against those Jesus wants to help. Those who believe in such theocracy may say they believe in Christ but their actions say otherwise. They do not welcome the stranger, they welcome laws against the stranger, such as a ban on gay marriage. I am not gay myself, but I even I can see those who espouse such hatred do not follow Christ's message at all.

Whenever we are reminded that Jesus said "whatever you do to these little ones, you also do to me" we should all look at which policies we believe in and how those policies do or do not fit in with Jesus' admonition. Excluding others from society for any one reason or another excludes Jesus as well. We should let others be who they are, and let Jesus sort it out; anything less than that tells me those who espouse beliefs that target others do not believe in Jesus, they believe in their own human and ungodly power.

Humans who believe they are doing Jesus' work by creating laws against others are not doing Jesus' work at all, they are in fact working against a faith in Jesus and show us they do not believe Jesus can do it himself.

Pamela

2005-04-17T19:50:00.000-05:00

My name is Pamela and I live near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I am a Conservative Jew and a liberal Democrat. I wholeheartedly believe that a just and righteous society strives to tolerate and respect the beliefs and values of its members.

As an American citizen, I understand that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . " not Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion. I know that it is possible to exercise one’s own religion without infringing on another’s right to religious freedom.

As a person of faith, I resent religion being co-opted for political purposes as much as the hijacking of government for religious purposes. This country was founded by those who wanted to escape the imposition of a religion on non-adherents to that religion. Religion and Spirituality are personal matters; the details of my beliefs, how/what I practice are between G-d and me. It is my responsibility to live in accordance to my moral beliefs (religious or otherwise); it is your responsibility to live in accordance with yours. Just as it is not my right to impose my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on others, neither the government, nor another person has the right to require my life to be lived in accordance the doctrine of a religion other than my own.

As a person of faith I am disgusted at those among us willing to bastardize that faith in order to use religion as a weapon instead of a salve; focus on condemnation instead of love; legislate decisions for us lest we dare to exercise free will; and/or lay claim of knowledge to what cannot be known for their own political gain/ambition.

As a person of faith, I cringe at use of G-d as a mascot and religion as fodder for slogans/headlines and political campaigns. I do not understand the need for enforced, overt and hypocritical public displays of faith that Matthew 6:5 admonishes against: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father, who is unseen."

As a person of compassion I am aware that we are a diverse country and that tolerance and mutual respect are necessities in a civilized world, and I fully appreciate the true meaning of the words tolerance ("the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others") and respect "to avoid violation of or interference with" when used in this context.

As a person of conscience I am aware of the evil that can arise when the tyranny of the majority is visited upon the minority.

I was raised to believe the United States was a great and unique country. This was a country that learned from history, including our own. This was a land that freed the oppressed and fought the oppressors. This was a country where people could be who they were instead of hiding behind masks out of fear. Jefferson spoke of a wise government that would restrain people from injuring one another while affording its citizens the privacy to live and worship as they see fit providing they do not infringe on another’s equal right to do so. I want that to.

Baruch HaShem!

Christian K.

2005-04-17T19:41:00.000-05:00

My name is Christian Kendrick, and I was raised Presbyterian. I consider myself one to this day, though I am affiliated with no congregation or synod and both of my children were baptized in Episcopalian churches.

My religious views are an amalgam of Southern folk tradition, formal Presbyterian doctrine, life experiences and hopefully more than meager dash of learning behavior.

I have been shaped by the comments of older relatives, friends and self-perceptions. I was raised from early age to be aware that much was expected of me, that I had been blessed with a vast arsenal of talents, a trust that was guarded by the angels themselves. I was made aware of folk prophecy concerning my generation within the family, that I had an important part to play in a very important story.

But perhaps my great-aunts were crazy. After all, we are telling a Southern story, here. :)

More below the break. Much more.

The Folk Context of my Faith

Christians make out that their faith is shaped by Scripture and the teachings of their particular church. Sometimes, apocryphal and folk teachings creep into the mix.

This is quite true in the South. I assume it is the case elsewhere, else there would never be schisms and heresies.

I was raised to belief that the gift of prophecy was alive and well, that guardian angels were for real. I had a couple of near-lethal accidents as a child that reinforced this belief, one of them involving being run over by a car as a six-year old.

