Some quick religious/political comentary

IN POLITICAL NEWS

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18,

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html#ixzz0hXhIFXx

It has been clear since 9/11 that fear has been a major GOP tactic.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." ~1 John 4:18


GAY MARRIAGE
Recently a student asked me to fill out a political survey for a story he was writing for the school newspaper. There weren't any questions about the deficit or Afghanistan, jobs or the economy. He did ask about health care and gay marriage.

Ordinarily I try to avoid forming opinions (let alone sharing them) on this issue, but that morning my devotion had been on Matthew 22. In  Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 the Sadducees, a group of religious teachers who didn't believe in the resurrection and Heaven, challenged Jesus. The custom was that if a man died without any children, his brother was supposed to marry his widow and have children for him. The Sadducees gave Jesus a scenario where seven brothers all marrying and dying in turn. They asked Him who's wife she would be in Heaven. Jesus knows it's a trap and corrects them, "For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven."

This got me thinking- mind you, I am not condoning homosexuality or promoting gay marriage, but good grief, it seems to me that what Jesus is saying (in part) is that marriage is a temporal, human, perhaps even a civil institution, not necessarily something quite as perfect and Divinely ordained as many of us seem to think. Don't get me wrong, besides my salvation, I personally think that my wife and our marriage is one of the greatest things God has given me. I try thanking Him for Bethany every day. But if marriage is in fact, a covenant, a contract between two people, the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying everyone equal treatment under the law.

I do not think that church bodies should be forced to perform, recognize or "bless" same-sex unions, however, marriage licenses are issued by the state, not churches. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (Luke 20:25, Matt 22:21, Mark 12:17).

Both of these "mini-editorials" are probably enough for some people to want to burn me at the stake as a heretic- guess that's why I'm posting them here on my main blog instead of on my religious blog. Because pretty much no one ever reads this one anymore since I stopped writing a weekly column for my local newspaper. And because the other one is programmed to automatically post on facebook. And I don't feel like having to listen to the negative feedback. Guess I'm a coward. Sorry Gay people. I think you have rights, but I'm too much of a wuss to argue on your behalf. 

Sex, Politics, and Religion

Lately, this has been a kinder, gentler blog what with the poetry and pictures and feeble attempt at fiction and all. But just for a little bit, I'd like to return to it's original mandate and talk about sex, politics and religion for a little bit. I posted a quote from and a link to an article by Evangelical pastor and Liberal social activist Jim Wallis on my "Prophet, Priest, and Pirate" blog-

"The Religious Right was a Christian mistake. It was a movement that sought to implement a ' agenda' by tying the faithful to one political option -- the right wing of the Republican Party. The politicizing of faith in such a partisan way is always a theological mistake. But the rapid decline of the Religious Right now offers us a new opportunity to re-think the role of faith in American public life.

Personally, I am not offended or alarmed by the notion of a post-Christian America. Christianity was originally and, in my view, always meant to be a minority faith with a counter-cultural stance, as opposed to the dominant cultural and political force. Notions of a 'Christian America' quite frankly haven’t turned out very well." ~Jim Wallis

Read the entire article at Sojourners.com

THAT blog as an RSS feed into my Facebook profile page and I tagged several friends (both Red and Blue) to share it with them. What wound up happening is that a former student who's very much a religious conservative commented on it and kept the discussion thread going for several days. Rather than post a full transcript of everything everyone said, I'm just presenting what I wrote here, so it may read a little choppy . You may want to imagine what other people wrote to me.

Recently right-wingers were attacking Sen. Chuck Grassley, an opponent of gay marriage for not being outspoken enough or moving quickly enough in response to Iowa's recent Supreme Court decision calling a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. They're accusing him of drifting away from socially conservative values. I guarantee that if Jesus was traveling 21st century America as He did first century Palestine, Christian Conservatives would criticize Him for cavorting with sinners and tax collectors and for not fasting and not ceremonially washing His hands and gleaning grain from the edge of fields on the Sabbath and healing on the Sabbath etc. etc.

One of my biggest beefs with my fellow Christians is that we too often lean too heavily on the Law at the expense of the Gospel. We cannot and will not turn people's hearts toward God by legislation or judicial decision or constitutional amendment or for that matter by ranting and raving and protest and boycott. We can never save someone from their sin by coercively preventing them from sinning. It's as ridiculous as thinking that we can extract reliable intelligence from an enemy by torture.

