The Rev. Chuck Currie

"Was The 2004 Election Stolen?"

One of the reasons George W. Bush’s first-term in office was so disastrous was that he came into office by clearly illegitimate means. His victory over Al Gore was Constitutional – and I respect that – but the majority of Americans voted for Gore in 2000 over Bush and all but the most partisan understand that Gore would have won Florida if the Republican-majority on the Supreme Court had allowed the recount to occur. It was Al Gore that Americans wanted sworn in as president in January 2001 and not the governor of Texas.

There was a lot of disappointment in my household following Bush’s 2004 victory but it at least felt better to me knowing that all the votes had been counted and that his victory reflected the will of the people. Now there is reason to suspect that wasn’t the case.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote earlier this month in Rolling Stone:

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Was the 2004 election stolen? Did John Kerry actually defeat George W. Bush in 2004 just as Al Gore did in 2000?  Kennedy makes a good case that is just what happened.

Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, writing today in The Boston Globe, are asking for a federal investigation. That would only be appropriate considering the evidence we now have available.  All Americans need to know if their votes were stolen in 2004. 

Roman Catholic House Democrats Support Constitutional Democracy Over Papal Authority

In late February a group of pro-life and pro-choice Roman Catholic Democrats in the US House of Representatives issued a joint statement explaining how faith shaped their views on public policy.  These Democrats differ amongst themselves on the hot button issue of abortion but find common ground on issues concerning poverty and war.  They wrote:

In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths.  We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

The US Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops responded to the Democrats this week with a statement of their own.  Much of it was appropriate :

A recent public statement by 55 Catholic and Democratic members of the House of Representatives offers an opportunity to address several important points about the responsibilities of Catholics in public life.

We welcome this and other efforts that seek to examine how Catholic legislators bring together their faith and their policy choices. As the Catholic bishops of the United States said in our June 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life":

We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.

Therefore, we welcome the Representatives' recognition that Catholics in public life must act seriously and responsibly on many important moral issues. Our faith has an integral unity that calls Catholics to defend human life and human dignity whenever they are threatened. A priority for the poor, the protection of family life, the pursuit of justice and the promotion of peace are fundamental priorities of the Catholic moral tradition which cannot be ignored or neglected. We encourage and will continue to work with those in both parties who seek to act on these essential principles in defense of the poor and vulnerable.

My only critique thus far is that many Roman Catholic bishops clearly crossed a line during the 2004 elections and used church resources to work for the defeat of pro-choice Democrats and in support of anti-choice Republicans (Republicans who also supported the war and the death penalty).  Pro-choice Republicans were left alone by the bishops.  I doubt the sincerity of people like Archbishop Burke of St. Louis to work with people of both parties.

In any event, here is the real heart of the bishop's statement:

At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church's constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right - the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II's apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives' statement cites, declares:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.... The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).

While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.

The hypocrisy is that the bishops hold Republicans and Democrats to different standards. 

The bishops are free to try and influence public policy - I support that freedom 100%.  But they are not free to engage in partisan political activity.  The law forbids it.   

As Americans, we should appreciate that the Roman Catholics House Democrats support the Constitution over papal authority.   

East Waynesville Baptist Church Could Learn Something From Their Neighbors At First Congregational United Church of Christ of Asheville, NC

East Waynesville Baptist Church has shown the world what their theology is all about: exclusion and division. Hopefully, that will change now that their pastor – who helped kick out church members who voted for John Kerry – has resigned in disgrace.

If East Waynesville Baptist Church is looking for a model of how to be a welcoming congregation they might consider looking just down the road at First Congregational United Church of Christ of Asheville, North Carolina. This UCC congregation adopted a statement in 2002 that East Waynesville Baptist Church might consider borrowing:

We believe all persons are created in the image of a loving God, who not only creates but also embodies, embraces and celebrates diversity. As disciples of Jesus, we are called to restore justice wherever God's creation is broken or divided.

We acknowledge that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons have long been excluded, rejected and dishonored by the Church. This practice, often implicitly condoned by silence, continues today. While persons of minority sexual orientations have historically been a part of faith communities, many, out of fear or rejection, have been unable to live openly the fullness of their lives. Others have left or never joined a church.