That a spiritual war for each and every soul in the cosmos was being fought, for as there were angels, there were demons. Perhaps those vast tracts of childhood, seemingly unprotected by any guardian angels per the folk accounts, are in fact conquered territory, at the mercy of the fallen ones. Perhaps I do not like to think too closely on a realm that my contemporary science cannot observe, and am in fact thankful that it cannot.

That God was real, and really interested in each and every one of us. I never thought too much on what God thought of other people as a child, save in terms of how much He thought of me. I remember thinking that the Hindu concept of the avatar made perfect sense -- that God had lots of avatars, an infinite number of them in fact, to handle watching over the little guys.

That there is free will, because unlike God, we do not experience all the dimensions of reality directly. Heck, we cannot even experience three-dimensional reality comprehensively, relying heavily on instrumentation to peer into the deeps of space, to pry loose the Pandoran secrets of the genome, to make X-ray pictures of cancerous lungs and pulse football field-wavelength radio waves into the heart of the Earth and look at the center of a planet that is, in fact, the center of nothing, save for part of the countenance of God.

I was raised to believe that to those whom much is given, much is expected, and that there is a dreadful price paid for not living up to one's side of the bargain.

In later life, I would come to learn personally what that meant for me, and then to look around me and see that almost no one truly honors their intended purpose, to the fullest of their talents, for fear and resentment and envy and simple doubt get in the way.

I was raised to accept that even tragedy has its place, that God is a good pool player, a real cosmic shark that makes all sorts of bankshots.

I was also raised to accept that the Devil has his way, quite often, for his work is enabled by human hands, mostly willing ones. Blessings come from God; injustice, now; that is the work of wicked men. The world where God dictated the spectrum of human happiness and sorrow does not exist; we are free and sovereign beings, free to afflict ourselves and one another if we so wish -- and we wish, oh so often, to do just that.

I was raised to see myself as something special, and fell to arrogance on many occasions.

Then I fell to despair, at having failed to meet the standard that ruled my life since birth.

Then I simply wanted to blend in, to be average, plain, to avoid Fate.

Oh, yes. I was raised to believe in Fate.

Then I got everything I wanted. A normal house, a normal career, a normal wife and kids. Middle-class happiness. My problems are shadows of the deprivations and torments that afflict the multitude of others, nothing compared to the self-inflicted agonies that I visited upon myself and others not so very long ago.

And yet I remain unsettled, for I feel the responsibility of not having taken, bravely and forthrightly, the path laid before me by the instructions of family and of my own faith.

And what was that path? That's just it. I have no idea, just vague instructions from older relatives, long since dead, to...fulfill, and a cryptic fragment told to me on my tenth birthday, the statement of a great-great-grandfather on his deathbed.

...it will fall to the fourth generation.

My great-great aunts Connie and Gladys shared this with me; they were among the youngest of nine daughters. My great-grandmother was the oldest, my grandmother the oldest, my mother the oldest.

I, however, am not the oldest, I told them. My brother is. Then what about all the cousins?

They said something else: None of them are left-handed. You are. So was our father.

That was a lot to lay on a kid.

So I ran.

And kept running for over twenty years.

But I think I know what I'm supposed to do now, thanks to visiting here late last September.

Lessons learned

Much of what has stuck with me from my religious education as a child is the apocrypha; I suspect the same is true for most persons, unless they adhere to a regimen of scriptural study and theological discourse worthy of a master seminarian --- or a scholarly monk.

For me, there is God, a speculative mystery for us all, and then there's me. My fumbling, bumbling journey down an ill-marked and ill-announced path -- then off of it as far as my spiritual legs could carry me - is my vocation, and mine alone. Your path is yours, and yours alone.

For Christians, Christ is the way, not Church is the way. But this is a gross, even abominable simplification of the responsibility for taking the path, and sticking to it, for learning as much empirically as from teachings how to live that path.

It is for each of us different, how to best exemplify our best purposes. However, I do not think that much of what I see the current Republican Party espousing as faith bears any resemblance whatsoever to my views -- nor to Scripture.

And for this rede, I shall stick to Scripture.

But I wanted you to see the context.

