You are here

Politics

Evangelicals Ally With Democrats on Environment

Interesting things are happening on the faith/politics front, and the news isn't good for the Republicans. David Kuo is making the rounds (I've seen him on The Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher) promoting his book and its thesis that Christians are disrepected and used by some in the White House. Apparently, some Christians also think that the Republican tent is too big if it is big enough to include gay conservatives ("Some Seek 'Pink Purge' in the GOP", LA Times). Global warming is also coming into the mix. From an article of the same title by Stephanie Simon in the LA Times:

Democratic strategists are joining forces with conservative evangelicals to promote a faith-based campaign on global warming, in an improbable alliance that could boost Democratic hopes of taking control of Congress. At a news conference today, the president of the Christian Coalition and a board member of the National Assn. of Evangelicals - both groups closely tied to the religious right - will announce Call to Action, an effort to make global warming a front-and-center issue over the next three weeks for Christians in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, North Carolina, Colorado and several other states with pitched election campaigns. Through ads on Christian radio, sermons from the pulpit, Bible studies, house parties and a documentary film, "The Great Warming," Christians will be urged to view protecting the environment as a religious and moral issue every bit as urgent as opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. "We're not abandoning our previous positions: We're still pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-morality. But one or two issues can't adequately express the Gospel," said the Rev. Joel Hunter, new president of the Christian Coalition of America. Hunter is one of scores of evangelical leaders who have become convinced - often reluctantly, after months of study - that the planet is facing a crisis and that God expects Christians to act, in part by electing committed environmentalists to office. "I'm trying to make Christians ... look at candidates in a broader way, and look at individuals, not just parties," he said... "The Great Warming" is heavy on science, but it also lays out the biblical case for acting on global warming, starting with God's command to Adam to be a good steward of the Earth. Faith leaders increasingly make a moral argument as well, saying that floods, hurricanes and other effects of global warming will disproportionately affect the poor - whom Christ commanded his followers to help. In the long run, evangelicals leading the Call to Action say they hope, and expect, more Republicans to take up global warming as a priority cause. "Evangelicals are in the best position to change the GOP's mind on this - a better position than any group in America, other than big business," said Cizik, the vice president of governmental affairs for the National Assn. of Evangelicals, which represents 30 million Christians. But evangelicals are not united on the issue. Dissent is so pointed that Cizik did not sign his name to the Call to Action on global warming for fear of embroiling his group in controversy. A small minority of Christians believes that environmental degradation and natural disaster may be a sign of the Second Coming. Many others hold that science has not proved global warming is a crisis - or that God simply puts a higher priority on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Some links:

C.S. Lewis Vs Christianism

Today Andrew Sullivan blogged an interesting quote from C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity about whether or not Christians should try to bind their religious views on the rest of society:

The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question - how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammendans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, and the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought be to quite sharp, so that a man know which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Scandalous pursuits

From an opinion piece of the same title by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune:

Political sex scandals come in all varieties. Some involve Democrats, and some implicate Republicans. Though most feature consenting adults, the exploitation of minors is not unknown. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals are immune. Virtually all these episodes, however, have one thing in common: The politician is a man. The list of male officeholders who have gotten tangled in embarrassing shenanigans is long and colorful--including Rep. Wilbur Mills, who consorted with a stripper known as the "Argentine Firecracker," Sen. Bob Packwood, who had a habit of kissing women without their consent, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a serial groper, and Bill Clinton. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has been accused of mishandling the Mark Foley case, should have known the perils of unconstrained libidos on Capitol Hill. He got his job only after predecessor Bob Livingston was caught cheating on his wife... I tried to find examples of female politicians ensnared in such sordid doings and came up with only one--in Taiwan. Over the last 30 years, the number of women in Congress has quadrupled, and they now make up one of every six members. But though they do their share of the legislative work, they fall terribly short when it comes to bedroom escapades... It used to be assumed that once women gained a measure of parity in elective office, they would fall prey to the same temptations as men--bribery, dirty campaign tactics, delusions of grandeur and jumping into bed with hot subordinates. But while they may compete on the first three, they have failed to break the male monopoly on illicit liaisons. Why is that? For an answer, I called Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, and author of the new book "The Female Brain," which addresses the biological differences between the minds of men and women. She sounds completely unsurprised that male politicians are far more prone to tripping over their zippers. "On average, males end up with twice as many cells in the area of the brain for sexual pursuit," she says. Females, her research indicates, devote less of their brain space to getting into other people's pants, and spend far less time fantasizing about sex. It's no accident that guys account for the vast majority of pornography consumers and strip-joint patrons. Females also have plenty of interest in sex, but because of different brain structure and different hormones, they generally use different strategies to get it--inviting attention by enhancing their appearance, for example, instead of relentlessly hitting on potential partners. Says Brizendine, "It's the pursuit that gets males in trouble."