We also recognize that other marginalized people have been excluded. When any person's opportunity for spiritual growth and worship is limited by injustice, our own growth is restricted and our worship diminished. We celebrate that this congregation has been a welcoming community of faith and now wish to make our welcome explicit for all. Therefore:

We invite people of every race, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, ability, financial means, ethnic and spiritual background into the full life and ministry of this congregation.

As one expression of this invitation we declare First Congregational United Church of Christ, Asheville, NC to be an "Open and Affirming" congregation of the United Church of Christ. With God's help, we will challenge injustice based on sexual orientation. We promise to support and honor all loving and mutual relationships. With a spirit of thankfulness for all God's gifts we humbly and prayerfully enter into this covenant with one another.

Approved by congregational vote on January 27, 2002.

Christianity is a faith founded on God’s love for creation – all creation. We are called “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God. (Micah 6:8)."  Asheville, NC is fortunate to have several churches that reject exclusion and embrace diversity.

God Is Still Speaking.

North Carolina Southern Baptist Pastor Resigns

The pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church, Chan Chandler, has resigned. Chandler was accused last week of terminating the membership of nine church members because they voted for John Kerry. 40 other members resigned in protest. The Asheville Citizens-Times reports that Chandler promised church members he would continue speaking out against abortion before announcing his resignation. His actions obviously deeply harmed his congregation. It would be appropriate for the IRS and North Carolina officials to investigate how church funds were managed during his tenure. It certainly appears he confused ministry with promoting the reelection of George W. Bush. If he used his position to advocate for Bush’s campaign the church should loose their non-profit status.

Related Post: Southern Baptists Send Mixed Messages Over Decision By North Carolina Pastor To Expel Democrats

Related Post: East Waynesville Baptist Church Kicks Out Democrats

East Waynesville Baptist Church Kicks Out Democrats

Did you vote for John Kerry in the November elections?

If so, you'd better hope East Waynesville Baptist Church in western North Carolina isn’t your home congregation. The pastor there just kicked out everyone who voted for the democratic candidate. WLOS TV reports:

East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say "the actions were not politically motivated." There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.

Democratic Underground has more (including the video from the news report).

You have to wonder when the “Christian choice” for president became someone who launches unjustified wars, cuts health care benefits for the elderly to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and pushes policies that harm the environment – God’s own creation. That isn’t the God I know. God is not a Republican – or a Democrat.

The IRS should yank this church's 501 (c) 3 non-profit status as quick as possible.  Pastors have no business acting as the enforcer for a political party.

Some churches really do have bouncers.

If you're in that area and looking for churches without bouncers you might consider visiting:

Asheville First Congregational United Church of Christ  or

Hendersonville First Congregational United Church of Christ

I've spent a good bit of time in this part of the South and it really is a beatiful community with some very good folks - including a number of my family.

(Thanks to Glen B. for alerting me to this issue.)

Related News Story:  Church members say they were kicked out for being Democrats

Related News Story:  Minister Ex-communicates members for not backing Bush

Is Focus On The Family Engaged In Illegal Activity?

A Colorado group called Citizens Project is asking for an investigation to determine whether or not Focus on The Family used their resources to promote George W. Bush's 2004 campaign.  Non-profits are forbidden by law from endorsing candidates.  Click here for the story.

When You Count All The Votes…..

Democrats win.  Congratulations, Governor-elect Christine Gregoire of Washington State.

Republicans really have to come up with a better election strategy than demanding that valid votes not be counted unless they are for their candidate.  When you count every vote democracy works.   

Alabama Voters Reaffirm Racism

A recount election has determined that Alabama’s Amendment 2 has failed. The amendment would have removed racist language from the state constitution that is unenforceable because of federal laws. The Birmingham News reports:

The proposed amendment would have removed language from the state constitution that disclaimed a right to public education and required racially segregated public schools. Critics said the measure could have opened the door to increased education taxes. Statewide, the measure failed by 1,850 votes, or .13 percent of 1.38 million votes cast. A 2003 state law forces a recount for any losing margin less than .5 percent.

What a very weird time we’re living in.

Meet The Press Debates Religion and Politics

Meet the Press took on the topic of religious faith and political values this past Sunday. The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners Magazine, was a guest along with Jerry Falwell, Richard Land, and Al Sharpton. Those of us who attend church on Sundays don’t often get the watch the Sunday news programs, but I did read the transcript of this one. It was typical commercial television. Host Tim Russert and his producers picked religious spokespeople known more for their verbose speaking skills than their theological insights. Wallis was the only participant who offered more substance than soundbites. Here is one example of a pretty typical exchange involving Wallis:

MR. RUSSERT: The Sojourners newspaper took out an ad--the Sojourners magazine took a newspaper ad out, Reverend Wallis, in which this was the headline. "God Is Not a Republican or a Democrat. ...leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that Mod has taken a side in this election and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush. We believe claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re- election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion."

Explain.

REV. JIM WALLIS: Well, Christians voted both ways in this election. God is not a Republican or a Democrat. That should be obvious. The values question is critical. The question is how narrowly or how broadly we define values. So we say that poverty is a religious and moral value. So is the environment. So is the war in Iraq. These are moral value that require a lot of discussion. I welcome the moral-values conversation. I really do. It's the soul of our politics, the compass of our public life. But how narrowly or how broadly we define the values is the question.

In this election, there were competing values, so a lot of Christians voted both ways because we wanted to vote all of our values, not just one or two. I think the Democrats are often uncomfortable talking about faith values, when it's even about their agenda. The Republicans want to narrow, though, or restrict values to one or two issues--important ones, but one or two. I think the Democrats have to recover their heart and soul; Republicans need a broader and deeper agenda about values.

Wallis is one of those rare religious activists who have been known to be critical of both Republicans and Democrats. He is a pro-life advocate who voted for John Kerry in the last election. He also lead protests against Bill Clinton’s welfare policies in the 1990s and was critical of the former president’s personal indiscretions. Falwell’s comments sounded like old and tired rhetoric from a Republican Party political operative.

DR. FALWELL: Jim, let me ask you a question. Did you vote for John Kerry?

REV. WALLIS: I did vote for John Kerry.

DR. FALWELL: Now, he is pro-choice. How can you as an ordained minister--you are an ordained minister, right?

REV. WALLIS: Jerry--Jerry...

DR. FALWELL: How could you vote for some--I wouldn't vote for my mother if she were pro-choice.

REV. WALLIS: Yeah. You endorsing George Bush. That's fine. But you also called--you ordained him. You said all Christians could only vote for him. That's ridiculous. There are Christians who voted for deep reasons of faith for both candidates.

One of the problems with contemporary religious dialog is that it gets reduced to these brief exchanges in the national media. Those on the religious right are masters of this type of forum. Progressive religious leaders have shied away from both the media and the kind of grassroots organizing done so effectively by Falwell and company. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: those of us who are religious progressives need to be more engaged with issues of public concern. We need to creatively force the media into hearing our side of the debate. Our churches and leaders need to be better organized to promote an inclusive and progressive theological message.

That is not to say that we should imitate the Religious Right. They preach division and that is a perversion of the Christian faith. Our model for organizing should be Jesus who always spoke of an open table where all were invited to partake in the justice of God’s Kingdom.  Wallis did a sound job of articulating that vision this Sunday.

Can Christians Be Pro-Choice? Yes.

This post has been updated

During the Kerry campaign I encountered a Roman Catholic seminarian protesting the senator's pro-choice position.  That same seminarian posted a comment today on my site asking me to justify my position on abortion (which he termed murder) as a Christian.  I responded by rejecting the premise of his question.  Abortion is not murder and I feel no obligation to justify my Christianity to this seminarian or anyone else based on one single issue.  My guess is that he is a faithful Christian and I demand the same respect regardless of any difference we might have on the issue of abortion.

The official Roman Catholic position on abortion is also a faithful attempt to discern God's will on issues of life.  Many churches, however, have come to a different conclusion than the Roman Catholic church that are just as faithful.  Plenty of Christians are pro-choice.

Click here to read the official pro-choice statements from denominations like the United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, American Baptist Church, and others.

Dana Christensen is the seminarian who wrote me.  He has a blog that he used to promote George W. Bush's campaign.  Visit it and you'll quickly see a very different theology than the one promoted here.  That's just fine.  I suspect there are times we can learn from each other if we begin from a place of respect. 

No one - not even pro-choice advocates like myself - want abortions to occur.  They should be safe, legal and rare.  That makes Christensen's support of President Bush ironic.  It turns out that abortions have actually increased under Bush's leadership.  If you want less abortions we need to return to the social policies of the Clinton / Gore years.

Keep in mind that not all Catholics voted just on the issue of abortion.  The Catholic vote was nearly split.  Many Catholic leaders also spoke out against those who demanded that Catholics vote on just this one issue.  Those good folks deserve our respect and thanks.  The majority of religious people in America are pro-choice.  Don't be fooled by rhetoric that tells you otherwise.

UPDATE:  Here are some resources from the RCRC that might be helpful.

Christian Perspective

As Christians, who strive to follow Jesus, we can and must be both compassionate and pro-choice. 

Jewish Perspective

When we as Jews advocate for reproductive freedom, we are pursuing justice for women and seeking peace among the diverse religious communities of this country. 

We're Pro-Choice Because Of Our Faith

Remarks delivered by Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, Pres. and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, at the March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C., Sunday, April 25, 2004.

We're Pro-Choice Because We Have A Vision

The Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, former chair of the Coalition board, told the 1 million-plus pro-choice marchers that clergy stand with them—“not in spite of our faith but because of it.” 

"Hard Choices"

By Reverend Barbara Gerlach, First Congregational United Church of Christ, Washington D.C.

For more information visit the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

"Role of Faith in the Democratic Party"

If Democrats are ever going to win national elections they obviously need to do a better job of reaching out to religious voters.  Most voters are, of course, religious.  But there are some voters who clearly vote for candidates based on religious beliefs.  With a good message many of those voters would stand with progressive candidates.  The Kerry campaign made a start at working with religious voters when they hired an outreach coordinator.  Unfortunately, they never made as serious an effort as was called for.  This week PBS' Religion & Ethics Newsweekly interviews Mike McCurry and Mara Vanderslice about what the Kerry campaign did right and what needs to be done better the next time around.  Click here to view or read the story.

War, Jobs—Not Cultural Divide—Motivated Voters

Press Release from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Unitarian Universalist leaders agree with the growing consensus that the presidential election was decided by issues such as war, terrorism and jobs, not unspecified “moral values.” Spurred in part by dislike of the divisive election, the religious progressive movement is being renewed.

“The nation learned an important lesson this year,” said Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, President of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. “Our enemies are intolerance, extremism, and ignorance.”

Religious leaders affiliated with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice gave a news briefing at the National Press Club in Washington DC. They concurred that questionable interpretations of exit poll results are misleading the nation. No views or values changed because of the election. On one of the supposed hot-button issues, abortion, the percent of Americans in both parties who support reproductive choice in some or most cases remained steady.

“For Catholics, polling has consistently shown that in the majority they want abortion to remain legal, gay Americans to have civil rights, and traditional liberal support for the poor and unemployed to be honored,” Catholics for a Free Choice President Frances Kissling said. “While there is much work progressive people of faith need to do to speak more compellingly to the general public, a solid foundation of social justice will work to mobilize mainstream Catholics."

Political and social conservatives may have turned out in record numbers on Election Day but “it appears their obsession with divisive social issues is not shared by very many Americans,” said Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But “the culture war is real, and it’s about to go nuclear,” he said. “This is not a war that the American people want, but it’s one that the Religious Right seems determined to fight.”

An unprecedented number of religious institutions were involved in voter education and registration, including the ecumenical initiative termed Faithful Democracy. Reverend Meg Riley, director of the Unitarian Universalist Advocacy and Witness Program, said that her denomination registered approximately 50,000 voters and built new relationships with other progressive organizations. She likened the 2004 election cycle to the beginning of a period of growth toward greater justice.