Note: this is a variation on a GOP email bashing Kerry a few months back. It was sent out by an aunt of mine...I replied to her entire email list.

Two relatives applauded the move.

My aunt has yet to speak to me again.

Castigation against the Right and their Religious Slander

What follows may come across as harsh, but these are in substance not my words, but rather The Word.

I write this to caution, not to admonish. This is the season when a free people chooses whom to entrust with the fate of the next four years, and perhaps for what span of years remains to the United States of America. It may be right soon, when last banner is furled and taps is played for the final time. I pray not, but it is not my place to choose, only in my small role to assist in the choosing of who shall act as servants of the people, who shall guide a free nation four years closer to its ultimate achievements.

I am troubled by the ease with which many cast what can only be called religious slander espoused by the leadership of the Republican Party in this dark and troubled hour.

I am troubled because everything I learned
and understand to be true about our faith says this sort of behavior is wrong, wrong, wrong.

But never mind what I think. Let's read together what God thinks about it:

Exodus 20:16: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Exodus 23:1: "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."

Those who would denounce and deny the faith of others had best be certain the charges had best ensure the charges are accurate ones.

Elsewhere, we read about the worth of persons of great power and reputation, and the futility of either in the search for salvation, or the use of either as measuring-sticks of goodness:

Matthew 19:16-17: "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
(Mark 10:17 , Luke 18:18 )

You can be certain of but one thing - the greatest among us is just a man, and as all men mortal since the casting-out from Eden. Further, everything that he has down to the bones in his skin is a gift. The only thing that is his, and at terrible cost in separation from God, is his willful, sinful soul, which is free to stumble back toward the light...or despair and sink into darkness.

In other words, he's just like you and me. He's a prisoner on death row, condemned to die, and there is no reprieve, only a leap of faith that the Resurrection awaits on the other side, that the last sighing good-bye in this Earth is not a parting of ways for the faithful, but a rejoicing at reunion with friends and loved ones who have gone before...and a promise to those who remain that this separation is but for a short time in the grand scheme of things.

Matthew 10:39: "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Which makes on wonder - Why the recourse to religious slander? Why take such chances, why depart from a course of embracing the Word as a shield, and taking dangerous license with its other usage -- as a sword? Surely, Jesus said -

Mathew 10:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword."

But who other than the Son of God is skilled enough to use The Word as a sword?

And who among the GOP elite has wisdom comparable to Christ to know whom to call 'enemy', and whom to call 'friend' on God's behalf?

There is no good man among them. No, not even one.

There is a difference between what is true, and what the mortal heart wants to be true, on account we are all born in sin and without constant prayer
and diligence, we are prone to see in the little wrongs of others shadows of the great wickedness without every one of our own hearts.

The Lord, however, doesn't miss a beat -

Proverbs 6:16-19:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Many claim the mantle of righteousness, and lacking the blessing of the Holy Spirit, cover evil schemes with loud claims and wordy prose.

Pause - Okay, so I'm going on a bit, here. I'm loud and wordy and scheming. :)

Matthew Chapter 6:1-6 speaks to how such posturing is both unnecessary..and unwelcome.

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Pubs want you praying secretly, so they can prey upon you and call you godless heathens. But God knows this, and has rewarded them in full; it's just a question of when the check will be cashed.

More on the "hypocrites" passage: I take this to mean that it is not the place of mortals to usurp God's judgment of the worth of any man's faith, or statements to that effect. God sees our true mettle as Christians, and dispenses rewards accordingly.

The philosopher Plato posed the question to his students: "Is it better to be virtuous and despised, or villanous and admired?"

The true Christian knows the answer without hesitation, since the lesson comes straight from the Gospel.

And yet, in a free society, we must judge both by prayer for insight and judgment as to the heart and works of those who hold stewardship over the
principle, power, prosperity and reputation of of a great nation. We cannot NOT judge; it is the law of our land to choose our stewards:

Luke 12:42-48:

The Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the right times? Blessed is that servant whom his lord will find doing so when he comes. Truly I tell you, that he will set him over all that he has. But if that servant says in his heart, 'My lord delays his coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken, then the lord of that servant will come in a day when he isn't expecting him, and in an hour that he doesn't know, and will cut him in two, and place his portion with the unfaithful. That servant, who knew his lord's will, and didn't prepare, nor do what he wanted, will be beaten with many stripes, but he who didn't know, and did things worthy of stripes, will be beaten with few stripes.

To whoever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.

We covered this verse above, at self-indulgent length, but it is worth repeating: To whoever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.

Take heed of the Word, if not my words. I pray that my commentary is a true and accurate understanding of the Scriptures, as best as has been given me to understand them. Let none be led astray by any misstep of mine. Let all come to the light in the time and fashion ordained by the father. For not even Pharoah was permitted to see the truth, until it served God's plan that He do so.

I do not think matters are any different in the age.

Yours in Christ,
Christian Kendrick

Jackie G.

2005-04-17T15:12:00.000-05:00

My name is Jackie Guensler and I am a Christian.

I am also a progressive.

I am very disturbed that some of our elected representatives in Washington think that the two are incompatible.

One of the great strengths of our great nation has been separation of church and state.

We are dangerously close to ignoring that fine tradition which has been a guiding force to all those who have walked the Halls of Congress before us.

If the representatives of the people of the United States use their Christian faith to guide them, then, as a fellow Christian, I urge those same members of Congress and The President to ask themselves in their hearts: What Would Jesus Do?

Would he promote wedge issues to divide people ?

Would he promote war ?

Would he try to make the wealthy even wealthier ?

Would he deny help to the sick and the poor and the needy ?

Would he try to block representation by the minority in the Senate ?

No !!!!!!

So, you see, Representatives of the people in Washington need to actually represent all the people and stop trying to divide the people of this country on religious grounds, for political gain.

And, most importantly, they need to remember that they are not in the Pulpit; they are governmental representatives. Sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

We are not a theocracy. We are a representative democracy.

Let us remain clearly so.

Amber

2005-04-17T15:09:00.000-05:00

My name is Amber and I am an atheist from Binghamton, New York.

I strongly support the right of everyone to worship, or not worship, whomever they choose. Religion and faith are very personal matters and I would never force my beliefs upon someone else.

I do not believe our constitution or founding fathers intended for the government to mandate a national religion or establish a theocracy. I expect our leaders to understand and accept the fact that there is a vast diversity in beliefs throughout the nation and govern justly.

I envision a nation where the poor, ill, young and elderly are cared for adequately, where differences in opinion and faith are treated with respect, where the American people are truly listened to rather than being manipulated by the press and religious leaders, where the government works to help people and not corporations, where bigotry is no longer acceptable, where women are allowed control over their bodies and lives, where everyone has the right to marry the person they love, and where we do not attack other countries without real provocation.

I wish to see America become the beacon of freedom and democracy that it claims to be.

Steven

2005-04-17T15:02:00.000-05:00

My name is Steven, and I live in the Georgia mountains. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church in the seventies, became Disciples of Christ, converted to Catholicism in 1998 and now attend the local Episcopal Church. Like every soul on this planet- 6 billion of us, all equal in God's eyes, I am on a journey. I am a Christian. I believe in the true Jesus. I publicly profess this. I affirm faith.

I strongly disagree with what the religious right is trying to do through federal legislation. I say this out of concern for my country. I believe we are slipping back through deliberate, planned steps- purposefully done- into some kind of Social Darwinism/ Gilded Age type of society, where the weak are trampled upon. I see no connection to the divine in this plan. Also, I believe these attempts to marry the political and the religious in such a strange way is hurting the community of believers, driving many away. So, I am also concerned about our faith.

I believe the United States can break through all this fear and divisiveness to become unified again. I think we can do it if we are all ready to compromise just a bit on our actions. Its' going to have to come from the people. They are going to have to be the ones to stand up to the politicians that are doing this and reject them at the ballot box. We can come together again. I know it.

Chet S.

2005-04-17T14:55:00.000-05:00

My name is Chet Scoville. I'm 36 years old; I'm married; I'm a blogger known as the Green Knight; I'm an Anglican Christian; and I'm a progressive.

I believe that we are to walk humbly and quietly with God, not to parade our religion on television and in the Senate chamber.