Book Says Bush Aides Dismissed Christian Allies

Christians often have a sense that they are disrespected by the left (I heard it in Bible class this morning when we were visiting at Troy). I'm sure there is some truth to that feeling with regard to a certain element of the left. However, I'm also sure that that there is a lack of respect for Christians by a significant segment of the right as well. From an article of the same title in the NY Times by David Kirkpatrick:

A former deputy director of the White House office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is charging that many members of the Bush administration privately dismiss its conservative Christian allies as "boorish" and "nuts." The former deputy director, David Kuo, an evangelical Christian conservative, makes the accusations in a newly published memoir, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction" (Free Press), about his frustration with what he described as the meager support and political exploitation of the program. "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,' ‘out of control,' and just plain ‘goofy,' " Mr. Kuo writes. In an interview, Mr. Kuo's former boss, James Towey, now president of St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., said he had never encountered such cynicism or condescension in the White House, and he disputed many of the assertions in Mr. Kuo's account.

Kuo was on 60 Minutes tonight. The video is here. I wouldn't argue that Christians should have no involvement with politics, though that argument has its merits. I would argue that when the line between faith and politics is as blurred as it is these days, faith is soiled by the relationship between the two.

Joel Stein - Why I'm in Favor of Torture

Provocative...from an opinion piece of the same and subtitled "If blasting people to bits on the battlefield is OK, then why isn't electrocuting genitals?" by Joel Stein in the LA Times:

I AM PRO-TORTURE. And I don't mean just the music-blaring, sleep-deprivation, forced-standing kind. I'm for tearing out lamp wires, wetting a guy down and shocking his nipples while staring at him with your one crazy blue eye and one crazy green eye and screaming, "I am not going to ask you again! Where is the bomb?!" Admittedly, most of what I know about interrogation is from the TV show "24." Although we have killed more than 50,000 Iraqis for reasons that no one is able to explain other than that letting crazy, anti-Western, death-cult Arabs vote for their own crazy, anti-Western, death-cult Arab leaders is awesome, we have decided that we cannot accept mistreating captured enemies. Apparently we are under the impression that countries fond of using "shock and awe" are actually judged on how many Michelin stars their prisons get. Compared to murder, maiming or the firebombing of entire cities, torturing for information is clearly the lesser moral crime. The reason we don't like torture is that it makes us squeamish. When we drop bombs on a village from thousands of feet above, we picture clean, video-game annihilation - not severed limbs and charred skin and babies killed in front of their parents. But it's impossible not to visualize dunking a man's head underwater until he believes he's drowning. We may not have had our homes bombed, but we have been in a pool with older kids. This is why not even Donald Rumsfeld would sign off on interrogation by extreme wedgie. Torture seems wrong because it involves hitting a guy when he's down. It's fine to fight for the survival of civilization by shooting your enemy in the field, but once he's captured, warfare is suddenly a civilized game with lots of rules. This idea is so patently ridiculous that they made a sitcom out of it with Bob Crane. My fear is that by banning torture, we get to pretend that the rest of war is a rational diplomatic tool instead of a desperate and brutal survival response. If something is important enough to kill and die over, then it's important enough to torture for. For me, that list would include protecting my freedom, my family and a few of my friends whom I would name here if I had that kind of room. If "waterboarding" really isn't effective, yielding only lies told to please captors, then maybe that's a good reason to end it. But if shooting people to get them to embrace pro-Western democracy also doesn't pan out, we might want to lighten up on that too.

Tags: 

Pages

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer