The title of the cover article in yesterday's New York Times Magazine, "End Times for Evangelicals?" fits this blog to a tee as I often explore the juxtaposition of my Democratic viewpoint and Pentecostal beliefs. Here are some quotes from prominent evangelicals quoted in the article. They show, despite the title of this piece, American Evangelism is alive and well. In fact, it is expanding into a more mature movement, something the religious right is too narrow-minded to understand.
1) "In the evangelical church in general there is kind of a push back against the Republican party and a feeling of being used by the Republican political machine. There are going to be a lot of evangelicals willing to vote for a Democrat because there are 40 million people without health insurance, and a Democrat is going to do something about that." (p. 64, Paul Hill, Pastor, Wheatland Mission, former Associate Pastor at Central Christian, 7,000 members)
2) "We shouldn't allow a child to live under a bridge or in the back seat of a car. We shouldn't be satisfied that elderly people are being abused or neglected in nursing homes...You can't just say 'respect life' exclusively in the gestation period." (p. 66, Mike Huckabee, Soutern Baptist minister, Governor of Arkansas, Presidential candidate)
3) "There is this sense that the personal Gospel is what evangelicals believe, and the social gospel is what liberal Christians believe, and, you know, there is only one Gospel that has both social and personal dimensions to it." (p. 60, Gene Carlson, former Senior Pastor, Westlink Christian Church, 7,000 members)
4) "If there is racial injustice in your community, you have to speak to that. If there is educational injustice, you have to do something there. If the poor are being neglected by the government or being oppressed in some way, then you have to stand up for the poor." (pp. 44-45, Bill Hybels, Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church --12,000 member churchs in Willow Creek Association)
5) "The Indians are saying to the chiefs, 'We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world.'" (p. 45, Bill Hybels)
6) "If more Christians worked to alleviate needs in their local communities, the church would become known more for the love it shows than for what it is against." (p. 44, Rick Warren, Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church, author of the bestseller, The Purpose Driven Life)
7) "I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to peace...This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of peace." (p. 44, Jimmy Carter, former President)
These quotes speak for themselves.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Joe Torre's Lesson for the Democrats
A drama played out over the newspaper and media this week: the firing of Joe Torre in one of the most demeaning and Machiavellian manners ever seen in the sport of baseball.
After stringing him out in the tabloids for over a week, the Yankees made a half-hearted offer of a one-year deal with a reduction in salary and "incentive pay" if the team won the pennant and the World Series.
Despite a special trip to Florida to plead his case, the Yankees refused to budge, and Torre resigned in protest.
But the story wasn't over. Joe Torre held a news conference and conveyed how insulting it was to literally dangle a carrot before him when he already had all the motivation he needed. In addition, the players would feel additional pressure in a close race to save the manager's job, an untenable situation.
But Torre's news conference accomplished more than communicating his side of the story. It showcased him as a human being far superior to anyone in the Yankee organization. Joe's humanity, dignity, and sense of honor and trust offers a clear contrast to the manipulation employed by the Yankee management to get rid of him. If they wanted to fire him, they should have had some guts and done it right away. Instead, afraid of public opinion, they contrived a situation where he would have to say no, but they could hypocritically point to their salary offer.
As Torre said in his conference, if the New York Yankees wanted him to stay as manager, he would still be there.
Anyway, despite my continuing outrage, I think the turn of events provides a lesson for us all, particularly the Democratic Party.
Instead of trying to manipulate the voters on SCHIP and the war in Iraq, why not have some guts and lead instead of cowering before public opinion. If the Democrats want to end the war on Iraq, use Congress's power of appropriations to cut off the funding. If the President starts to scream and yell about supporting the troops, let him.
If the Democrats want to cut back on illegal wiretapping, do so, and if the President screams and yells about stopping terrorism, let him.
If the Democrats want to expand childcare, don't compromise after his veto. Keep bringing up the bill again and again. Establish an upper salary cap to mollify the opposition, and let them keep voting against it.