The moral issues that concerned most religious Americans were poverty, war, families and children, healthcare, hunger, pollution, and human rights. “We face not a clash between cultures or between red and blue states but a clash between justice and greed,” said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, President George W. Bush’s denomination.

Throughout the nation, progressive people of faith and religions are rallying to positive actions. In California, said Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs of Temple Kol Tikvah in Woodland Hills, the $3 billion stem cell research initiative is a clear indication that Americans do not want ideology to limit their healthcare.

Nationally, said Episcopal Priest Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, “the mainstream religious community is awake and we will not be silent. But we’re not just going to identify the lies, distortions, and perversions of the Right. We’ll also be presenting a vision of what America has been when at its best and can be again.”

Reproductive choice is central to that vision and "consistent with democratic values,” concluded Reverend Lloyd H. Steffen of Lehigh University. He challenged progressive religious leaders and scholars to help the nation understand and reject "the dangerous movement to suppress freedom” being waged by those who oppose fundamental values such as reproductive choice.

Faith Bloggers Try And Make Sense Of Election 2004

Like everyone else I’ve been trying to make sense out of the election results.  What do the numbers mean?  Why did Kerry loose?  Do secular Democrats really want to keep us Christians in the closet?  I’ve received hundreds and hundreds of e-mails announcing my near imminent departure for hell because of my pro-choice and pro-gay views.  Am I really going to hell?  If I get to pick someone to tag along can I pick George W. Bush?  Does he already know the way? 

When left with questions like these at times like this it is best to turn to religious bloggers.  Secular bloggers don’t count because many of you only want my voice at the table if I leave my Bible at home and promise never to mention Jesus unless used as a term expressing frustration.  “Jesus!  I lost my pen.”  So I'm not playing with my secular friends today. 

So what do the progressive faith blogs have to say.

Karl Rove did it. He was able to coble together a slight majority in this country by appeals to the base and in this particular election one of the most important components of that base was the evangelical protestant community. I don't have any criticism of Kerry and the moblization of the left in this country was the most impressive I've ever seen. That's probably why I had some level of optimism going into this election. But the problem is that evangelical protestants are so large a voting block that surmounting it in a national election is going to be an a daunting task for democrats in many states.

- A Religious Liberal Blog

I'm making an effort to look towards the future, and try to see where we go from here. The only conclusion I've come to so far is that progressives are failing to communicate their message. Once we've learned how to do this more effectively, we are going to have to engage those with whom we disagree in conversation. Personally, I'm not there yet. I can't talk to Republicans or Roman Catholics right now. I won't be going to ministerial association meetings, which are dominated by evangelicals, for awhile. Not only does their glee in electing a "good, God-fearing man" make me sick, most likely I'd give them a piece of my mind, and that is not the kind of conversation that's going to help right now.

                                             

- Father Jake Stops The World

I do think he would have been a very good president. For all the slander he had to confront, he articulated a plan, fought the good fight, and organized the base. That he has chosen not to challenge Bush demonstrates class. He'll have some money in the bank, and let the country focus on issues. And now that Bush has won legitimately perhaps the liberal vitriol will cool down a bit.

Progressives can now focus on framing the message: of sharing prosperity, building up strong communities, caring for the health and education of children, protecting the environment, and strengthening our borders. There will be plenty of times challenge the administration in its more egregious abuses of the political process.

Later, in a few years, Kerry might lead an investigation of Diebold.

        -Salt 

Little Uptown never wakes or cries in the night. But at five this morning she was wailing and sobbing. "She knows," Mrs. Uptown said.

So we took her from her crib, and, against house rules, brought her to our bed, and hugged her, and soothed her, until she slept.

We surely weren't the only parents clutching their kids. A mother writes on a blogger's message board: "Last night I was so upset I crawled into bed with my little boy so I could sniff his sweet head and feel as if there were some good, true things in the world."

You would think that something more than an election was lost, wouldn't you?

There's a lot to say on a day like this. Everyone on the losing side has an opinion, criticism or psychic wound to share--and I do too.

