Next Steps

 

In 2008 I voted for a Democrat for President for the first time. I did so, not because I agreed with everything that all Democrats said, then or now, but because first and foremost, I had come to believe that ensuring access to healthcare was a fundamental good, which would benefit all of us. One of those benefits was reducing abortion. There were other reasons too, but that was the chief one. That President Obama proposed to take the conservative Heritage Foundation's approach further gave me confidence that he was the right person for the job.

When Republicans pledged to make Obama a one-term President, and absolutely refused to work with him, their true colors started to show though. I believe that was the point that the Republican party started down the path that led to yesterday's assault on democracy.

But returning to why I first voted for a Democrat, I realized that I simply did not agree with several basic conservative ideas, especially when elevated to the point of dogma. For example, the idea that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than a government approach, the size and use of the military, foreign wars and what not, and the priority we should place on the national debt. (It seems we are all in agreement on that last one, at least for the next two weeks. Get ready to hear all about the national debt next month.)

I suspect that in the coming months, with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House, they may go too far, and I will not always agree with what Democrats say. For that reason, while I have been vociferously opposed to President Trump, I don't usually advocate for any particular politician. They can advocate for themselves.

Fundamentally, I changed who I voted for because the Republican party and I both changed. There are Republicans like Mitt Romney, John McCain, and John Kasich (RINO's they are now known as in the Grand Old Party of Donald Trump) that I would vote for over some Democrats, especially if any given Democrat were to adopt a position as radically left-wing totalitarian as Donald Trump is fascist.

I stopped voting for Republicans, because Republicans did not represent my ideals.

I want to encourage you to help continue this trend.

In the next election, based on what has been perpetrated by a Republican President these past four years, and which culminated in yesterday's assault on democracy, consider if someone else can better represent you.

Lest we say that it is not Republicans but Donald Trump and a relatively small group of supporters that have done this, remember that Trump was selected from a slate of 14 options that included so many men and women more qualified then this child with totalitarian impulses.

He was democratically selected. He is the standard beror, chosen by the Republican people. He has been enabled for four years. People that finally stood up to him yesterday, Pence and McConnell for example, they helped bring this about. If what you saw yesterday is not you, leave the party. Change who you consistently vote for, even though you do not consider yourself a part of that party. (Like I'm not a Democrat, but I consistently vote for them right now.)

Now, here is the catch. Do not grow attached to any given alternative to the Republicans. In time they too may try the ties that bind us. Stand apart. Advocate for public policies you believe in. But don't unequivocally join a tribe.

Let Trumpism and the rotting Republican party be a cautionary tale.

Instead, enlargen the walls of the tent, and let all who love democracy come in.

Where should Republicans go from here? Here are my thoughts as an outsider, with lots of Republican friends I respect.

First, we need a healthy Republican party, or some follow-on to the party. I as an American first, want this for two reasons. First, because we need checks and balances, and without a loyal opposition of high integrity, Democrats will run off the rails. It's just human nature. Second, because the people that voted for all the Republicans up and down the tickets across the country are not going away (unless I can convince them to all vote for Democrats i.e. my post above LOL). But seriously, all people need good representatives.

While I am not likely to agree with Republican public policy positions or vote for them any time soon, I want them to exist and be a healthy party, with good representatives of high moral character.

If we could raise up a new party, that would be fine, but I don't think that is likely. I would say clean house, but I am not sure that is any more likely in the short term.

You may see an extremely conservative minority party emerge that is more professional, and less totalitarian than Trump. One led by people like Pence. But that would render them a regional party.

Republicans should not hold power in any significant way in the near term. They have forfeited that right temporarily. (That is, that is what should happen if the majority of voters agree with me.) But Republicans will re-emerge. And they should.

It is said that when a Supreme Court justice writes a minority (losing) opinion, they write for the future. Sometimes their minority position, or something like it is adopted at a later date. It is a sign post saying, "not all agree, there is a better way." We need Republicans to write the minority opinions, that we may return to in time if Democrats make poor choices. (And they will make some.)

Or to use another analogy from the world of law. We need a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a judge and jury, in every case. Each has a role to play. Even when the defendant is guilty as sin.

In the short term I don't personally want Republicans to win elections. (Not because I am a Democrat, but because I don't agree with their public policy positions.) But they will win some, and we need them there to hold Democrats responsible--just as a good defense attorney holds a prosecutor accountable to doing their job the right way. A good prosecutor is a professional who respects the Constitution, in part because there is a defense attorney there to make sure that happens.

We need checks and balances. If the Republican party is rotten, then there is no one to hold Democrats accountable, and we need them held accountable.

Then, if Republicans evolve, and if things change over time with the passing of a generation, as they surely will, and if Democrats overreach, as they surely will to some extent, then you may just see me vote for a Republican again someday. Maybe. But not likely anytime soon.

