I love to use this column to talk about those things that you’re not supposed to talk about, sex, politics, and religion. Well, two out of the three anyway.
Some people think that politics and religion don’t mix. How can they not? Religion, by definition is what is most important to you, what determines your values and helps you make decisions. Politics, at least in America is who leads and how we influence our society.
Let’s face it, they’re gonna mix. The key is which influences which. Ideally, your faith influences your politics, but you have to be careful not to make your politics into your religion, making your party affiliation too important a part of your sense of identity is a form of idolatry.
The Bible is God’s Word, therefore it is inerrant, infallible and dependable. Neither major political party’s platform is God-breathed, they’re put together by human beings and are therefore imperfect.
That last paragraph is very “theologically conservative,” or “orthodox” in church-jargon.
Plenty of people can’t understand how I can call myself a Christian and remain a registered Democrat. That blows my mind. I mean, I can understand why some Christians would choose to be Republican, why can’t they accept that some Christians may disagree with them on a myriad of issues and that God’s okay with that?
What tactful language should we use to talk about our distinctions? Republicans and Democrats? NeoCons or “Righties” and Progressives? Conservatives and Liberals? None of those labels really work because none of them is clear enough, black and white enough.
Case in point, I strongly believe that massive deficits are grossly irresponsible. That’s a fiscally conservative point of view.
Meanwhile I also think it’s irresponsible to not have any regulations whatsoever on automatic weapons. I happen to think that’s socially conservative- but right-wing Republicans would accuse me of being a liberal for wanting to protect my family from gun violence.
Now, I get that many people identify themselves with the Republican party because it appeals to their religious convictions, their “family values.”
The values of “the right” include personal responsibility, personal morality, living a pious and righteous lifestyle. Traditional families, opportunity, justice, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, free-market competition, defending our way of life, not forfeiting our sovereignty to outside forces, and support for Israel based on what some consider false interpretation of Bible prophecy.
I totally admire and respect most of those values, heck, I share some of them. But please, my dear Republican friends and family members, please allow me to suggest that Democrats actually have values too, and some of them are acceptable:
The values of “the left” include social-responsibility, social-morality, social-justice, fairness, progress, moral leadership in the world, self-government, and community.
The right has literally turned liberal, compromise and tolerance into dirty words. I appreciate that no one should have to compromise their principles, but democracy is about balancing diverse interests, and sometimes pragmatism, practicality and reality require compromise.
I appreciate that we shouldn’t tolerate sin, terrorism, or perversion. But God wants us to tolerate people who are different from us, and people who we disagree with. Jesus ate with the prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. Jews of His day didn’t even associate with Romans or Samaritans.
I hear you asking, “what about homosexual marriage, what about abortion?” You know what, I’m a Democrat, but I’m not an advocate of gay marriage, but I don’t think we should discriminate against gays or demonize them or allow violence against them.
I’m a Democrat, but I consider myself pro-life. I’m much more comfortable than many liberals with bans on partial birth abortion and the Lacy Peterson law. Safe, legal, but rare.
But I know Democrats who say that they’re pro-choice, not because of feminism or privacy, but because of poverty. They say that they support Roe v. Wade because they hope to reduce unintended pregnancies. That may be misguided, if like me, you consider the baby a life, but as misguided as it is, I can respect it. When you’re a public school teacher you see hundreds of kids who are neglected and abused, their so-called families are plagued with divorce, adultery, drug and alcohol abuse. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe than any child is an accident, God loves each and every one, but Republicans would have to agree that not everyone should be a parent.
I may disagree with my pro-choice friends, but I can try to understand that their opinions are just as based on compassion as mine are. Years ago the GOP tried to distance themselves from the religious right by referring to themselves as a “big tent” with room for everybody, but my experience has been that the Democrats are the real party is a party of inclusion. They respect my individual conscience on difficult issues like abortion.
