“Apropos of absolutely nothing, and sure to tick some people off: the Democratic party’s so-called religion problem is a phony one in the sense that Democrats do and always have had many people with strong faith and religious practice. But there is some truth to the notion that there is some division fierce indepence among Dems as to the question of how much energy they should expend reaching out to socially conservative religious voters. (In FoxWorld, those are the only “people of faith” who really exist.)”
Ok, does Bill McKibben sleep? Here he is at Beliefnet & Sojourners‘ God’s Politics blog. Is it just me living on the left coast and subscribing to Mother Jones (good blog post on evangelicals and Romney here), but does a new article by Bill show up somewhere every week single for you, too? The Gospel vs. Global Warming
Mainstream Baptist says that freedom is what keeps him still Baptist.
Wow, former president of Iliff School of Theology and Pacific School of Religion now barely retired Christian theologian Delwin Brown is blogging a really sharp theology of Progressive Christianity. He points out how it’s more than just anti-religious right or even how it’s different than liberal Christian theology:
The liberal failure to keep the distinctive resources of the Christian inheritance at the center of their reflection was rooted in another failure, one common to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The liberals “forgotâ€ that human beliefs and practices, individually and collectively, are fed and formed by our distinctive human histories. In other words, the liberals were seduced by “modernism.â€ Modernism is the idea that there is one truth grounded in the nature of things in such a way that thinking individuals can have immediate access to this truth through reasoned analysis of contemporary experience, without any special dependence on inherited resources. It is the idea that we don’t need history in the pursuit of truth; we can go right to the truth by thinking clearly now. The point is not that “history is bunk,â€ as Henry Ford once claimed. Rather it is that our varied histories, traditions, ancient texts and the like have no special role in guiding and testing contemporary life.
Sunday’s NYTimes included a David Kirkpatrick article about a secretive meeting of conservative Christian leaders including Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Grover Norquist. They were meeting, as usual, to discuss American politics but this year the mood is different due in part to the difficulty finding a GOP candidate that represents their issues correctly while also being able to actually win in ’08.
In “Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate,” Kirkpatrick writes:
“But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.”
“‘I’ve never seen more disillusionment at this point in the election in 30 years,’ says a source close to the Council for National Policy, which prohibits members from discussing meetings with the media. ‘There’s a revolt out there, a feeling these top three are being pushed on us by Republican leadership in D.C.’”
In light of this dismay, here’s a roundup of what conservative blogs are saying.
True conservatives are in a bind in 2008, at least so far…
But as the super-secretive Council for National Policy broke camp this weekend the New York Times picked up on the chance to highlight all the “lack of consensus.”
And to their credit – made some very valid points…
Waimea notes his Republican bona fides, but after reading the article states, “This is why I cannot support the conservative wings of the Republican party. . should they take over the party, drives me away from being a Republican.”
I don’t consider myself a member of the Christian right of Jerry Falwell, I am a Christian and a right winger and I am having as difficult a time with a candidate as they seem to be. Though I am not having as difficult a time about Romney because of his religion as many seem to be. IMO as long as he believes in God, isn’t planning on forcing anyone to do anything to pander to his religion exclusively and isn’t a member os Islam, I have no problem with his religion.
An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings corrects the article: “Well, maybe some are hostile, but that’s really not our way. Lack of trust would be more like it. Rudy’s previous marriages aren’t a big deal in my opinion, people make mistakes, it’s his stand on the murder of babies and gay ‘rights’ with which I have a problem.”
In the NYPost John Podhoretz pounds about the reasoning,
“Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he’s opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life. . .When Republican voters look at Rudy Giuliani, they know one key fact about him: They know he’s no liberal.
They may not exactly know why yet, but they know it.”
But over at Free Republic, Mr. Pissant clearly has another idea as he weighs the differences between Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter:
“Does the GOP become the party of moderation, or do they insist on a return to Reaganism, with the unabashed, bold conservative ideas and a willingness to ridicule the party of treason. The leading candidate right now supported a communist, Mario Cuomo, for governor of his state because he had the right ideas. The leading candidate was endorsed by the NY liberal party 3 times, because he represented much of their platform. On the flip side there is a candidate that not only espouses Reaganism, but has lived and voted it. And for bold ideas, he vows to get the border fence built in 6 months, return the power of education to the states, confront China’s growing militancy, boost our armed forces – including space based weaponry, and do everything in his power to see that Roe v. Wade becomes a footnote in history.
That my friend, is a powerful, positive agenda. Reaganesque, Thatcheresque, but certainly not Giuliani-ish.”
An informal conversation at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral with David Batstone about the fight to free the 27 million persons who live in slavery today. Yes, human trafficking exists and it permeates American culture. Professor of ethics at USF and co-founder of Business 2.0 magazine, David shares his experiences traveling 90,000 miles over five continents in writing Not for Sale while documenting the return of the global slave trade and how we can stop it.
It’s budget time again and this one ranks very rank. As Ed Schwartz pointed out in the American Prospect:
“George Bush now gives us an annual laundry list of programs that he wants Congress to cut. The basic philosophy of the Bush administration seems to be that while it’s an honor to die for your country, it’s an imposition to pay for it.”