Brief analysis of appellate court voting opinions

Here is one lawyer's take on what you are seeing out of the appellate courts in regards to ballet counting.* I think you will find this even-handed, but feel free to critique or set me straight on what the law says. (For the full argument you need to read the full post.)

As far as I can tell, the courts are consistently requiring states to follow state statute, (passed by both houses of a state's congress, and signed by the governor) and are not allowing state administrators or anyone else to make one-time changes based on Covid-19 or any other reason. That seems fair on its face.

They have also previously indicated that they are looking to enforce the status quo, and not allow last minute changes, which they have previously done in prior court cases as well. One can reasonably object that the court's intervention at the last minute is itself a late intervention, and I think that criticism has traction, but they would say they are putting the ball back on the line of scrimmage, after it was moved without permission.

These observations may also explain why we are likely to see different rules in different states. The courts are generally holding each state accountable to their own state statutes, and those statutes vary by state. This may result in a requirement that ballots be received by election day in one state, but merely postmarked by election day in another state.

Rather than looking at these rulings as benefiting Republicans or Democrats, or being handed down by judges appointed by Republicans or Democrats, (though it is hard not to notice the consistency of the prejudice by judges on both sides) we should look at the what state statutes, state constitutions, and the Constitution of the United States say.

On their face, most of the court's rulings appear to be largely fair, and simply an enforcement of each state's neutral election laws.

Here is why they are wrong.

In the context of a global pandemic, strictly enforcing state laws infringes on the right to vote. (The same could be true in the future, due to some other outside disruption, like a terrorist attack on the day of the election, especially one targeted at polling sites.)

This right was most clearly articulated by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Reynolds v. Sims 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964), when he said, “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. [...] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society."

The state statutes do this, without intent, because they fail to protect all citizen's right to vote in the context of a pandemic.

In addition, the impact of Covid-19 has a disproportionate impact on protected groups. Therefore in application, the law unintentionally violates these citizens right to vote in particular. This violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

While the right to vote was not originally granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution, the 26th Amendment extended the obvious, but as yet unwritten right to vote to all people over the age of 18. (Unwritten in the US Constitution.)

It would be a strange thing indeed then to say that the Constitution does not grant a right, which the 26th amendment grants to all adults, by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age.

In fact, four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (Fifteenth Amendment, 1870)

"On account of sex" (Nineteenth Amendment, 1920)

"By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" for federal elections (Twenty-fourth Amendment, 1964)

"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (Twenty-sixth Amendment, 1971)

(Hat-tip to Wikipedia for that last little bit)

Note that those who regularly make use of arguments based on what the text says, or what its original meaning was, rarely want to take a close look at the original intent of the various amendments. (Conservatives are especially allergic to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.) In the next few days you are likely to hear some talking heads state that the Constitution does not give anyone the right to vote. It does.

State law as recently applied by the courts, violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because even though they are written and intended to be neutral laws, as applied in our current context, the laws have a disproportionate impact on a number of protected groups, including women and people of color.

In other legal contexts, we have precedence for how to deal with instances where a law that was intended to be neutral, nonetheless has a disproportionate impact on one group or another. Some of these examples have to do with religious freedom. So it is strange fruit indeed, when one finds that a certain way of reading the law is employed one way in one instance, (to protect religious freedom) but is then entirely discarded later on, leaving the right to vote for so many, dangling from a tree. *I do not practice voting rights law, or constitutional law. Outside of law school, I have not studied these matters in-depth. Just as you should question doctors whose views seem questionable, so too should you question any given lawyer's views. A law degree does not make one smart or wise. To the contrary, many of us are dumb. : )

Why some of us Evangelicals will be voting for a Democrat come fall

In many circles it goes without saying that Evangelical Christians can vote for any reasonable candidate on either side of the aisle, and that this is a large and diverse group of people. However that truth is not understood everywhere. There are those both in the movement and outside of it who think of this branch of Christianity as a singular monolith. Because of that I want to put into writing an alternative perspective, an explanation as to why some Christians with Evangelical religious beliefs vote for Democrats.

In addition, I think this explanation is in order because, while there has been a necessary outcry about Donald Trump, others have reasonably pushed back and said, but what about the Democratic candidates and their support of abortion? Aren't they just as immoral as Donald Trump if not more so?  That is a fare question, assuming abortion is immoral. 

Here is our answer.

We have become disillusioned with the notion of a Christian candidate. We no longer believe what we have come to see as amoral conservative propaganda, peddled in and around church.

We are not under the illusion that a vote for Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders is a vote for God's candidate, but we are concerned about those that think a vote for any candidate that calls himself a Christian or an Evangelical is, even if they are authentically evangelical. Effective public policy is not directly tied to ones beliefs about God.

Because like all evangelicals, we read Scripture, understand Christ's value for life, and refuse to check our values at the door, we value all policies that tend to create life, and disagree with all policies that tend to cause death. Because of this we are pro-creation, anti-death penalty, anti-war, pro-criminal justice reform, and in favor of a strong social safety net including access to healthcare that tends to reduce abortion.

We don't think "pro-life" rhetoric is enough. We think that Christ's parable about the brother who said he would not, and then did, vs the brother who said he would, and then did not, matters.

If a vote for a Republican directly caused all abortion to cease, we might vote for a Republican, but it does not.

In short, those of us who were raised steeped in an evangelical culture that wraps the cross with the flag no longer believe that narrative. However having seen that failure, we are not about to bless the DNC. 

We may vote for a Democrat. We may not. But we are fundamentally opposed to the unholy alliance between the Evangelical church and the state as defined by the GOP.

As someone who continues to hold on to my faith in Christ, I mourn for my friends who have jettisoned the faith all together because they see the church's support of a singular party as deeply immoral. 

We believe the church should stand apart from the state, while holding her accountable. (This is different than individual Christians who of course may be involved in politics, and may have a unique calling there.) We believe that good Christians can disagree, but that no one party is synonymous with an Evangelical perspective. 

It may be that in some cases a more conservative market oriented approach to solving a specific problem proves to be the most effective approach. But we don't believe that such a position is fundamentally Biblical or inherently right in all circumstances. We don't believe that less government causes people to flourish, in fact, we think it is often the opposite. We believe there are a host of a priori assumptions that go into being conservative that are not necessarily true, and certainly not Biblical. For this reason, we won't be voting for a conservative candidate, and we might be voting for a Democrat.

My apologies that this comes across a little strong. I say this respectfully but forcefully to counter a level of certainty we have come to expect from conservative evangelicals.

To be clear, who one votes for is not the most important thing to me. Statistically, one's vote is irrelevant, so I don't think who one votes for is a pressing moral issue. I think a number of policies are pressing issues, I just don't see the act of voting as pressing. But I wanted to take a few minutes to defend my fellow evangelicals who are openly (or secretly) voting for a Democratic candidate and who in some circles, may be getting peppered with questions as to why.

Thoughts on Integrating Faith, Politics, and Public Policy

There are two things one does not talk about in polite company, religion and politics.  I happen to have a passion for both, and to various degrees, my professional life has moved in both circles.  Integrating these passions well then, is something I care about, and that leads to the question of how that should be done.

My goal here is not to set out a treatise for all people at all times.  Rather, I just want to share some thoughts based on my journey.

On the one hand, I do not think there should be a separation of church and state that extends to one’s own soul.  Nor do I see the state as the primary vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth. How then should a Christian live an integrated life when it comes to religion and politics?  And if I don’t see the state as the primary vehicle for extending Christ’s reign on earth, why care about it all?  I think the prophet Jeremiah gave a beautiful answer to this question, when he addressed the Jews who had been carried away into exile. He said, “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”

Reflections on the Affordable Care Act

The problems with Obamacare are well documented.  And they are real.  People have a right to be upset with the roll-out of the ACA.  But the fundamental premise that all Americans should have access to healthcare is being addressed, and it reflects a value for life and justice and generosity.

This article in the New York Times details some of the promises and ongoing problems of the ACA.

In some cases, those most vociferous on the problems are those that have done everything they can to derail it.  They are like a neighborhood bully who, having just rammed a stick through the spokes of a little boys bike says, "see I told you you would crash."

And then there are those who say, "we aren't opposed to access, we are just opposed to this approach."  But were were these people for the 20 or 30 years that this problem developed?  Obamacare addresses problems that were well documented and not being addressed.  Those problems could have been addressed in some other way in the years prior to Obama being elected.  If churches and non-profits should be at the forefront of this effort, why weren't they? Or why wasn't their effort adequate?  Why wasn't their enough of them?  Or did they do the best they could and the inadequacy of the effort prior to Obamacare just illustrates the limits of this approach?  (I'm not judging the efforts of those who were involved in non-profit healthcare prior to the ACA, I'm talking about the systemics of it.)

Finally there are criticisms of cost.  Several things are happening here.  First, American's are being asked to pay the real cost of their healthcare. (Or something closer to that number.)  In some cases, people were getting more than they were paying for.  Second, people are getting an insurance contract that is fundementally better than it was for many in the past.  The situation is similar to regulations on automobiles.  In some parts of the world, you can get a new car for substantially less than you can here in the States, but the workmanship, safety and efficiency all suffer.  You take your life in your hands driving these cars.   In the same way, people who use to have low-cost insurance plans, more than likely did not realize the extent of the exclusions and limitations on those plans.  In some cases they were paying for an insurance contract that was not worth the paper it was written on.  Having said this, this is one area I could see agreeing with conservatives.  Maybe American's should be free to buy bad insurance contracts.  I could see offering a super low-cost insurance contract that came with the equivalent of a Surgeon General's warning.  "Warning!  This contract does not comply with the requirements of the ACA and contains significant limitations, including..."

Having said all this, the problems at present are real.  Good intentions are not enough.  President Obama and his deputies need to deliver on the promises they made because those promises reflect a concern for life, and justice, and generosity.

Why a Government Shutdown is Reasonable

A government shutdown is not reasonable from a policy or good governance standpoint.  But it is reasonable if we consider what we know of human behavior during toxic conflict.  

In the context of war, it is “reasonable” for one human to kill another, and for that to happen on a mass scale.  It becomes reasonable when the stakes are high enough, when the good of the group outweighs the good of any given individual that may die.  (Let’s not dissect that premise.  Just stick with me.)  While Congress is not engaged in armed conflict—I don’t want to disrespect those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom—we need to understand the conflict in Washington as being on that spectrum.  Congress should no longer be understood as a group of people who are sent there to govern.  They are sent there to engage in rhetorical and legislative violence for their constituents.  Think otherwise?  Members of the House play to a small base.  “I am going there to fight for you” is a common refrain on the campaign trail, consequently we should not be surprised then when they do just that.

From the singular view of one side or the other, when a person is engaged in conflict, all manner of things that would not otherwise be reasonable, are.  On the hockey rink, if the game turns dirty, we expect that otherwise well-mannered boys will engage in cheap shots and brawling.  “I may not have started it, but I sure as hell will finish it” is a common thought process.  When two people who have shared their most intimate secrets divorce, it gets ugly, and in the context of that divorce, one can expect certain types of vindictive and counter-productive behavior.  Things will be stolen or broken, and the ugliest things said.  Considered from the standpoint of the individual consumed by conflict, these things are reasonable.

If we escalate any given conflict beyond Congress’ current level of toxicity, to armed conflict, undesirable behavior is not just acceptable, it becomes admirable.  Soldiers and generals are respected for what they do.  When you fight for God and country, anything goes.  And so it is in Congress.  The sides are sent there not to represent or seek the collective good, but to fight for their constituents.  Red State vs Blue State, or more accurately, Red County vs Blue County. If we are to believe the rhetoric of those that are very conservative or very liberal, all that is good and true is at stake.  In the context of access to affordable healthcare, it is nothing less than life and death according to both sides.

Understood this way, a government shutdown is a reasonable thing to do.  That is not to say it will be good for the country in the short term, not economically or in several other respects.  But that is always the case during conflict.  Parties choose to cease cooperating, or are forced to from their perspective, and give up present gains to obtain a better future.  A nation that had devolved into armed civil war gives up a great deal, while at the same time, a neighboring country not involved in civil war prospers.  Does that make sense?  It does to the parties at the center of the conflict.  However bad armed civil war, or a government shutdown may be, so long as it is better than the status quo,  it is reasonable.

**************

Notes

Conflict resolution, solving problems like this and helping parties recover from their seemingly reasonable actions is one direction I could see my career going in. Part of the reason for this is that I am prone to escalate things.  I am part of the problem.  I was a basketball player.  I preferred to play clean.  I never fowled out.  But I did use my allotment of fowls strategically, particularly if I felt the other team had crossed a line.  An eye for an eye?  You bet!  Because I have engaged in retorical and limited physical violence, it is clear to me just how destructive it is.  I know the depth of my pride and my inability to turn the other cheek.  I don't like the version of myself that comes out when I am engaged in conflict.  Because I identify with people in conflict, I think I might be able to help them solve it, maybe.

Another thought.  The reason I write a piece like this is that I believe we have to understand any given conflict before we can solve it.  Comments like, "why are they doing that, it is not reasonable," suggest that people misunderstand the nature of Congresses relationship with each other, the White House, and the American people.  It is not a disagreement.  It is a conflict that he degenerated to the point of rhetorical violence.  The only reason it has not descended into physical violence is that we all find it better to go to work each day with people we disagree with than to fight.  That, and the American people are not as radical as their representatives.  But to hear Congress speak, armed conflict would be reasonable.

Thoughts on Syria, foreign policy, and the use of force.

Some have suggested that our options on Syria are nothing, limited missile strikes, or all out war, and that none of these options are good, viable, or principled.  In contrast, I believe there is a fourth option that is both viable and principled: an extended air operation. The President could take a similar approach to the one taken in Libya and Kosovo, based on humanitarian principles. Rather than a limited missile strike, he could use an extended air operation, in conjunction with select rebels and special forces to have a more significant impact. I don't know that this is currently politically viable, but I do think it is what we should have done some time ago. I also appreciate that there are no guarantees on what would follow, so I don’t want to suggest that this would be a surefire effort, except in one respect. I believe it would almost certainly limit civilian deaths, even if additional people died via the bombing. In the long run, less people will die if the violence is ended through military action.

The Correlation Between Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

I grew up in a conservative Evangelical home, attending a conservative Evangelical church.  While my tribal allegiance is a moving target, I am a person of faith who values both religious freedom and gay rights, and I think there is a correlation between the two.

Our present notion of religious liberty was not a foregone conclusion when the Founding Fathers met in the State House of Philadelphia in 1787.  For the most part, the tradition of forcing morality on dissenters was common place.  The established churches of Europe forced out the Puritans, and then they forced out people that they disagreed with; people like RogerWilliams who championed religious freedom and fidelity to conscience. It was Williams who insisted on buying land from the Native Americans rather than simply taking it, and who in contrast to the Puritans, embraced religious diversity when he founded Rhode Island.

Approaches to faith and politics.

According to Jackson, whose video appears below, "It is time [for the black church] to end the slavish devotion to the Democratic Party. [Because] They have insulted us, used us, and manipulated us.  [And] They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies..."

For some time I have been caught in a tension.  On the one hand I feel compelled to raise a similar prophetic voice on the churches syncretism with the Republican Party.  I want to name the injustices I feel they implicitly or explicitly condone and sometimes even advocate for.  But at the same time I recognize that true reconciliation can only be found by people willing to dialog with respect and nuance.

Even while I have moved to the left, I continue to see the wisdom in some aspects of a more conservative approach.

This tension was illustrated for me when I watched the Jackson's video which was posted by a friend on facebook yesterday.  When I initially watched it I thought it was one-sided and manipulative.  It looked to me like Jackson was using his position as a pastor and his spiritual authority for political gains.  That is immoral.  I still think the video is possibly manipulative, but some friends pointed out that the man probably has the spiritual and relational authority to say what he said, at least for the audience he knows best, his black church.  If placed in the proper context, his words seem somewhat acceptable.

At the same time I thought, what if you flipped the script?  Does the tenor of what he said still hold true from an anti right-wing perspective?  Does what he said become appropriate if it comports with my personal politics?   Or does both a right wing critique and a left wing critique of this type fall flat?

With that in mind, I carefully listened to the video word by word and wrote a left-wing mirror image of what was said. It appears below.

I both do and do not agree with what I have written.  I am torn.  Do I embrace a radicle version of the Christian faith that leans well to the left?  I have certainly rejected much in Christian culture that leans to the right.  But for some reason I can't quite embrace the left.  I would like to think that I prefer to take a more nuanced road, a more respectful road.  But is that just a lack of commitment?  An inability to sacrifice?  Might what I have to say below be true?

What bothers and intrigues me is that I am compelled both to fight and make peace.  For those that take a partisan approach, I have some partisan answers.  For those that use Bible verses to judge others, I have some Bible verses in mind.  But I know that when I do, it is not quite right. Often, because I lack humility.


As Pastor Tim Keller discusses here, Jesus refuses political complacency, political simplicity, and political primacy.  We should too, and that is the approach I prefer, except when I don't.

I will say that if we are going to go down the road outlined in the video, there is a corollary to what was stated.  When I hear someone like Jackson make those type of statements, I am not inclined to back down from the fight.  I am inclined to double down.  The question is, should I.
 
Below is a near verbatim transcript of Jackson's video with a few changes.  The best way to read what follows is while listening to the video.  Judge for yourself if what either Jackson or I said ring true.

Vanderbilt and the Catholic Church - Organizations limiting religious freedom

Introduction
Father Araujo suggests in his piece, What is Freedom, that the distinction between who is pursuing a self-serving course of action and who is pursuing the other-serving course of action is clear. I agree. The Catholic Churches decision to limit the religious freedom of the people it serves as an employer when it acts as public employer is perceived by many as being self-serving. The freedom that faith affiliated public institutions want in relationship to the federal government is the same freedom they are denying to their employees who have a different faith or no faith at all. While freedom of religion is paramount, and I will argue on behalf of religious freedom momentarily, public employers that hire a plurality of people with unique views have unique responsibilities to their employees. In this pluralistic context, religious views should not allow the employer to impinge on the freedom, often the religious freedom of the employee. While people should have the freedom to associate, that freedom should not hinder the freedom of people in the minority at public institutions or private organizations that are free and open to the public, such as a faith based public hospitals.

To be clear, I would like to draw a sharp distinction between distinctively faith-based organizations such as churches, and those that choose to be open to the public. When they become public employers, employing people of a variety of faiths or no faith at all, public organization take on special responsibilities to the community and to individuals, among them, the responsibility not to infringe on the liberty of their employees.

Vanderbilt and the Catholic Church
A similar example of this can be seen in the recent Vanderbilt University case. In that case, a private organization that is open to the public, has taken the position that no student organization can discriminate against any student that wants to be a member of, or even an officer of a student organization, based on race, religion, sex, etc… The result is that it is possible for a person of Jewish faith to hold the position of treasurer in an Islamic affiliated organization, or an atheist to head a Christian organization. As a result, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) has advocated against this position because their constitution states that one has to be a Christian to be an officer of the Christian Legal Society.

The irony is that Vanderbilt’s position corresponds to the Catholic Churches position.

Troubling Comments at GOP Debates

There have been some troubling comments by the audiences at the recent GOP debates.  No matter one's vision of the greater good, these kind of attitudes detract from the humanity in all of us.

On Texas Executions 

On September 7, when asked about the number of Texas executions, there was wide-spread applause, and excited shrieks. (video)

On the Uninsured

On September 12, in response to a question about an uninsured 30 year-old patient on life support and who should pay, Ron Paul danced around the question, when the moderator followed up with "are you saying we should just let him die" several in the crowed yelled "yes!" (video)

On Gay Soldiers

On September 22, following a gay soldier's question on the repeal of "don't ask don't tell", the soldier was roundly booed. (video)

On Jesus and Political Advocacy

Many of you know my basic approach is to say hey, we need to advocate for the values of Jesus when it comes to public policy. (however imperfectly)  But as I'm reading in a book by Eugine Peterson titled The Jesus Way, it is not enough to believe in the theology or the values of Jesus. We need to behave like Jesus, we need to follow the way of Jesus. We have to do the right thing, the right way. (obviously)  For that reason, Eugine quickly moves beyond personal lifestyle questions, (who doesn't think they ought be like Jesus) and starts asking hard questions about how we do life in community, how we lead church, and how we live in a pluralistic democracy.  What Peterson goes on to illustrate is that there is a tension between standing up for what is right and how that is done.  For example, contrast the following two passages.

On Church and Public Policy : What is the Churches Role?

So in all honesty, part of my decision to attend law school is born out of my dissatisfaction with the ability of the church to effect real change.  I'm probably a little jaded in this area, but I think statistics concerning behavior of church attenders and non-church attenders would back me up.

That said, in-spite of everything, I believe in the church.   I love the church, and despite my reservations, I know that it can be a change agent in the culture and in public policy.


So what is the churches role?  I do think that in many respects the church has a separate and distinct mission.  But at the same time, the ultimate aims of public policy and church often overlap.  What follows are several ways I think that churches can contribute to the health of their communities by contributing to the dialog on public policy in constructive ways.

How my continuing engagement with Scripture changed my views on public policy

In the 2000 presidential election, I voted in my first presidential election, and as a newly minted member of the U.S. Air Force, was very happy to see President Bush elected.  And in the time before facebook and blogs, I e-mailed news articles to friends, often with my commentary, almost always with a conservative slant.  So when I say that I have shifted to the left, that should be considered relative.  I am pro-life and believe in smaller, smarter government, but after that, I tend to favor if not progressive policies, certainly a lot of progressive values that I see reflected in scripture.

Christians of Every Stripe Calling for Immigration Reform

You may be surprised to find out that churches of nearly every denomination and tradition are speaking out with one voice on immigration.

Together they are calling on the Federal Government to reform our present immigration laws.

Consistently, they are calling for three things.

• That immigrants be treated fairly, humanly, with dignity and respect.

• That the rule of law be respected, and shaped to meet the above standards.

• That we recognize that we ourselves are immigrants; that as Christians we come from a tradition of immigration, and that we therefor head the words of scripture, welcoming, loving and caring for those in need, including the immigrant, regardless of legal status.
  

Following are the statements on immigration of no less than eleven diverse christian organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals(2), Lutherans(2), Methodists, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and Episcopalians.

What Comes First, In Health Care, and Everything Else

Been talking some with a good friend of mine, David Baxley, about the whole health care debate. He and I see things differently, but what I like about David is that he tries to put his theology first, and then his politics. He tries to understand his God and then allow that relationship to shape his relationships with everything, and everyone else, including his politics.

I wonder, do you and I do the same, or are we first Conservative, or Progressive, a Man or a Women, a _________, whatever label you want to use, and only after that, a Christian, a Jesus follower?

Do we make God in our image or are we allowing him to shape us into his image. Do we read the Bible looking for those progresive verses, those conservative verses, or do we recognise the Bible for what it is, a story meant to help shape us into the image of Christ. Something meant to shape, not be shaped.

My take on potential global warming.

I'm not a scientist. Neither are most of you. So what to do about all the scientific claims on global warming.

Here is what not to do. Don't think that this issue is in any way actually related to any other issue that has become partisan.

I truly don't understand why virtually everyone that thinks abortion is wrong, also thinks global warming is false. Or why so many who think global warming is true, think the war in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. One should be able to study an issue and come to a conclusion on that particular issue, irrespective of other issues. To me, the fact that this has become so partisan speaks to what I guess is obvious, the deep divide and mistrust that exists in this country. It is this latter point, as much as anything, that I find so troubling. We should be able to listen to people who are experts in their field, without judging them on every other issue, which they may or may not be qualified as an expert on.

So back to global warming. I chimed in on a facebook discussion page hosted by my denomination, the CRC, here.

Decesions Decesions

Who to vote for tomorrow is the decision in front of many of us. And for the Christ follower, I don't think it's an easy one. Two candidates and two parties each seek my vote, each representing Christ in some ways, and assailing him and his creation in others. So, who to vote for?

To help me make my decision, I'm looking at what some Christian organizations have to say, specifically the Sojourners - Voting Guide (Left), Focus on the Family - Citizen Link - (Right) and Christianity Today - How to Pick a President Article (centrist) as well as the candidates themselves.

Having looked over the material of these organizations, as well as the candidates, I think what I'm going to do is simply list the candidates and make a list of the top pros and cons for each one, from my perspective.

John McCain pro

• Pro-Life on the rights of the unborn child.

• Conservative judiciary philosophy. I believe in writing laws written by the people's representatives, and/or amending the constitution, not legislating from the bench. (Though both the "Right" and the "Left" are guilty of this from time to time.)
  

• Will divide power between Democrats in Congress and a Republican in the White House, which among other things should limit spending.
  

• Centrist (Examples: emigration, torture)

• Will limit spending. (Hopefully. W certainly hasn't, but that is primarily because with a Republican congress for much of the time, there were no checks and balances.)
  

Barack Obama pro

• Pro-Life on capital punishment, war and genocide.

• Comprehensive health care plan addresses Biblical issues of justice and may put the nation on a better economic footing. People absolutely should not die simply because they can not afford their medicine or a procedure. Additionally this will set the nation on a better footing economically, because it will allow American multinational cooperations as well as small businesses to compete on an even playing field with their international competitors.

• Has an appropriate view of Americas place in the world, and understands that God loves the whole world.
  

• Will limit defense spending.
• This may put us on a better footing economically, depending on if the savings get spent or not.
• The chief threats to our "way of life" as well as our ability to help the less fortunate is economic, as we have seen in the last few months. Yes we need to defend ourseleves and fight terrorism. However we do not need the ginormous profit driven military industrial complex that the Bush administration has enriched at the expense of economic security and the poor and needy.
  

• Understands the Biblical mandate to care for creation.
  
  

John McCain con

• Many economic policies cater to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. This is a "values" issue.

• Choice of campaign style does more to tear down, and caters to an "us vs them" mentality, which is inappropriate.

• Choice of Sarah Palin was a poor choice because there are others who are much more qualified. Even from a conservative perspective, there are much smarter people out there, who are just as conservative. This choice placed his campaign to become president ahead of the good of the country, and that is a moral problem.

Barack Obama con

• Association with some aspects of the far Left.
• Homosexual agenda
• Secular Anti-Faith agenda
• Overly socialistic agenda, that while well intentioned will not work economically. (We must pay for whatever "good" things we want to do, and stop putting it on the backs of future generations.)
  

• In conjunction with a Democratic congress will provide no checks to spending in general or a far left agenda.

For both candidates I could list things already addressed as pro's for one candidate, as con's for the other since they don't address them, but that would just be redundant.

So who to pick? - Fortunately I still have over 24 hours to decide.

: )

Let me just say this in closing. The country will be just fine on November 5th, and Lord willing will be a better place to live four years latter, no matter who gets elected.

I hear a number of people say they don't like either candidate. I like them both. Barack's choice to work with people in the inner city, and John's 5 years in a prison camp, gives me confidence that both of these men "get it", an while you are I may not agree with every policy position they hold, I think they are both fundamentally seeking the good of the nation.

Red Sex, Blue Sex

Different parts of the country have different attitudes about sex... and many other things for that matter. (no kidding) How those attitudes translate into actions is the rather interesting story. One highlighted by the The New Yorker in their recent story Red Sex, Blue Sex. Below are excerpts, but here is my take.

As is the case with so many other things, Evangelicals generally need to shut up until they can put up. But that's in general.

What about the reality of growing up in a hyper sexual world? If like me, you find the mantra of "though shall not" incredibly ineffective, what should replace it? How do we as Christians learn to speak comfortably and effectively about one of God's greatest gifts? I don't have any answers off the top of my head as I write this. But I think it's a matter worth discussing if we are going to save marriage, not from homosexuals, but from ourseleves. (guess which states have the highest divorce rates?)

One thing in the story stood out above all else for me: Religious belief apparently does make a potent difference in behavior for one group of evangelical teen-agers: those who score highest on measures of religiosity—such as how often they go to church, or how often they pray at home. But many Americans who identify themselves as evangelicals, and who hold socially conservative beliefs, aren’t deeply observant.

Who knew - prayer works. ; ) (That one is for you parents.)