Former Republican Senator Bob Dole wanted to put inclusion into the 1996 GOP party platform:
“While the party remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing its historic principles and ideals, we also recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing views on issues of personal conscience like abortion and capital punishment. We view this diversity of views as a source of strength, not as a sign of weakness, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues. Recognizing that tolerance is a virtue, we are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect.”
Unfortunately the Grand Old Party declined Dole’s proposal, it was adopted in 2000 as part of the Democratic Party Platform.
So, how can I be a Democrat and call myself a Christian? Because the historic principles and ideals the Democrats advance are the same as these in Psalm 146, “He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The LORD sets prisoners free, the LORD gives sight to the blind, the LORD lifts up those who are bowed down, the LORD loves the righteous. The LORD watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.”
No, I will never say that you can’t be a Christian and be a Republican, but I wish that people will stop writing me off as stupid and illegitimate or less of a Christian because I’m a Democrat. We both love our country and what what’s best for it, we just have different notions of what that means. Last time I asked Him, Jesus was still an independent.
About the author: Ted Mallory teaches journalism and art at a public high school in rural Iowa and serves as a youth counselor at his St. John Lutheran Church in Charter Oak, Iowa. Ted lives in Charter Oak with his wife Bethany, and their two daughters. Bethany & Ted taught for seven years at Los Angeles Lutheran Jr/Senior High School.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Thursday, March 11, 2004
If I were a Supreme Court Justice
The following italicized questions are being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
1) Whether the policy of Petitioner ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under God,” violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
If I were a justice on the high court, this is how I’d reply: There are two important parts to this question. First, should the teachers lead willing students. The Court already agreed in 1935 that unwilling students couldn’t be forced to recite the pledge. No one was forcing Michael Newdow’s daughter to recite the pledge at Elk Grove School.
Second, the First amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, in modern language, they didn’t want to endorse any one Christian denomination. Government is prevented from establishing religion, not from recognizing that there is an unnamed, undefined supreme being of some sort.
That’s why the ACLU helped the Lutheran single mother from Minnesota who sued a public school in Mississippi that required her children to participate in prayers and religion classes led by Southern Baptists. Mormons would lead prayers in Utah, Unitarians in Vermont, Catholics in Boston, Jews or Moslems in New York, perhaps Branch Dividians in Idaho. Faith is something that should be handled in the home or the Church, not by government agencies like public schools.
The Pledge is a public creed. It reminds us what our flag represents, freedom, justice, and unity. Even Michael Newdow seems to agree with the rest of the values and sentiments it contains, otherwise why would he call the movement to have the words “under God,” removed an effort to “restore” the pledge?
2) Whether a non-custodial parent of a minor child has standing in federal court to challenge the policies of a public school district … when the non- custodial parent does not have legal authority to direct either the education or the religious education of the child?
In my opinion, No. Michael Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. As a matter of fact, she is not an atheist like her father. What’s more, her mother, Sandra Banning and Newdow aren’t divorced, they were never even married.
A petition to disbar Michael Newdow was filed in Northern California for “misusing his authority as a member of the State Bar of California by filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits, violating the rules of professional conduct and lying to the courts under oath”.
Oddly enough, Dr. Rev. Michael Newdow is actually an “ordained minister.” In 1977, he received “ordination” by the Universal Life Church, whose sole teaching is “Do what’s right.” You can be ordained too. If you go to their web site, fill out the ordination form, a pop-up ad instantly presents a credential for you to print out and begin using to conduct weddings and funerals for whoever will pay you.
In 1997, he started his own religion, the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS). This “religion” claims that there is no god, and it’s sole purpose is advocating the separation of Church and State.
How sad if 265 million Americans have to forfeit two words from our Pledge of Allegiance because one man is bitter that he can’t control the child he sired outside of marriage.
3) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing
students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under
God,” violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as
applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
I assume this refers to the due process clause:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I assume Newdow thinks that the state or school district can’t require teachers to lead Pledge recital if, in his mind, the Federal Constitution prohibits it as a form of respecting or establishing a religion. Which religion? Agnostics concede the possible existence of a god, but don’t worship on as members of a religion. What if as a public school teacher, I wanted to hang up “Passion of the Christ” movie posters or listen to Christian rock CDs in my classroom?
Shouldn’t I be allowed to do that since the First Amendment also says that the government can not have any laws or policies that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Student’s wouldn’t have to pay attention to it any more than I have to notice the things they wear and listen to even if they’re Satanic, occult, sexually suggestive, or promoting drugs or alcohol?
The great comedian Red Skelton had no idea what a prophet he was when he said “Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?”
1) Whether the policy of Petitioner ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under God,” violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
If I were a justice on the high court, this is how I’d reply: There are two important parts to this question. First, should the teachers lead willing students. The Court already agreed in 1935 that unwilling students couldn’t be forced to recite the pledge. No one was forcing Michael Newdow’s daughter to recite the pledge at Elk Grove School.
Second, the First amendment prohibits the establishment of religion, in modern language, they didn’t want to endorse any one Christian denomination. Government is prevented from establishing religion, not from recognizing that there is an unnamed, undefined supreme being of some sort.
That’s why the ACLU helped the Lutheran single mother from Minnesota who sued a public school in Mississippi that required her children to participate in prayers and religion classes led by Southern Baptists. Mormons would lead prayers in Utah, Unitarians in Vermont, Catholics in Boston, Jews or Moslems in New York, perhaps Branch Dividians in Idaho. Faith is something that should be handled in the home or the Church, not by government agencies like public schools.
The Pledge is a public creed. It reminds us what our flag represents, freedom, justice, and unity. Even Michael Newdow seems to agree with the rest of the values and sentiments it contains, otherwise why would he call the movement to have the words “under God,” removed an effort to “restore” the pledge?
2) Whether a non-custodial parent of a minor child has standing in federal court to challenge the policies of a public school district … when the non- custodial parent does not have legal authority to direct either the education or the religious education of the child?
In my opinion, No. Michael Newdow does not have custody of his daughter. As a matter of fact, she is not an atheist like her father. What’s more, her mother, Sandra Banning and Newdow aren’t divorced, they were never even married.
A petition to disbar Michael Newdow was filed in Northern California for “misusing his authority as a member of the State Bar of California by filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits, violating the rules of professional conduct and lying to the courts under oath”.
Oddly enough, Dr. Rev. Michael Newdow is actually an “ordained minister.” In 1977, he received “ordination” by the Universal Life Church, whose sole teaching is “Do what’s right.” You can be ordained too. If you go to their web site, fill out the ordination form, a pop-up ad instantly presents a credential for you to print out and begin using to conduct weddings and funerals for whoever will pay you.
In 1997, he started his own religion, the First Amendmist Church of True Science (FACTS). This “religion” claims that there is no god, and it’s sole purpose is advocating the separation of Church and State.
How sad if 265 million Americans have to forfeit two words from our Pledge of Allegiance because one man is bitter that he can’t control the child he sired outside of marriage.
3) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing
students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words “under
God,” violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as
applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
I assume this refers to the due process clause:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I assume Newdow thinks that the state or school district can’t require teachers to lead Pledge recital if, in his mind, the Federal Constitution prohibits it as a form of respecting or establishing a religion. Which religion? Agnostics concede the possible existence of a god, but don’t worship on as members of a religion. What if as a public school teacher, I wanted to hang up “Passion of the Christ” movie posters or listen to Christian rock CDs in my classroom?
Shouldn’t I be allowed to do that since the First Amendment also says that the government can not have any laws or policies that prohibit the free exercise of religion? Student’s wouldn’t have to pay attention to it any more than I have to notice the things they wear and listen to even if they’re Satanic, occult, sexually suggestive, or promoting drugs or alcohol?
The great comedian Red Skelton had no idea what a prophet he was when he said “Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