I believe that the peacemakers, not the warmongers, are the blessed.

I believe that true religion is helping the widows and orphans, that is, the weak, disadvantaged, and marginalized.

I believe that the kingdom of Heaven is not of this world, and that theocracy and empire are an idolatrous perversion of that kingdom.

I believe that politics that serve the cause of greed are antithetical to what God wishes.

I believe that the hatred and anger sown in America today are not of God.

All this I believe because the gospel of Christ tells it to me.

I also believe that the church should not be an arm of the state, or the state an arm of the church.

I also believe that the so-called "culture war" does not exist, but is a distraction devised by political elites to divide and conquer ordinary people.

I also believe that the right's attempt to impose one narrow version of Christianity on everyone else is a disaster of epic proportions.

And I believe that once religious exclusiveness is enshrined into law, the process of exclusion will never stop.

All this I believe because history tells it to all of us.

I will not stand for the perversion of my faith by the intolerant.

I will not back down from defending the truth.

I will not be quiet.

I will not cooperate with the dismantling of the Constitution.

I will not permit the blaspheming of the name of Christ by those who serve only raw power and greed.

And I will not submit to any but God.

Brad H.

2005-04-17T14:53:00.000-05:00

My name is Brad Houston. I am a 23-year old graduate student and
registered Democrat. I am also a Jewish-American, both culturally and
religiously. Far from the contention of the religious right that I am,
as a liberal, hostile to faith, I wholeheartedly embrace it.

There are those who might suggest that as a liberal Jew, my comments
on this matter might not "count" as much as those of liberal
Christians, or even that they are irrelevant. Respectfully, I
disagree. For the Family Research Council claims to speak for all
people of faith against the rule of law, which encompasses Judaism
just as much as it does Christianity. And as a person of faith, I am
infuriated that the FRC presumes to speak for me.

Rabbi Hillel, the renowned Talmudic scholar, was once asked to explain
the entire Torah while standing on one foot. The Rebbe replied: "That
which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the law;
the rest is commentary." It is a philosophy I have tried to follow,
and it was also espoused by the first-century rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef.
My brethren and sistren in the Christian faith know him better as
Jesus Christ. Yet, I wonder how well these men of God on the right
follow this basic precept.

Is not legislation designed to give a surfeit of riches to the already
prosperous at the expense of the poor and unfortunate hateful? Would
it not be better to design laws to help those less fortunate?

Is not discriminating against lesbians and gay men hateful? Would it
not be better to allow them the opportunity to have the same rights as
straight couples in the expression of their love?

Is not leading the country into an unnecessary war with 100,000+
civilian casualties hateful? Would it not be better to use war as a
last rather than a first resort?

Is not willful ignorance, and attempts to force that ignorance on
others, of basic precepts of the universe's function hateful? Would it
not be better to see Nature's methodical workings as an expression of
God's will unto itself?

Is not the attempt to impose your faith on others hateful? Would it
not be better to allow people to approach or not approach the Ultimate
Reality as they see fit?

Religion in the minds of these people is about what people CANNOT do.
In my mind, religion is about the basic goodness that people SHOULD
do. Religion in the minds of these people is about making the world in
accordance to their worldview. In my mind, religion is about making
the world better for people of ALL worldviews. And yet, theirs is the
religion that gets the attention, that causes the wars and calls for
the hate and the end of democracy as we know it.

I am tired of having my faith represented by these fringe elements of
the faith-based community. They do not speak for me, nor for the God
in whom I believe. Today I reject the Big Lie that one must be a
reactionary theocrat to be a person of faith.

I am a progressive and a man of faith. More than that, I am a
progressive BECAUSE I am a man of faith.

To help you understand...

2005-04-17T14:42:00.000-05:00

what this is all about, read this post by dKos' Armando, and then follow the link below:

Kenneth B.

2005-04-17T14:39:00.000-05:00

My name is Kenneth Bernstein. On various electronic fora I am known as Teacherken. Much of my life has been an inchoate search for meaning. During my almost 59 years of life I spent time in a variety of religions. While I am now officially a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), I have at various times attended regularly at synagogues (Reform, Conservative and Orthodox), been an active member of churches (Episcopalian and Orthodox Church in America), received a masters degree from a Roman Catholic seminary, taught comparative religion in synagogue, church and public high school. As I write this I sit in a room full of books on religion. Trained as a musician much of the music I love is derived from people's dedication to their faith, and I have served as a choir director in the Orthodox Church.

In my own search for meaning I have spent a summer in an Episcopalian Benedictine monastery, and had several extended stays on Mount Athos in Greece, where for almost a decade my personal spiritual father was the abbot of one of the monasteries. My wife --who is an active Orthodox Christian who is pro-life in every sense (including opposing the death penalty) as well as an ardent environmentalist -- and I were married in an Orthodox church ceremony. I do not believe that any reasonable person could consider us hostile to people of faith.

I am officially an independent, as I live in Virginia, which does not have party registration. I have voted for a few Republicans for local office over the years I have lived here, but I have never campaigned for anyone except Democrats. I consider myself quite liberal / progressive on most issues, although I do believe in fiscal responsibility in government. Thus the two presidential candidates about whom I have been most excited were both social liberals who were fiscal conservative, Fritz Hollings and Howard Dean.

Perhaps because I teach government, I am appalled by the misinterpretation of our Constitutional tradition that I hear from people like Tom Delay and Bill Frist, or from people who claim to be Christian. This nation was founded on principles of the enlightenment, with a conscious effort by most of the important founders to separate the government from religion, and thereby to protect religion from government. It is worth noting that even before the Constitution we had a strong tradition of this separation. When states wrote constitutions in 1776 to replace their colonial charters, many, like that of Pennsylvania, guaranteed religious freedom, that document near its beginning stating

That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship : And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.

The Constitution itself does not mention God, and clearly states in Article VI that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

As one who has seriously studied the Bible, I resent those who quote selectively, who use distorted translations, who ignore the clear import. I fail to see how anyone who would call themselves Christian could ignore the life of the Jesus of Nazareth who was criticized for dining with tax collectors and sinners. I am shocked at those who would prescribe harsh penalties for those they claim violate "God's laws" when Jesus challenged them by saying that only those who were themselves without sins should cast stones at the woman taken in adultery, or who challenged those condemning others for motes to look at the beams in their own eyes. And I cannot imagine that someone can consider themselves Christian when acting, saying, or implying that those who suffer in life because of poverty or hunger or nakedness or imprisonment have only themselves to blame when the clear words of Jesus in Matthew 25 is that how we will be measured will be by how we acted towards "the least of these" whom he calls his brethren.

My purpose in this message is not to engage in a bible quoting -- or Constitution quoting -- contest. As a person who believes deeply I want my religious beliefs to be free from government interference. Lincoln told us that as he would not want to be a slave neither would he want to be a slaveowner. I apply that as follows: I am a member a tiny religious minority, and I was born into a religious tradition that has been subject to discrimination and far worse. I value the protection offered me by our Constitution. As I would not want to be be oppressed because of my beliefs or what others might consider by unbelief, neither would I wish to impose my beliefs on others.

To any politician or those who seek political influence who wishes to impose one particular view of morality and religion, I say you are not only not acting an an American fashion, you are not acting in a Christian fashion. In your attempts to impose or mandate your beliefs you admit your fear that your ideas will not have appeal on their own. Perhaps that may be because those ideas are neither American nor Christian in their origin. Oh I grant that they may be developed by people who lived in the united States and who considered themselves Christian. But there are almost two billion Christians of various denominations around the world, and what you express would be alien to most of them. And as a student of history I know that Founders like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, to name just a few, would absolutely reject what you claim was their intent in the establishment of our system of government.

As a liberal, one influenced by the teaching of both the Jewish and Christian bibles, I know that to live a faith based on either or both of those documents requires humility -- men do not, after all, have the mind of God. Such a life requires a recognition of our responsibility as individuals and as a society for those not well off. Such a life could not find support for the doctrine of unfettered capitalism that offers no concern for the poor -- after all one Mitzvah for the Jew was to leave the corners of the field unharvested so that the poor might have something to eat. There is no justification in either "Testament" for greed, for self-aggrandizement and justification, for seeking power in order to accumulate wealth, or for seeking power merely to be powerful. Rather, both collections of spiritual wisdom offer many condemnations of those who mistreat the poor, or show a lack of hospitality to strangers, the Jewish Bible pointedly reminding its readers that they are not to deny justice to the sojourner in their land because they themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

I will not condemn you if I think you are wrong. I will hope that you will allow the spirit of God as you know it to fill you with love. In the words of John, men will know that people are disciples of Jesus because they will love one another even as he has loved them. And I will not accept that you have any moral authority to condemn those with whom you disagree. That surely shows a lack of faith in a God who is all loving, who is thus capable of persuading all to turn to him.

I respect those whose belief may be different than mine. That is why I believe so strongly in the separation of Church (or synagogue, temple, pagoda, or mosque) and state. Insofar as you will advocate against such separation, I will oppose you. I will oppose you as violating the principles on which our nation was founded. And I will oppose you as violating the clear intent of the teaching of Jesus, and the far broader understanding of the Christian world both in much of the past and in much of the world today. It is precisely because I respect people of faith that I will do so.

Michael

2005-04-17T14:37:00.000-05:00

My name is Michael, and I live in DeKalb, Illinois. I am an adult convert to Roman Catholicism and a practitioner of zazen meditation. I hold a lay minister's certificate in liturgy in the Diocese of Rockford, and have been very active in my local church community in the past. I have twice made pilgrimage to the Holy Land (in 1998 and 2000), and once to Rome, for the Great Jubilee of 2000. My religious beliefs were but one of the reasons I cast my vote in 2004 for Sen. John Kerry.

I say all of that not to brag, but to demonstrate exactly how ridiculous is the idea, put forward by people calling themselves Republicans and Christians, that anyone who opposes Mr. Bush's atrocious policies must ipso facto be hostile to the faith or to other people of faith. I call that allegation exactly what it is: hogwash.

My faith is not threatened by liberals: it's far more likely to be put into practice by them. Indeed, one of the reasons I am myself a liberal is that I can't see any other way of behaving if I want to remain faithful to the principles of my faith tradition. More than a century ago, Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum novarum, the first so-called "social" encyclical. While it denounced the socialists and found that there was absolutely a right to private property, that encyclical also enjoined upon "the wealthy owner and the employer" the duties of treating their employees as persons "ennobled by Christian character," noting that it was "truly shameful and inhuman" to treat workers "as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers." Employers were enjoined to give their workers time off for their religious duties, and to see to it that they did not neglect "home and family" or squander their earnings. Their "great and principal duty is to give every one what is just."

Pope Leo wasn't just pulling those phrases out of thin air, either. Jesus told his disciples (Luke 10:7, my translation from the original Greek) "The worker is worthy of his pay" and also this (Matthew 25:31-40, my translation):

Whenever the Son of Man may come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then will he sit upon the throne of his glory. He shall gather together before him all the nations, and he shall separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He shall place the sheep at his right hand, and the goats at his left.
Then the Ruler will say to those on his right, "Come here, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the realm that was prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, sick and you watched over me, I was in prison and you came to me."
Then the just will respond to him and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you to drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison and come to you?"
And the Ruler will answer them, saying, "I solemnly assure you, as often as you did so for one of the least of my brothers or sisters, you did it for me."

That passage does sound an awful lot like a political platform. It just doesn't sound anything like the Republican one. It certainly doesn't sound like the policies this administration has enacted.

And that is why I am so upset at these people's attempt to hijack my faith for their political ends. Mr. Bush claims to be a Christian, but his actions belie his words. As Jesus himself said (Matthew 7:16), it's the actions that count: "By their fruits shall you know them" and again (7:21), "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, lord' will enter into the Realm of Heaven, but rather that one doing the will of my Father in heaven."

Rather than admit that he's not doing a good job of living up to the faith he claims to profess, Mr. Bush prefers to attack the faith of anyone who happens to disagree with him, the better to ramrod his hateful policies through a recalcitrant Congress and force them upon a population that seems increasingly not to trust him.

The First Amendment to our Constitution gives Mr. Bush the right to believe as he chooses. It gives me exactly the same right, and it also prohibits our government from either forcing one brand of religion on all of its citizens or from interfering in how we choose to live out our beliefs, as long as we don't break any laws in doing so.

I think our founders got that position exactly right. Nobody should be allowed to tell anyone else how they should believe, what manner of life they should live, or how they should put their own faith into action. Are there things I would like to see in the laws of our land? Absolutely. But unless I can find solid reasons to enact those provisions into law that are not bound up solely with the tenets of my faith, I'm going to be unsuccessful in that endeavor--and that's the way it should be.

I came to Catholicism as an adult of my own free will. I would not want anybody to be able to tell me that I either had to join that church, or that I could not. Consequently, if I want that freedom for myself, by what right do I deny it to anyone else? I recognize that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about ultimate things, and that in no way threatens my faith or my church--or my government. I believe, with the Catholic Church, that there is a spark of truth in all religions that are not oriented specifically toward evil, and for my part I believe in dialogue with those other traditions, so I can try to learn from them that facet of the Truth that they, and they alone, see most clearly.

So no, Senator Frist, I am not hostile to faith or to people of faith. But I'll tell you what I am hostile toward: wolves in sheep's clothing who parade around wearing their faith upon their sleeves and proclaiming it loudly on the street corners and in the marketplaces, but whose actions demonstrate that their allegiance is not to the Most High but to Mammon. I am unshakeably hostile to people who prate on about freedom and democracy, yet seek to destroy both of those things not only abroad but also here at home. I will rail against anyone who suggests that I should give up even the least and littlest of my civil rights in the name of some trumped-up war on a nebulous terrorist enemy that we can neither define nor catch. I will protest, vociferously but peacefully, anyone who attempts to prosecute aggressive war in my name. I will work to defeat anyone who attempts to dismantle the social safety net that keeps our youngest and our oldest citizens safely housed and fed and cared for, and offers a helping hand to anyone who needs it. I will not hesitate to cry out that the emperor has no clothes when he claims to act out of a concern for the ordinary citizen but in reality only enriches the already-wealthy corporate fatcats who would fleece him of his last dime and do it gleefully. I will oppose, with every fiber of my being, any politician, any so-called priest or minister, and any judge or judicial nominee who attempts to violate the constitutionally mandated separation of powers (or the separation of church and state), or to impose any kind of a religious test for public office. I will not brook any unwarranted governmental interference in my private affairs--of whatever kind.

You are calling your attempt to do all of those things "Justice Sunday." I will suggest to you, sir, that you do not understand either the meaning of the word "justice," or the respect that the Sabbath day is due. If you did, you would not now be pushing the false dilemma of a young man having to choose between public service and faith, nor would you be working for political gain (which surely counts as "work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God" within the meaning of No. 2185 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you should know well, given your claim to be a practicing Catholic) on the Sabbath.

I reject out-of-hand the corporatist, elitist, and warmongering agenda of the Republican leadership. It is not worthy of consideration by serious people of any faith, based as it is on entirely selfish and self-centered principles, and given that it has manifestly resulted in tremendous suffering for people both here in the United States and abroad. But I do not do that out of any hostility to faith: far from it. I do it precisely because I am a person of faith, and I hold fast to the principles that Jesus taught in the Gospels: caring for the widow and the orphan and the poor among us, sharing my bread with the needy, sustaining the sick and those in prison, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's but at the same time never forgetting to render to God what is God's, and God's alone.

I recommend the same course to you, Mr. Frist, and to you, Mr. Bush, and to all of your fellow Republican leaders. Let me paraphrase for you a few other words from the Scriptures (Matthew 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27; my translation from the Greek):

Woe to you, neoconservatives and Republicans, hypocrites, for you slam shut the Realm of Heaven in people's faces. You will not go in yourselves, but neither will you allow anyone else to go in.
Woe to you, neoconservatives and Republicans, hypocrites, for you go all over lands and seas to make a single convert, and when you get him, you make him a child of hell twice as bad as yourselves.
Woe to you, neoconservatives and Republicans, hypocrites, for you tithe on mint and dill and cumin but neglect the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith: you ought to have been doing those things, not leaving them behind!
Woe to you, neoconservatives and Republicans, hypocrites, for you are become like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but which are filled up inside with the bones of the dead and all kinds of filth.