Excerpts
During the campaign, the media has largely respected calls to treat Bristol Palin’s pregnancy as a private matter. But the reactions to it have exposed a cultural rift that mirrors America’s dominant political divide. Social liberals in the country’s “blue states” tend to support sex education and are not particularly troubled by the idea that many teen-agers have sex before marriage, but would regard a teen-age daughter’s pregnancy as devastating news. And the social conservatives in “red states” generally advocate abstinence-only education and denounce sex before marriage, but are relatively unruffled if a teen-ager becomes pregnant, as long as she doesn’t choose to have an abortion.

Religion is a good indicator of attitudes toward sex, but a poor one of sexual behavior, and that this gap is especially wide among teen-agers who identify themselves as evangelical.

Religious belief apparently does make a potent difference in behavior for one group of evangelical teen-agers: those who score highest on measures of religiosity—such as how often they go to church, or how often they pray at home. But many Americans who identify themselves as evangelicals, and who hold socially conservative beliefs, aren’t deeply observant.

Like other American teens, young evangelicals live in a world of Internet porn, celebrity sex scandals, and raunchy reality TV, and they have the same hormonal urges that their peers have. Yet they come from families and communities in which sexual life is supposed to be forestalled until the first night of a transcendent honeymoon. Regnerus writes, “In such an atmosphere, attitudes about sex may formally remain unchanged (and restrictive) while sexual activity becomes increasingly common. This clash of cultures and norms is felt most poignantly in the so-called Bible Belt.” Symbolic commitment to the institution of marriage remains strong there, and politically motivating—hence the drive to outlaw gay marriage—but the actual practice of it is scattershot.

In 2004, the states with the highest divorce rates were Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and West Virginia (all red states in the 2004 election); those with the lowest were Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey. The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas (all red); the lowest were in North Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine (blue except for North Dakota).

Evangelicals could start, perhaps, by trying to untangle the contradictory portrayals of sex that they offer to teen-agers. In the Shelby Knox documentary, a youth pastor, addressing an assembly of teens, defines intercourse as “what two dogs do out on the street corner—they just bump and grind awhile, boom boom boom.” Yet a typical evangelical text aimed at young people, “Every Young Woman’s Battle,” by Shannon Ethridge and Stephen Arterburn, portrays sex between two virgins as an ethereal communion of innocent souls: “physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual pleasure beyond description.” Neither is the most realistic or helpful view for a young person to take into marriage, as a few advocates of abstinence acknowledge.

As the Reverend Rick Marks, a Southern Baptist minister, recently pointed out in a Florida newspaper, “Evangelicals are fighting gay marriage, saying it will break down traditional marriage, when divorce has already broken it down.” Conservatives may need to start talking as much about saving marriages as they do about, say, saving oneself for marriage.

Budget Hero

I just got done playing this federal budget game. It's preety cool, check it out.



You can sum up my budget priorities this way:
Priority #1 - A balanced budget and a good economy (Go Republicans)
Priotiry #2 - Taking care of those in need... wisely. (Go Democrats)

Here is my theological grid. Sustainability, and justice for all, including future generations. This is Biblical. The profits this creates can be used to help those truly in need. (including the unborn) Socialism goes wrong by making care of people the first priority of the federal government. A sinking ship can't save people, now or in the future. Nor is it the federal governments job entirely. (it has and should have a very big role to play)

In contrast, capitalism goes wrong when it makes "security", money and ease the final priority. Greed is always a challenge, however we saw it pushed to the breaking point in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (think child labor and rich barrons) These sins ushered in the "New Deal". Unfortunately we have seen it again in the past few years. (with a "born again" Christian in charge) Some have gotten wealthy while many have languished.

What is not high on my list of priorities is military spending. Why? I have a number of reasons, but mainly because no one is really threatening to take away our freedom... militarily. Judicially and economically, now that's a different story. Much of defense spending is wasted in a vast "military industrial complex", which doesn't actually keep us safe from that vast hoard of nations on the very brink of invading us. (wait a second...)

It's been said before, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I think the age of set piece battles and one nation invading another is coming to an end. That doesn't mean there aren't very real threats. What I'm saying is that how we prepare to fight these threats, under what circumstances, and with what preferred end in mind, has or needs to radically shift.

We are largely engaging Iraq in the same way we engaged Germany and Japan. Our army beat there's and then we set up house keeping for a while.

In a world dominated by free people competing economically, economics and information will be the weapons of choice. Any nation that steps out of line (N. Korea, Iran, or to a lesser extent, Russia, China vs Tawain, or India vs Pakistan) can be punished with special forces operations, economic penalties, naval blockades, stealth bombers, cruise missiles, or some combination of these. All you have to do is economically punish the aggressor. While the rest of us get rich, living at peace and trading with one another.

Who says you have to invade and overthrow? I understand that ground troops win wars... if taking ground is your defination of win. But who decided that?