People who genuinely want to follow Jesus and can't give up on their precious "culture war," should consider that we are not battling against flesh and blood and therefore conventional (and by that I mean political, practical, and especially Machiavellian , Tzu-ian and Rovian) tactics. The way to win the hearts and minds of unbelievers (and first of all, we can never do this, only God, with Holy Spirit can do it- perhaps using us as His tools) is with love, compassion, example, and prayer. And by addressing their needs, not what we perceive as their faults and errors.

---

I've always felt that Christianity should be leery of associating itself too closely with either party and that Christians need to keep Jesus and His cross central to our theology, and beware of letting our moralist agendas eclipse Him. Admittedly, I am often just as guilty of this as anyone who is passionate about conventional wedge issues or "values" issues (depending on whether you see them with red or blue glasses). Call me chief among sinners, but my point is, that the true kingdom will only advance AND American civil discourse will only thrive when we all stop using "religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon."

Don't we need to love our enemies and pray for those that persecute us? Even when our most treasured issues are at stake?

---

You'll all notice that I tried not to say anything about gay marriage or my opinion on it, I only meant to use Sen. Grassley's predicament to highlight how we go off the rails with our legalism sometimes. I'm not prepared to condone what God disapproves of- however, my don't see how my marriage needs defending from gay people and even if I'm uncomfortable with it, I don't think that the secular, Constitutional right to equal protection under the laws is not something that God, Scripture or the Church deny to non believers or any kind of sinners. These positions may confound many of my dearly loved brothers and sisters in Christ. It is interesting to consider that while the Catholic Church considers marriage a sacrament, the Lutheran Church does not. And, Moses and Paul both write about homosexuality but Jesus Himself didn't address it directly.

I've always been of the opinion that the state should license civil unions and the Church should offer marriages.

Be that as it may, my original intention with this post was never to get involved in a debate on gay marriage. It was to consider our balance on Law and Gospel. I was wondering if sometimes (and this may be as true for me and liberal issues as it is for anyone else with conservative issues) do our temporal, social, political, and moral concerns like meat offered to idols, all things are permitted, but not all things are helpful.

---

To look after orphans and widows in their distress, do not mistreat an alien or oppress, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemy and pray for those that persecute you, judge not lest ye be judged, mercy triumphs over judgment... these are God's values as I read them. America, just like every single individual has always and daily failed to... Read More uphold these values- indeed may very well be incapable of upholding them. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sure, I was knit together in my mother's womb, but I was also conceived in sin. Sure, the United States may have been founded by people who called themselves Christian and modeled our laws after Judeo-Christian traditions, but don't kid yourself, they were business men, politicians, even pirates and privateers, ambitious, sinful mercenaries who killed and enslaved for selfish gain.

Be careful not to fall prey to the Hegelian notion that says that God blesses us more than other countries because we're somehow more Christian than they are. Remember who the Puritans were seeking religious freedom from? King James, as in the King James Bible- a very Christian monarch.

Calvinists, Thomists, Augustinians, and Lutherans (and for that matter in a secular vein- Hobbsians and Lockeans) all have drastically different concepts of human nature and I suppose sin itself, for that matter. As a Lutheran, I believe that on this side of death we all live in a perpetual and inescapable state of sin. Only Jesus' death and resurrection saves me. But during this life the best we can do is make allowances because, like Moses found, people have hard hearts. I agree, as Jesus, we shouldn't shy away from calling wrong wrong, but Jesus still loved and died for people who got divorces, or committed adultery by lusting after someone with their eyes and commit murder by hating people.

---

John Adams once warned that "power always thinks it has great soul, vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it might be violating all His laws. Our passions the powerful are assured... posses so much metaphysical subtlety and so much overpowering eloquence that they insinuate themselves into the understanding and the conscience of the weak and convert both to their party."

---

One American thinks that permitting gay marriage or teaching evolution are a betrayal of God and the values which America was founded on. Another American may think that employing torture or violating 4th and 5th and 14th Amendment rights, or fabricating intelligence reports to support unprovoked military action is just as much an unconscionable betrayal of those same values.

Sen. Charles Grassley is deliberative and thoughtful, not reactionary. Whatever ways I may disagree with him, I don't think he deserved to be attacked by people whom he agrees with because he isn't speaking as loudly and angrily as they as quickly as they have. It just seems to me, that we often fault on the side of Law because we are motivated by anger and fear, whereas the Gospel is always motivated by love- not weakness or trying to please everyone, but genuine love and concern. The goal is that all would come to Christ and salvation, not for me to defend God FROM them.

Like it or not however, for one person protecting and preserving how our society operates is damaging it and preventing it from operating how it how it ought to. Po-tate-o Po-tOt-o. One Christian says God instituted infant baptism, another says... Read More God wants young adults to decide to be baptized. One Christian says Christ is really present in the bread and wine, another says it's just symbolic. Likewise, one American loves the 1st and 4th and 8th Amendments, another loves the 2nd and 10th most. One American looks at the 2nd Amendment and focuses on the "well-regulated militia," another focuses on the individual's right to bear arms. One looks at the 1st Amendment and emphasizes that the right to practice one's religion should not be impeded, another emphasizes that the state should not establish, favor or promote any one religion above another one. Yet, E pluribus unum, from many, one.

---

If you really want to nit pick- sure, God created woman out of man when He saw that he should not be alone, and the Bible says, for this reason a man should leave his mother and father and the two shall become one, but there is no clear legal definition given for a marriage. Adam and Eve didn't get a license from the county clerk or have a ring or a ceremony. Abraham, Jacob, David, and most notoriously Solomon all practiced polygamy. Fundamentalist Mormons are convinced that that should be legalized. Less than fifty years ago many states prohibited Blacks and Whites from getting married. Most states now have a concept called "common-law" marriage in which it categorizes people who've been cohabiting without the blessing of the Church.

---

Pluralism sucks, and you may be scared that God will punish us for it, or that He'll withdraw His blessing for it, but would you prefer a theocracy? Who'd get to be the Mullah? Yours or mine? I'll take pluralism.

When is the culture that influences the church the worldly, unchurched culture that seems so relativistic and when is the seemingly pious and religious subculture of religiosity that is nevertheless human, but imagines itself from God?

Zwingly and Calvin and Wesley insisted on bending the world's culture into our Christian expectations, whereas Luther called us to influence and participate, but not get overly hung up on it because its more valuable to keep our eyes on the cross, and of course then there's Benedict who thought we should remove ourselves from the world. It's a little like Mary and Martha, the busy body (who, mind you, is working for God) or the open heart with eyes and ears focused on higher things. If you're focus is truly on Jesus, how can you have time to notice all the specks in other people's eyes?

---

Lutherans teach that we can never fulfill the Law, but thanks to Christ's work on the cross, we now live in the freedom and grace of the Gospel. Whereas Baptists believe that once one's saved, you are obligated to start following the Law, keep every thought captive etc. It seems to set up some unrealistic expectations on Christians to be perfect. Granted, we shouldn't abuse our freedom by thinking of grace as a license to sin. But my point is, one of the problems with the "Evangelical" or Conservative-Christian movement in America is that rather than having the Law precede and direct us toward the Gospel, we're starting to think that the Gospel precedes and directs us into Legalism.

THAT is the main point I hoped to communicate by posting the quote from and link to an article by Jim Wallis- not get into a heady debate about the so-called culture wars. One of my OTHER problems with extreme right wingers is that they seem to be constantly on the defensive, itching for conflict. I wanted civil, academic, abstract, discussion- not all out argument. I think that if the truth is truth it stands by itself, Share it, explain it, but why feel like you need to defend it? God is God and I am not. He can defend Himself.

I still think that right-wingers went to far when they came down on Senator Grassley -who is on their side!

---

One of my OTHER problems with extreme right wingers is that they seem to be constantly on the defensive, itching for conflict. I wanted civil, academic, abstract, discussion- not all out argument. I think that if the truth is truth it stands by itself, Share it, explain it, but why feel like you need to defend it? God is God and I am not. He can defend Himself.

I'm a compulsive teacher, I want people to think and discuss, even if it takes cognitive dissonance to start the process. Unfortunately it comes of as me being a muck-rucker because I upset the applecart by not simply marching in lock-step with everybody else on every single issue.

---

Writing, speaking, extrapolating, defending, try to cajole and convince and apply apologetics till we're blue in the face, someone will always disagree and worse, someone will always take offense. Obviously there were several times in there when Craig felt that I didn't hear him and a few when I did probably misread his points. There were also several times where I think he felt like I may have been attacking him when actually I was desperately trying to convince him.

⁸ All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

⁹ What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Why be angry at the sun or chase after the wind? I still say, let the rain fall down on the just and the unjust. Jesus knows the weeds from the grain, let Him sort it all out in the end.

Blue Elephants, Red Donkeys

Lets see if they’re really different or not;
Why Blue Elephants made the difference- by a Red Donkey
Charter Oak-Ute NEWSpaper Schleswig Leader, Thursday, November 16, 2006 Page 3

Last week a very dear Republican friend of mine sent me an E-mail: “So...Have you calmed down since the election is over and Rumsfeld is out? What is your reaction to the fact that a number of states have voted for protection of/clear definitions of marriage amendments?”
I don’t know... what’s calm? Political and news junkies like me get off on letting our blood pressure boil over pundits, party talking points and politicians. Other people watch football or bet on basketball.

I’m fine with defining marriage as one man and one woman as long as you don’t deny anyone equal treatment under the law. Of course I think that having to pass a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is superfluous, it’s like passing a law to define the sky as blue, so it was obviously a flawed attempt by extreme right wingers to “activate their base” and get the gay-hating Christians to come out and vote.

Some of us are Christians, agree that the Bible pretty clearly prohibits homosexuality, and agree that marriage by definition is only for one man and one woman, yet we don’t have a huge irrational fear and hatred of gay people and we believe that they live under the same Constitution.

Should Rumsfeld have been removed from office sooner? Heavens yes? Would that have helped Republicans fare better in the election that was just held? Gee Wilikers? Who knows? Is it pretty convenient that since he’s getting the boot now, his replacement (who was pretty involved in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980’s) will be confirmed by the current 209th Congress rather than the newly elected 210th with a Democratic majority in January? By Golly, you betchya!

You know what? Now is when the rubber really hits the road. It was pretty easy for the Democrats to win a majority. They didn’t have to run for anything. The Republicans were so steeped and soaked in scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, mistakes, extremism, and of course the muck of a miss managed war and a stubborn, Presidency.

Some Democrats would like to think that the voters sent President Bush and the Republicans a strong message, that they’re ready for change. But I don’t put much stock in alleged “mandates.” I don’t think that Liberals have any more mandate than Bush mistakenly claimed when he was barely reelected.

Democrats won because most Americans are centrists. They won because moderate Republicans jumped ship because they got tired of people who talked about compassionate conservatism but really aren’t either.

This election saw a new development. “Goldwater Democrats.” That’s right. Sound like an oxymoron? No more than “Reagan Democrats.”

Growing up in Arizona, I came to see Goldwater, our senior Senator for most of my life as sort of a patron saint. When the shrimp hit the fan with Watergate, he went to Nixon and told him to step down. Goldwater was angry that Nixon had been lying to him.

Now mind you, I disagree on his stand on states-rights in opposition to civil rights, especially integrating schools and of course there was the idea he had about using “strategic” nukes in Vietnam. Nobody’s perfect. But time and time again, I find myself agreeing with him on many things that I used to be able to find common ground on with my Republican friends- things like deficit reduction, government reform and smaller, streamlined government. Not to mention keeping the Government out of your private life.

Democrats won this recent election because, like Goldwater, American voters don’t like lies and secrets and have no patience for ineptitude- not because Americans suddenly all became progressives. Many of the Democrats who won consider themselves fiscal and social conservatives. Some are Iraq veterans who felt abandoned or betrayed.

What the Democrats had better do now is deliver. House Speaker elect, Pelosi promised the most uncorrupted, moral and reformed Congress ever. Its easy to be the “reform” party when you’re on the outside. If they let power corrupt them then they’ll deserve to get kicked out just like their predecessors.

We can only hope that the Democrats will finally put the brakes on the out of control spending habits of Bush and the Republicans.

We can only hope that they’ll REFORM (not raise) taxes in a way that benefits the middle class, not corporations and the super rich. But only time will tell.

Gay Marriage- among other topics

I recently had an interesting volley of emails with a friends. Thought I'd share them here:
Cool Stuff. Here is the first one from my friend who's a Lutheran Middle School teacher:

One of the best things to happen to me was that I've had to teach
Civics for a couple of years now. I rather enjoy it. We just finished a rather long simulation dealing with the Constitution. Check out the Interact Simulation Website to see what I'm talking about. Way cool. Anyway. They had a good time learning about parliamentary procedure if nothing else. I think for such a long time I focused on the History side of things that I never really dealt with the mechanics of government. Now I'm rather enjoying
myself in what I'm learning. I'm no expert by any means. I must say I learned a lot from you. Thanks for the insights that you provide.

We have a principal now whose a bit on the freaky conservative side. I admit that I'm not too crazy about gay marriage business and all but I'm also quite sure that there will be Democrats in Heaven. My principal, who's also the 5th grade social studies teacher, has made statements to the effect that being a Christian and a Democratic party member are next to impossible. NOT!! I have made it quite clear in my Civics class that that is not the
case. My mantra is "If you don't know how the Constitution works, you will be at the mercy of those that do." AND...I refuse to use my influential position as a teacher to make little Republican clones--or any party clones for that matter.

Well, I better go. Dinners ready. Thanks again for your insights.


And here is my first reply to him:

As good as all the history shows on History Channel and Discovery Channel are (that ne Dogfights on Friday nights is SO cool) I think that one of the best that I'd show to kids if I was still teaching HIstory is History Detectives on PBS.
They show the actual reseach process based on doccuments and evidence. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are certain names, dates and battles that kids need- absolutely, but I've always felt that understanding, analysis and application are more useful and valuable than mere knowledge at least that's my perspective on Bloom's taxonomy.

I always tried to help kids see the dynamic tensions, the balances of divergent interests. That may be safe when you're talking about the Whiskey Rebellion or Federalism and Anti-Federalism but even when you get into Manifest Destiny or Reconstruction, if there are colleagues or parents who are wing-nuts, they can freak. Am I wrong that scrutiny and using critical thinking skills are good things? Non partisan things?

Unfortunately there are people who don't believe we should teach, they send their kids to a parochial school to be indoctrinated, not to learn how to think for themselves.

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."
~George Orwell, 1984;


Whats funny is, you know how when you're a kid and somebody farts, you say "whoever smelt it, dealt it!"? What's funny is that the firt people to accuse others of revisionist history are the people who either have swallowed some propaganda or don't know enough about history (or government) so they're victoms of revisionist history themselves.

I still LOVE your mantra.

And another from my friend:

Hello again,

More food for thought.

Personally I cannot condone the homosexual lifestyle. It is immoral. Yet these are people who desperately need to hear the Gospel message. Hate the sin but love the sinner.

Just thought I'd say that so that up front. Now let's move into the political realm. I like your analogy of defining marriage to calling the sky blue. However, can one not also argue that a Christian in a democratic society has the glorious opportunity to help further the Gospel's spread by voting on issues such as this? Churches throughout the country (at least in some states where the marriage amendments were on the ballot) worked the issue of marriage into Bible studies and sermons out of growing concern that the institution was under "attack". True, I concede to the fact that parties would use this as a means to further their own agendas. Alas, this is politics. But couldn't it also be the Holy Spirit nudging people to witness through their votes, or across their dinner tables with their families as they discuss the issue? Granted, there are some real goofballs out there that have some serious hate issues, but what if out of perhaps hundreds of conversations about marriage amendments that a handful of marriages were strengthened and maybe some members of the gay community were given perhaps a moment of pause to consider the possibility of repentance and begin a journey that could ultimately bring them closer to our Lord? If that were the case for at least one person, then I guess I'd be happy to call this controversy over marriage a success. God has blessed us with the gift of democracy, wouldn't it be foolish and even sinful not use that gift to ultimately spread the Gospel?

Now, I will say that I would not likely favor ANY national amendment to define marriage because I feel that, based on the separation of powers under the federal system, it is the states that have the power to make laws concerning marriage, NOT the central government. Allowing the federal government to step in here would probably not be wise or a good use of our national government's time and treasure. However, if society elevates the gay lifestyle to the same status as say the African or Hispanic community, making this a civil rights issue, well, I guess then, as a civil rights issue, perhaps this is how the question will
have to be settled someday.

Forgive me if I don't sound clear, I'm trying to articulate my views as I write here. It's helping me to better understand my own position. You know, I recall teaching a unit in my U.S. history class about the labor unions. I recall how some early unions fought for political and economic reform by attempting to radically change the political landscape in order to accomplish their goals. Populism? Yet then you look at folks like Samuel Gompers and the collective bargaining process. They ended up playing the system better. Kind of like practicing your basketball layups rather than trying to drastically change the overall rules of basketball to fit your playing style. Okay, maybe I'm stretching this a little, but couldn't America's Christians take a cue from this? Try to be better Christians and share the gospel
BETTER instead of getting the government to do it. If the Grace of God were made more readily accessible through the witness of believers to nonbelievers, maybe we wouldn't have such a problem with issues like gay marriage. Maybe if the love of Christ was more readily evident through works of service and sincere praise, hearts would be turned Christ BEFORE people could be suckered into counterfeit feelings of love offered through such things as
homosexuality, pornography, and materialism. Let us be firm in our doctrine but also loving in how we treat others and strive for a better balance between Law and Gospel.

Well, I'm tapped out. Chew on this for a while and fire back when you have time.

Hope your family is well.



And another response from me:

Just so we're up front- I'm not gay, nor have I ever played a gay person on TV. (just trying to lighten the tone a little) Seriously, the older I get, the more I read and study Scripture, and the more I learn about the process that theologians, including early church fathers use to interpret scriptures, two hot-button issues become clearer to me: 1) that no matter how you try to dice it, God has prohibited homosexuality and 2) He probably did not intend for us to exclude people from roles of responsibility because of their gender as much as we have.

Hows that sound? Conservative on one issue and Liberal on another? Maybe.

I seem to want to talk about Luther's Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. My understanding of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution leads me to believe that even though my religion considers homosexuality a sin, it would still be unfair in the eyes of the civil law to deny a monogomous homosexual long-time companion from providing for their partner financially or legally in ways that a traditional married spouse could.

I know a Republican law maker who has killed anti-gay marriage legislation in committee because if it came up to a vote, he knew he'd have to vote for it. The solution some progressive Christian leaders like Tony Campolo have suggested is similar to what's been done in Europe; civil authorities issue civil union agreements, and churches conduct marriages, but neither institution may do the other. As it is the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize Lutheran marriages, so if one district/synod of the American Episcopal Church blesses gay unions, the LCMS certainly shouldn't be cumpulsed to recognize that union. If marriage is from God, either as a full blown sacrament as the Catholics believe or as a metaphor for Christ's relationship to His Church as we do- why should we cede the ordination of marriages to any temporal, civil authority anyway? Doesn't that profane the institution? Teddy Roosevelt, not a particularly devout Presbyterian, didn't want "In God We Trust" on our currency because he believed it was blasphemous!

I guess I'm more comfortable as a Democrat, even when there are Democrats who do, accept, or believe things that make my skin crawl, is because Democrats are pragmatic and practical, they believe in detente' and compromise because they know that we live in a broken world and we have to make the best of it. What I have observed over the last 36 years is that because the Republican party chooses positions that are inflexible, they promote hypocricy. Wittness Gambling Bill Bennett, thieving Ralph Reed, drug-poppin' Hatian hooker employing Rush Limbaugh, and most recently pediphile Mark Foley, and Meth using gay hating gay guy Rev. Ted Haggard.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. Yeah, maybe the Holy Spirit may convict someone in their heart because our pastors and politicians are all up in arms about a wedge issue like gay marriage. Or... people who are struggling feel persecuted, hated and alienated. They're like Luther who practices self-flagilation because they look up at the cruel, unempathetic Christ as a heartless, angry judge, instead of as the approachable, patient, compassionate, yet hold you responsible and don't indulge your selfish sinful nature Father that He really is? Are we driving people out of the Church and making it less likely that they will hear the Word and come to repentance? What's the most effective means to influence our society? By voting? By legislating? Maybe, there's certainly room for that and I'd even agree that it is our duty. But so is by being salt and light, by being Jesus' arms and legs, in our relationships. "A Christian Nation begins at home" is one of my mantras. Walk the walk yourself, rather than screaming and shouting at others when they don't.

Unfortunately it is a sticky, complicated mess. It involves theology, civil rights, and biology too. Is society "elevating" homosexuality to the level of race? Is it a choice? A decision? Some conservatives are libertarians and even if they hate gays, they don't believe the government shoud interfere. Is it a disorder? Like a desease? If so, maybe we should regulate it like smoking, alohol, and drugs. If it is, surely we can't be more judgemental of them than we are of aloholics, adicts, or other people with disablilities. Thank God that through the Grace of our Lord, Heaven will be filled with drunks, smokers, pot-heads, adulterers, people who kuss and have looked at porn or cheated on a math quiz.... Yeah, see, I guess it gets down to how if I've even looked at a woman with lust in my heart I just as well pluck my eye out, huh? Or... if it's not a choice or a disorder, is it a genetic trait- can they help it? Would a black man choose to be black in a racist society? And if they can't help it, they what do we do with that, especially in the light of what the Bible says? Some scientists believe that biology suggests that sexual preference is not something one can help. Can't change genes. Not fair? Blame Adam & Eve? Blame Satan? Blame God?

Detente' (thank you Mr. Nixon & Mr. Kissenger for that one) Coexist. How do you put the toothpaste badk in the tube? All things, including society suffers from atrophy. And finally, don't be a control freak like the parent or principal who wants to produce clones instead of wanting to disciple children and equip the saints. Like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society. Many of the new Democratic Congressmen and Senators are pro guns, pro God, anti-gay marriage and anti abortion, but they're also anti-supply-side-economics or anti war.
This is a fallen world, and human, temporal law is about making it as fair and survivable as possible, not about making it right or godly or perfect- only the blood of Christ can do that. Too many "Christian Conservatives" today are confused about Law and Gospel. They think it's our job to prepare America for Christ's second comming, that we're somehow supposed to make this world obedient for God. That's not our job. Our job is to spread the word that we don't HAVE to work, we just have to accept His gracious gift because the work is done.

I'm sure plenty of Christian NAZIs thought that Deitrich Bonhoffer should go to Hell for lying to and dissenting against the God-instituted government in Germany. Thank God they would have been wrong, just as people who don't think that Christians can be Democrats may be well-meaning, but wrong. Or as John McLaughlin might say, "WRONG!"

Whew. Sorry to be so dang long-winded. I think, therefore I can't shut up.

Thanks for the forum and the fellowship.

What's a moral issue?

"I think the Religious Right makes a mistake when it suggests that there are only two religious values issues: abortion and gay marriage. Many care about other things, but when it comes to politics, these are their primary political, public issues ... As an evangelical Christian, when I find 2,000 verses in my Bible about poor people, I insist fighting poverty is a moral values issue, too...After 2,300 Americans have been killed, 106 from Ohio, and so many Iraqis, we must say that when you go to war, whether you go to war, and whether you tell the truth about going to war is a moral values issue, too."

~Rev.Jim Wallis

Wedge issues may play big role

It seems that the Democrats now have a nominee apparent. There’s already a “short-list” of possible running-mates. Former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Grahm is someone who could bring vindication for the 2000 election if he can deliver his home state.

Missouri Congressman Richard Gephart would appeal to old-style blue-collar Democrats.

I think that retired General Wesley Clark could bring broad appeal to moderate and socially conservative swing votes since he opposes gay marriage and abortion. He’d also supply extra oomf to the Kerry challenge to President Bush’s Defense policies.

There is even buzz that Kerry might consider New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Many people think she’d rather run for President on her own sometime in the next couple of decades.

The most likely choice, of course is North Carolina Senator John Edwards.

I think that a more exciting question is, what will the issues be in the fall? Well, it would be nice if they’d be things like civil rights, defense, environment and energy, health care, homeland security, foreign policy, education, deficits and balanced budgets. Fat chance.

Expect President Bush to bring out two big wedges and a red herring. Tax reform is a perennial Republican attention diverter (red herring), sure we need it, but to Bush it means more supply-side tax cuts for corporations and the top 2% of super wealthy Americans.

Then there are the “wedge” issues. Abortion and gay-marriage. They’re called wedges because they divide us. In stead of agreeing to disagree and live together or agreeing to hash it out until we come to a consensus or till one side compromises, wedge issues inflame passions and get people so worked up that they can’t think about anything else. Divide and conquer, just as good a political strategy as it is a military strategy.

Personally, I think that they’re both way to messy and way to personal for the Federal Government to mess with. You’d think that a true conservative who professes to less intrusive big-government would agree with me, but not Bush and the Religious Right. That’s ironic since these are both issues to truly be decided in the Bible, the Church and the heart, not with secular legislation.

You could call me socially conservative in so far as oppose both abortion and gay marriage, but the problem is, that much like the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe that the real battle is in people’s heart’s and minds.