Congress's approval rating is about what they're not doing, unlike President Bush's, about what he is doing. Show some guts like Joe Torre and stand up for what you believe in, even if it takes some character to do so.
After stringing him out in the tabloids for over a week, the Yankees made a half-hearted offer of a one-year deal with a reduction in salary and "incentive pay" if the team won the pennant and the World Series.
Despite a special trip to Florida to plead his case, the Yankees refused to budge, and Torre resigned in protest.
But the story wasn't over. Joe Torre held a news conference and conveyed how insulting it was to literally dangle a carrot before him when he already had all the motivation he needed. In addition, the players would feel additional pressure in a close race to save the manager's job, an untenable situation.
But Torre's news conference accomplished more than communicating his side of the story. It showcased him as a human being far superior to anyone in the Yankee organization. Joe's humanity, dignity, and sense of honor and trust offers a clear contrast to the manipulation employed by the Yankee management to get rid of him. If they wanted to fire him, they should have had some guts and done it right away. Instead, afraid of public opinion, they contrived a situation where he would have to say no, but they could hypocritically point to their salary offer.
As Torre said in his conference, if the New York Yankees wanted him to stay as manager, he would still be there.
Anyway, despite my continuing outrage, I think the turn of events provides a lesson for us all, particularly the Democratic Party.
Instead of trying to manipulate the voters on SCHIP and the war in Iraq, why not have some guts and lead instead of cowering before public opinion. If the Democrats want to end the war on Iraq, use Congress's power of appropriations to cut off the funding. If the President starts to scream and yell about supporting the troops, let him.
If the Democrats want to cut back on illegal wiretapping, do so, and if the President screams and yells about stopping terrorism, let him.
If the Democrats want to expand childcare, don't compromise after his veto. Keep bringing up the bill again and again. Establish an upper salary cap to mollify the opposition, and let them keep voting against it.
Congress's approval rating is about what they're not doing, unlike President Bush's, about what he is doing. Show some guts like Joe Torre and stand up for what you believe in, even if it takes some character to do so.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Vindication of Al Gore
Every Democrat has to feel good about Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize after the debacle of the 2000 election. Devoting one's whole life to becoming President of the United States, and then having it stolen away by the Supreme Court, would have crushed most people. Indeed, it took some time for him to recover, and perhaps his current obesity is a lingering testament to the pain he suffered.
But, a note to my fellow Christians, isn't Mr. Gore's life story a great example of the adage "with God nothing is impossible." His phoenix-like rise from the ashes is truly incredible.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush has paid the price of his own inexperience (and so, unfortunately, have we all), trapped in a war of his own making, a war planned from the beginning of his Presidency to avenge his father. And 9/11 was just an excuse for the plans already concocted by him and his fellow neocons.
I bet Bush is contemplating these twists of fate today, and I wonder if he would trade places with Gore, if given the chance.
Anyway, kudos to Al Gore for his resilience, perservance and grit; for fighting for what he believes in; and for alerting us all to the danger of global warming before it's too late.
I read somewhere today, why should Al Gore want to run for President when he's already worshipped like a demi-god?
But, a note to my fellow Christians, isn't Mr. Gore's life story a great example of the adage "with God nothing is impossible." His phoenix-like rise from the ashes is truly incredible.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush has paid the price of his own inexperience (and so, unfortunately, have we all), trapped in a war of his own making, a war planned from the beginning of his Presidency to avenge his father. And 9/11 was just an excuse for the plans already concocted by him and his fellow neocons.
I bet Bush is contemplating these twists of fate today, and I wonder if he would trade places with Gore, if given the chance.
Anyway, kudos to Al Gore for his resilience, perservance and grit; for fighting for what he believes in; and for alerting us all to the danger of global warming before it's too late.
I read somewhere today, why should Al Gore want to run for President when he's already worshipped like a demi-god?