Just to get us started, the Times weighs in, pointing out that:
The budget is based on a series of improbable, if not dishonest, assumptions. To make it appear as if the tax cuts are affordable in the near term, it assumes that the Pentagon will not spend a single penny on Iraq or Afghanistan after 2009. It also assumes there will be no costs for fixing the alternative minimum tax after this year, even though Mr. Bush and virtually every politician in America is committed to such relief. The new budget would also slash key entitlement programs and punish many of the country’s most vulnerable citizens..
As Firedoglake notes, It’s the Enron Federal Budget process — bilking the public and lying to them at the same time. Welcome to Bushworld, where everyone but the cronies gets screwed. And, even worse, as Deborah Solomon points out in the WSJ, the thing on which the Bush budget most relies: hoping for a lot of luck. Wait, isn’t that our policy in Iraq, too? Oversight, anyone?
Before we get depressed one of my favorite writers, Matt Taibbi, who wrote Spanking the Donkey a great history of the 2004 presidential campaign, tackles the budget.
In the recent issue of Rolling Stone also reprinted at Alternet, he writes about the current Bush budget and the funding priorities. While talk about the war, the environment, and human trafficking gets me moving, Matt makes a compelling case. In fact, this budget may be the most anti-Christ-like thing we face (Matthew 25:31-46).
On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush’s proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press, mainly because of the controversy over the Iraq war resolution. All the same, the Bush budget is an amazing document. It would be hard to imagine a document that more clearly articulates the priorities of our current political elite.
Not only does it make many of Bush’s tax cuts permanent, but it envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country. The proposed savings from the cuts over the next decade are about $442 billion, or just slightly less than the amount of the annual defense budget (minus Iraq war expenses). But what’s interesting about these cuts are how Bush plans to pay for them.
If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family — the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune — would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.
The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.
Or how about this: if the Estate Tax goes, the heirs to the Mars candy corporation — some of the world’s evilest scumbags, incidentally, routinely ripped by human rights organizations for trafficking in child labor to work cocoa farms in places like Cote D’Ivoire — if the estate tax goes, those assholes will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks. That’s more than three times the amount Bush wants to cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period. Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts. Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut.
the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks. Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children.
Taibbi adds, “Somehow, to me, that’s the worst one on the list. Here you have the former CEO of a company that scored record profits even as it gouged consumers, with gas prices rising more than 70 percent since January of 2001. There is a direct correlation between the avarice of oil company executives and the increased demand for federal aid for heating oil programs like LIHEAP, and yet the federal government wants to reward these same executives for raising prices on the backs of consumers.”
Not to sound self-righteous but I am reminded of those words of Bush’s favorite philosopher who promised to say in the end:
“Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me.” Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, “Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.” These will ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?” And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”
Special section on the discussion among bloggers about the role of faith in progressive public life.
Although the discussion existed before, due to the controversy over the language and politicization of former Edwards’ bloggers, the debate about the role of faith in progressive politics flared up this week.
Last week, kos wrote a long piece on religion, values and politics essentially pointing out that the best candidates and progressive policies come from values, both from the bible and from life experiences independent from faith. But that “talking about faith” hurts the cause.
How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith — and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can’t come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do).
So Mr. Wallis, let’s make our own deal. How about if you realize that there are other people in the religious grassroots working carefully and productively to make common cause with secular progressives.
There are few people anywhere in our mainstream discourse who are anything close to being anti-religion, and I’m not aware of any of them having prominent ties to the Democratic party or any prominent organization associated with The Left, let alone speaking for them. . .As I said before I don’t really care if progressive or any other beliefs come from faith, but who has denied that they can?
Mik Moore of JSpot, notes the Jewish angle: “jspot is a progressive faith blog and thus part of the somewhat amorphous ‘religious left,’ (as is JFSJ). And the liberal Jewish community has always struggled with tensions between our observant, non-observant, secular, and anti-religious constituencies. My hope is that the lessons liberal Jews have learned and continue to learn can be instructive to the larger conservation [sic] surrounding Wallis’ post.”
Faithful Democrats‘ Jesse Lava wonders what the secular left even is. But he sticks up for Wallis, stating: I’m a fan of Jim Wallis. He has done an awful lot to draw attention in this country to a progressive Christian vision. Many Americans know the message of Matthew 25 (and the like) because of him. But Lava adds:
As these secular-religious discussions progress, I hope we can eventually come to a point where we don’t have to keep talking about our attitude toward each other — like one of those relationships where all you talk about is the relationship itself. Soon, I hope, we’ll understand each other and march on.
Noting that “Wallis, Street Prophets, Kos and Atrios are All My Brothers” Faithful Progressive weighs in on Mr. God’s Politics himself:
Yes, Wallis sometimes seems to attack straw men, he’s a little wobbily on keeping abortion non-criminal, and he seems on occasion to randomly lash out at Kos or the secular left for reasons known only to him. But this has to be put in the context of 30 years of work organizing on behalf of the poor. To me, that balance is overwhelmingly positive.
But you walk away from discussions about religion on blogs like Daily Kos with the strong feeling that the secular left is happy to tolerate religious people as long as we use DNC talking points in place of the Beatitudes. We’re a tool to them (Wallis became the ultimate tool himself when he gave the Democratic response to a recent weekly radio address by the president). When the Christian faith simply becomes a tool for one or another of the political parties we fail in our primary obligation as disciples: to make other disciples so that we build up in the Kingdom.