I admit it, it pains and embarrasses me that Democrats keep a pro-choice plank in their party platform. The problem, as a matter of fact, is with Roe v. Wade. I think that the Supreme Court was really stretching to interpret the Constitution to include a right to abortion. Even is you squeeze the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments enough to say that the Constitution protects a “right to privacy,” what does that have to do with a human being, the baby? My point is, this is an issue for the Sates or Congress to hash out, not for the Court to have decided.

If only it was as simple as it should be. There are complications like rape, incest, and mortality of the mother. There are theological, ethical, and biological disagreements about the definition of a human life and when exactly it begins. Unfortunately, these are issues that there may never be concessions on. Congress and the FCC can’t even settle on a clear definition for decency and indecency on TV and radio, how can we hope that we’ll all agree on abortion as a nation?

It may be about to get worse. The newest issue- that could well become a wedge issue is human cloning. Last week South Korean scientists announced that they had successfully cloned a human being. They say that it is for harvesting stem cells for research and tissue production-not for reproduction.

There’s the wedge. Devout Mormon, Republican Senator Orin Hatch of Utah is a staunch opponent of abortion, but he is an adamant proponent of stem-cell research. Stem cells, taken from human embryos (babies) are thought to hold the keys to treating or curing such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Some people believe that cloning for the sake of producing stem cells should be permitted for the sake of genetic therapy, organ replacement, and research. Of course the embryos created are terminated so that they don’t go on to develop into full grown adults. So the question is, is that a form of abortion? Are clones human? Are they human lives? Do they have souls? Do they have rights?

I may not think that Abortion is a privacy issue, but don’t think that privacy won’t also be an issue between cell phones, e-mail, surveillance cameras, and National security. Big brother is here and we may need a Constitutional amendment providing the right to privacy before amendments on abortion or gay marriage get fought about.

Is gay marriage wrong? I for one can’t get passed that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, but so is drunkenness and gluttony. Jesus said that if you so much as look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery. In His time that meant you were sentenced to being stoned to death. He said that if you hate someone it’s the same as committing murder. So being gay is wrong, but so is hating gays.

We’re stuck aren’t we? That’s why wedge issues are so effective in forcing would be moderates and progressives over the fence to the radically conservative side. It’s more comfortable.

The 14th Amendment does promise “equal protection under the law.” Does that mean that a monogamous gay partner should be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital or be covered by their partner’s insurance? I don’t know for sure, but it does make us straights look stupid for trying so hard to protect the sanctity of marriage when heterosexual celeb-bratt-ties have their Vegas marriages annulled after 24 hour because they were drunk.

One thing for sure, this doesn’t seem to be an issue that’s going to fade away.

Then, there’s still war. Americans die every day in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and there’s no proof of any weapons of mass destruction. Former Bush administration officials say that he talked about invading Iraq as soon as he got into office and began implementing plans to do so within a week of September 11.

Then there is the mother-of-all-wedge-issues rearing its ugly head again. In 1971 a Viet Nam veteran, with Silver and Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts sat before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the Vietnam War and asked the Senators something very controversial.

Commander John Kerry asked them, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

No military man or woman’s service to their country should ever be devalued, their lives and sacrifice is truly honorable and sacred- and I don’t think that Commander Kerry meant to say they died in vain. I believe that he questioned the policies and decisions of Presidents Johnson (a Democrat) and Nixon (a Republican) just as people today question Bush’s policy of “preemptive unilateralist.”

Carter served in the cold war on the first nuclear submarine. Ronald Reagan played a soldier frequently in Hollywood Movies. Bush Sr. served in WWII. Clinton got a deferment for college because he was accepted to be a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in England (like West Point grad Wes Clark), of course he took a lot of heat from Republicans because he participated in protests against Vietnam.

Bush Jr. is thought to have joined the Air National Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam, where men like Bob Kerry, John McCain, and John Kerry suffered and sacrificed.

I have two uncles who are great friends, but Vietnam is something they both choose not to talk about. One was a medic, another fled to Canada. Almost forty years later, it’s a wedge issue that still divides families, and divides America.

What we must learn to do is to agree to disagree. Wedge issues will always divide us, but they need not destroy us. Like it or not, compromise is an integral part of our democracy. As foul as they often are to endure unresolved or un-vanquished, these differences should be the price we pay for our unity and freedom, not the levers we use to wrest power from our political opponents.