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Republicans in Lockstep and the CHIP Plot
"In lockstep" is defined in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary as "in perfect or rigid, often mindless, conformity or unison, e.g., politicians marching in lockstep with the party line.
The Republicans in Congress are often accused of operating in lockstep because they vote with almost 95 percent unity on any partisan vote. Democrats are a more unruly bunch, often splitting into factions based on individual conscience. While this is commendable, it presents unique difficulties when faced with a slim majority, such as in the U.S. Senate.
The Republicans have been accused of operating as a rubber stamp for George W. Bush, and this presents unique difficulties due to his low rating in the polls and the unpopularity of the Iraq war, especially concerning the coming national elections.
As President of a public relations and copywriting firm, Cut-It-Out Communications, Inc., I have a somewhat unique view of Republican Party strategy regarding the bill on Children's Health Insurance (CHIP). In order to uncouple the Republican Party's fortune from President Bush, the inner council of the RNC has orchestrated an elaborate dance.
The President will veto the bill and pretend to be philosophically against it, and then the Republicans in Congress, after token resistance from a very few (as well as the Republican candidates for President to demonstrate their loyalty to Bush for primary voters) will prove to be instrumental in overriding the veto.
As a result, even though incapable of speaking out formally against "The Commander-in-Chief," the Republicans will establish their independence from the President in the voters' minds.
As conspiracy theories go, this one is rather tame, but it makes sense for all involved. In addition to improving their chances to keep their jobs, the Republicans also position themselves for an independent race for the White House, reducing the drag from the Bush regime. Bush, from his perspective, isn't running for re-election anyway, and Republican victories increase his chances for prolonging the Iraq war, an effort he clings to with the obstinacy and one-track focus of a lemming throwing itself off a cliff.
Even if this strategy was not pre-determined by the Republicans, it is sure to occur to them informally during the coming weeks.
The Republicans in Congress are often accused of operating in lockstep because they vote with almost 95 percent unity on any partisan vote. Democrats are a more unruly bunch, often splitting into factions based on individual conscience. While this is commendable, it presents unique difficulties when faced with a slim majority, such as in the U.S. Senate.
The Republicans have been accused of operating as a rubber stamp for George W. Bush, and this presents unique difficulties due to his low rating in the polls and the unpopularity of the Iraq war, especially concerning the coming national elections.
As President of a public relations and copywriting firm, Cut-It-Out Communications, Inc., I have a somewhat unique view of Republican Party strategy regarding the bill on Children's Health Insurance (CHIP). In order to uncouple the Republican Party's fortune from President Bush, the inner council of the RNC has orchestrated an elaborate dance.
The President will veto the bill and pretend to be philosophically against it, and then the Republicans in Congress, after token resistance from a very few (as well as the Republican candidates for President to demonstrate their loyalty to Bush for primary voters) will prove to be instrumental in overriding the veto.
As a result, even though incapable of speaking out formally against "The Commander-in-Chief," the Republicans will establish their independence from the President in the voters' minds.
As conspiracy theories go, this one is rather tame, but it makes sense for all involved. In addition to improving their chances to keep their jobs, the Republicans also position themselves for an independent race for the White House, reducing the drag from the Bush regime. Bush, from his perspective, isn't running for re-election anyway, and Republican victories increase his chances for prolonging the Iraq war, an effort he clings to with the obstinacy and one-track focus of a lemming throwing itself off a cliff.
Even if this strategy was not pre-determined by the Republicans, it is sure to occur to them informally during the coming weeks.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Mantle of Leadership
What is the mantle of leadership? I'll tell you what it's not. It's not being a sheep and believing what you're told to believe. It's not subscribing blindly to a worldview on every single issue. It's not being afraid of your image with your friends or the public. It's not being afraid of accepting an element of risk.
The Democrats are losing the mantle of leadership on Iraq, drop by drop, like Chinese water torture, while the country suffers as a result. Last night, on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill challenged Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Caucus Chair of the House of Representatives, on Iraq. Since we can't get the 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, why not take the only route left, stop the funding for the war and force Mr. Bush to withdraw the troops.
The crowd cheered. Many Democrats have started to favor this approach, but it's politically risky. Bush could accuse the Democrats of refusing to "support the troops." But Mr. Bush, if he really supported the troops himself, would have to withdraw them. It's a little bit like a game of "chicken." But sometimes, assuming the mantle of leadership requires following this approach, e.g., the Cuban missile crisis.
Anyway, Maher, egged on by the crowd, continued to press Rahm Emanuel. Rahm started to hem and haw. He squirmed in his seat. He gave a totally unconvincing response, and people in the crowd started to taunt him.
Hopefully, Mr. Emanuel will re-consider based on the audience reaction and discuss funding as a real alternative to the Democratic Caucus. The country would respect the Democrats for taking a stand, even if they disagreed with it.
Unfortunately, even the Democratic candidates for President are starting to qualify their responses on Iraq. In a recent debate, the three main contenders, Hillary, Obama and Edwards, refused to make a commitment to withdrawing the troops before the end of their first term. That's another four years in that quagmire.
As a concluding aside, anyone who refuses to vote for Hillary because she's "pro-war" should reconsider. If healthcare is an important issue for you, I think she represents the best chance of actually accomplishing something. She has assumed the mantle of leadership in many other areas as well, one reason why, despite all predictions, she is still the front runner.
The Democrats are losing the mantle of leadership on Iraq, drop by drop, like Chinese water torture, while the country suffers as a result. Last night, on Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill challenged Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Caucus Chair of the House of Representatives, on Iraq. Since we can't get the 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, why not take the only route left, stop the funding for the war and force Mr. Bush to withdraw the troops.
The crowd cheered. Many Democrats have started to favor this approach, but it's politically risky. Bush could accuse the Democrats of refusing to "support the troops." But Mr. Bush, if he really supported the troops himself, would have to withdraw them. It's a little bit like a game of "chicken." But sometimes, assuming the mantle of leadership requires following this approach, e.g., the Cuban missile crisis.
Anyway, Maher, egged on by the crowd, continued to press Rahm Emanuel. Rahm started to hem and haw. He squirmed in his seat. He gave a totally unconvincing response, and people in the crowd started to taunt him.
Hopefully, Mr. Emanuel will re-consider based on the audience reaction and discuss funding as a real alternative to the Democratic Caucus. The country would respect the Democrats for taking a stand, even if they disagreed with it.
Unfortunately, even the Democratic candidates for President are starting to qualify their responses on Iraq. In a recent debate, the three main contenders, Hillary, Obama and Edwards, refused to make a commitment to withdrawing the troops before the end of their first term. That's another four years in that quagmire.
As a concluding aside, anyone who refuses to vote for Hillary because she's "pro-war" should reconsider. If healthcare is an important issue for you, I think she represents the best chance of actually accomplishing something. She has assumed the mantle of leadership in many other areas as well, one reason why, despite all predictions, she is still the front runner.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
CHIP and true Christianity
As a Pentecostal Christian and a Democrat, I am frequently amazed by the hypocrisy, the lack of feeling, and the poor understanding of the central tenets of Christianity by the Religious Right.
Jesus talked about the poor in the New Testament more frequently than he talked about heaven and hell. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus says, "...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Yet George W. Bush, fervent Christian that he is, has decided to make a fiscal stand by opposing the extension of healthcare to more poor children. Billions in tax cuts to the rich, and billions in a grinding war in Iraq are okay, but, all of sudden, Mr. Bush is threatening a rare veto to stop assistance to poor children so he can save the taxpayers money.
What conclusions can we draw from this action?
First, Bush is not, and never has been, a true Christian. He trots out the terminology to fire up his base but has been willing to compromise for political expediency. For example, his choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court provided a rare window into his thinking, based more on rewarding loyalty and cronies than any overarching belief.
Second, if you're any kind of minority, oppressed group, if you're poor or out of the mainstream, or even just a little eccentric, you will feel much more at home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. To me, a lot of Republicans seem so full of hate and lack of empathy for human suffering. I'll choose a President any day who "feels my pain" over one who doesn't.
Bush adopted the false moniker of "compassionate conservative" when he first ran for President because most conservatives aren't. You don't have to say "compassionate liberal" since that phrase would be repetitious.
Jesus talked about the poor in the New Testament more frequently than he talked about heaven and hell. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus says, "...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Yet George W. Bush, fervent Christian that he is, has decided to make a fiscal stand by opposing the extension of healthcare to more poor children. Billions in tax cuts to the rich, and billions in a grinding war in Iraq are okay, but, all of sudden, Mr. Bush is threatening a rare veto to stop assistance to poor children so he can save the taxpayers money.
What conclusions can we draw from this action?
First, Bush is not, and never has been, a true Christian. He trots out the terminology to fire up his base but has been willing to compromise for political expediency. For example, his choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court provided a rare window into his thinking, based more on rewarding loyalty and cronies than any overarching belief.
Second, if you're any kind of minority, oppressed group, if you're poor or out of the mainstream, or even just a little eccentric, you will feel much more at home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. To me, a lot of Republicans seem so full of hate and lack of empathy for human suffering. I'll choose a President any day who "feels my pain" over one who doesn't.
Bush adopted the false moniker of "compassionate conservative" when he first ran for President because most conservatives aren't. You don't have to say "compassionate liberal" since that phrase would be repetitious.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
What's in a Name?
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
With apologies to Shakespeare, why did Bush pick Petraeus in the first place? Surely, their PR operation must have realized that the guy sounds like a Roman gladiator. That's why the MoveOn.org advertisement was so threatening. How dare they make a play on such a strong name and expose it to ridicule: "Betray Us."
The attack on the MoveOn.org ad demonstrates the main strategy of the Republican Party. Diversion, then divide and conquer. Instead of focusing on Iraqi policy, they try to change the topic of the conversation. Patriotism instead of their incompetence.
Here's another example. Republicans also attacked Hillary Clinton for "essentially" calling David Petraeus a liar. Diversion again. And distortion, too.
Here's Hillary's quote in context:
The first part got the publicity: "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
The second part, following immediately after: "I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a rather grim reality, and I believe that you and certainly the very capable people working with both of you were dealt a very hard hand, and it's a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view."
Republicans ignored the second part for two reasons. One, it demonstrates Senator Clinton's respect for Petraeus, thus erasing their argument about her patriotism, and two, it places emphasis on the POLICY itself.
With apologies to Shakespeare, why did Bush pick Petraeus in the first place? Surely, their PR operation must have realized that the guy sounds like a Roman gladiator. That's why the MoveOn.org advertisement was so threatening. How dare they make a play on such a strong name and expose it to ridicule: "Betray Us."
The attack on the MoveOn.org ad demonstrates the main strategy of the Republican Party. Diversion, then divide and conquer. Instead of focusing on Iraqi policy, they try to change the topic of the conversation. Patriotism instead of their incompetence.
Here's another example. Republicans also attacked Hillary Clinton for "essentially" calling David Petraeus a liar. Diversion again. And distortion, too.
Here's Hillary's quote in context:
The first part got the publicity: "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
The second part, following immediately after: "I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a rather grim reality, and I believe that you and certainly the very capable people working with both of you were dealt a very hard hand, and it's a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view."
Republicans ignored the second part for two reasons. One, it demonstrates Senator Clinton's respect for Petraeus, thus erasing their argument about her patriotism, and two, it places emphasis on the POLICY itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