But let's not rush through the grief too quickly. Sick animals, Thich Nhat Hanh reminds us, curl up in the woods and go to sleep, so their bodies can heal without stress. Let's be just as smart as a muskat. Let's do the decent thing for our mental and physical health--scream and wail, rend our garments, gulp vegetable soup and bourbon, and take to our beds.

Why such grief? Because dreams died hard yesterday. Some had names: the youth vote (kids stayed home), the women's vote (mothers must really believe their daughters will never need abortions), the black vote (huge, but sorry--you're just a minority), the lives of our soldiers (no price is too high to pay for Halliburton profits). Some were more abstract: the sanctity of the Constitution, leadership in science and medicine, environmental protection, health care for the poor, fact-based education, rights of gay partners, and more.

Those who are weeping today--and if I know ten, then there have to be tens of thousands--are people with hearts and imaginations big enough to weep for our fellow citizens, our country and our planet.

Sound overwrought? I think not. Because this was more than an election. 

-- Jesse Kornbluth

Christians know a lot about losing.  We know that to get to Easter we first have to confront the horror of Good Friday.  Maybe Tuesday was another Good Friday.  Maybe something wonderful is about to be reborn from the wreckage of Election Day.  God did not abandon those who fought for justice this week.  The people and their Pharaoh abandoned God.  There will be natural consequences for that betrayal.  Pray for mercy and justice.  Pray that God guides us safely out of this darkness and into a place where we can once again partner with God to build a more just world.  That's just what I'm thinking.  What about you?

Pastoral Letter On The Elections To US Member Churches From The World Council of Churches

This letter was sent on Wednesday before it was determined that President Bush had won the election.

Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,

Grace to you and peace in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I am writing to you, the member churches of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in the United States of America, on behalf of your extended church family around the world.

We ask God's grace and peace for you and for the person who will finally be chosen as leader of your country. We send this letter to encourage and support you in these important times, and to renew our fellowship in the unity of the Holy Spirit and in the bonds of peace.

The choice of the US president is of great concern not only to the people of the USA but also to people across the world. Though we are confident that God’s Holy Spirit, the advocate and comforter, is with us, many people in the world today confess to feeling afraid for the future. People feel fear of terrorism, fear of old struggles newly re-branded as terrorism, and fear of fear itself in the service of great power.

Yet this letter is not about fear. It commends God’s all-embracing grace and peace to you, in faith and with goodwill.

Know that we stand with you, as sisters and brothers, in the hope that only God can give. That hope reminds us that fear is no match for the recognition of God’s presence in our lives which sustains our faith. We can look with confidence to the days ahead because there is far more that unites us as people of faith than separates us as citizens of a divided world. We are all members of Christ’s body. Nothing - no terror, no fear, no lie - can ever separate us.

We do not ask whose side God was on in this election. Rather, like Abraham Lincoln when he confronted a divisive war, we seek to be found on God's side. We pray that all people of faith with the help of God's Spirit may discern what is good for the world.

Many people have watched the US closely in recent months, with great interest in how churches shape a powerful nation’s stance toward the world. The harsh claims that make most of the headlines, that invoke the judgement of a partisan god, have provoked deep concern around the world.

How different it is, however, when churches offer a moral and spiritual compass for their community, their nation and the world. They are a voice for the good of all, and are seen as such. They love the whole world; they pray for God to bless the lands of others. People far and near - especially our cousins of other faiths - await such signs from all of us.

As fellow citizens of the world, we wish you peace. Half a century ago, with US leadership, an international community convinced of the need for change, gave birth to the United Nations, to the UN Charter, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the Geneva Convention, and much more. The shared purpose then was to secure peace and promote human security. At that time, churches and their members added greatly to the process and did not go unheard. They served as a moral conscience for their time.

Today, too, people all over the world recognize what the US can offer. By being a country open to newcomers of different cultures and creeds. By trusting the rule of law. By supporting democracy and the freedom of speech. By being ready to take action when the international community, through the United Nations, asks for US participation and leadership. By being generous to those in need. By addressing the root causes of poverty and social injustice, within the US as well as globally. As churches, we are asked to be involved and contribute to such political directions.

The WCC member churches in the US have been active in forming the mind of the ecumenical movement throughout its history. As a worldwide family of more than 340 churches, we share with each other and with the wider world the privilege of living for a purpose deeper than economic success and working for goals greater than national security.

On this third day of November, 2004, we pray that we may answer the challenges before us in faith and in love, together.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia
WCC General Secretary

NCC's Edgar, Post-Elections, Offers 'Our Best Efforts' to Unite the Nation for Justice, Peace

Message from the National Council of Churches

With the 2004 Presidential Election decided, National Council of Churches General Secretary Robert W. Edgar offered the following statement: "This election confirmed that we are a divided nation, not only politically but in terms of our interpretations of God's will. We in the church must redouble our efforts to call all people of faith to affirm the values of both public morality and private piety. Regardless of who leads our country, the agenda of the church must always respond faithfully to the Bible's timeless mandate to minister to the poor, the marginalized and the outcast; and to be seekers and makers of peace. In this quest for the common good, we will contribute to the healing of the nation, and of the family of nations. The American political system is strong and vibrant, persisting through waves of changing circumstances, because of the vigilance of patriots and the ever-renewing blessings of Constitutional government. We pledge to pray for President Bush and his Administration, and offer our best efforts to unite the nation in the cause of justice and peace."

Don’t Blame Christians For John Kerry’s Defeat

Crossposted from The American Street

Want to blame someone for John Kerry’s defeat? Writer John MacArthur thinks religion is to blame. In an article called “Religion's Kidnapping of the Campaign” published by The Providence Journal he argues that secularism is under assault by fanatical Christians who are trying to turn America into a theocracy.

MacArthur asserts that the founding principle of separation of church and state argues that politicians should be devoid of personal religious expression. His hero in this battle is, of course, Thomas Jefferson. But MacArthur shows an incredible lack of historical perspective. Jefferson argued – rightly – against the establishment of a state religion but the nation’s third president was himself a religious man. Garry Wills writes in his 1989 book Under God:

Jefferson’s words are put to many uses in debate over the relationship of the church to state in America. We know more about his personal views on religion than we know about any other person’s at the origin of our state. But our knowledge is drawn from sources denied to his contemporaries, who speculated widely about his “atheism” or made unfounded charges about his hostility to organized religion of all kinds. Echoes of those charges haunted his reputation, even to this day.

George W. Bush, from my standpoint, misused religion during this campaign (and during his first term) by arguing for a theology of empire in which America’s military power is an instrument of God’s will. MacArthur is incensed that John Kerry didn’t completely disassociate himself from faith in the campaign.

…John Kerry, the quasi-secular Catholic, makes sure he's photographed with the proper forehead smudge on Ash Wednesday. Threatened by Catholic priests furious with his defense of abortion rights, he tries to outdo Bush in his declarations of religious faith.

No surprise that in the final presidential "debate," Bush again stated with jaw-dropping arrogance that "God wants everybody to be free" and "that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty."

Kerry, instead of simply affirming Article VI and the First Amendment, upped the ante: "Everything is a gift from the Almighty"

More recently, in a speech in Florida, the Democratic candidate born into the citadel of Puritanism employed the word "faith" 11 times, while genuflecting to the enemies of liberty: those "great preachers and educators who taught the founders of our nation to believe that we could create a great and shining City on a Hill here in America."

This is a religious qualification for public servants desired by Puritans (ancient and modern) and banned by the Constitution -- yet now, in effect, established. The vote today may well turn on the perception of each candidate's religious faith.

Kerry’s only mistake in talking about his religious faith was not doing it soon enough (see related post). Faith in God and in a progressive form of Catholicism clearly help guide Kerry’s decision making process. Voters want to know what makes a candidate tick. When you attempt to hide who you are at the core people can feel that and wonder where your values develop. No one had to ever guess at Bush’s core (flawed as it is). He would have felt more “real” to voters if he had been more open about who he was.

Discussing your faith is a far cry from embracing theocracy.

America’s labor movement, women’s suffrage movement, and civil rights movement all had strong support from religious leaders in America. Our government doesn’t need a state religion but our people have benefited from the actions of those who act out of their faith in God.

This election saw more efforts by progressive Christians to engage in the political process than at anytime in over a generation. Not all Christians are Bush Christians. It was good for America that hundreds of thousands of progressive Christians organized in churches and ecumenical groups to lift up issues of poverty, war & peace, and racial justice. My only wish is that we had been better organized. The Kerry campaign missed several opportunities to partner with the faith community in a meaningful way. Jim Wallis wrote today that:

Religion was a big factor in this election, and "moral values" were named as a key issue for voters in the exit polls. On the Republican side, George W. Bush talked comfortably and frequently about his personal faith and ran on what his conservative religious base called the "moral issues." On the Democratic side, Senator John Kerry invoked the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, talked about the importance of loving our neighbors, and said that faith without works is dead - but only began talking that way at the very end of his campaign….

It is now key to remember that our vision - a progressive and prophetic vision of faith and politics - was not running in this election. John Kerry was, and he lost. Kerry did not strongly champion the poor as a religious issue and "moral value," or make the war in Iraq a clearly religious matter. In his debates with George Bush, Kerry should have challenged the war in Iraq as an unjust war, as many religious leaders did - including Evangelicals and Catholics. And John Kerry certainly did not advocate a consistent ethic of human life as we do - opposing all the ways that life is threatened in our violent world.

We didn't lose the election, John Kerry did, and the ways in which both his vision and the Democratic Party's are morally and politically incomplete should continue to be taken up by progressive people of faith.

MacArthur and the other secular liberals out there ought to welcome those of us who are progressive Christians to the table. We need to continue building bridges to progressive groups that are not expressly religious. Unfortunately, it was often the case that secular Democrats wanted nothing to do with religion in this campaign. MacArthur even mocked Kerry's faith in his article. Mocking religious people and excluding them from the progressive coalition was one of several mistakes that helped contribute to Kerry's defeat. Maybe we'll all do a better job in four years.

US Congressman Russ Carnahan

It took all night but we now know that Russ Carnahan has been elected to take Richard Gephardt’s seat in the United States House of Representatives. Liz volunteered on his campaign before the twins were born and even appeared in some of his advertising. Carnahan was the Planned Parenthood-backed candidate in the race. Many democrats in Missouri are pro-life Roman Catholics. Carnahan, currently a state representative, is a United Methodist. He is the son of the late Governor Mel Carnahan and former US Senator Jean Carnahan. Robin Carnahan, his sister, was elected Missouri’s Secretary of State last night.

A Bad Night Across America

Nothing on the national front looks good. It would take some kind of miracle for John Kerry to win now (and though I believe in miracles I don’t believe one of this sort will occur). That means that George W. Bush will be elected (for the first time) to serve as President of the United States. We should all pray for his success and wish him well during the next four years. We also have the right and the obligation as citizens to challenge him whenever he pursues the same kind of disastrous policies that have been his hallmark. Govern from the middle, Mr. President, and some important work can get done. Govern from the extreme right and you will see a nation even more divided than this Election Day. John Kerry deserves our thanks for fighting hard in an honorable way. It would be a safe bet to say that Senator Kerry is even more upset over these results than me. But just barely.

Oregonians Back Anti-Gay Measure 36

Oregonians voted in favor of Measure 36 on Tuesday night. The measure outlaws gay marriage. Gay marriage was pushed to the forefront of the political agenda by Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) and their call for the legalization of gay marriage in Multnomah County. It now appears that BRO and the Multnomah County Commissioners took a chance that in the end failed in a miserable way and set-back the cause of civil rights for gays and lesbians. I applauded their decision then and now see what an ill-thought out plan it was. Some people should loose their jobs over this and others might consider not running for public office again. This was a colossal failure and those involved should be held accountable. The ballot measure was supported by conservative evangelical Christians and opposed by religious bodies like the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ.

Portland Mayor Tom Potter

This post has been updated

Good news from the Rose City. Tom Potter will be the next mayor of Portland, Oregon after beating a well financed opponent. Potter, the former police chief, had the backing of Portland’s progressive community. His campaign stressed themes of economic development, affordable housing, and safety. I’ve known the mayor-elect since his days as the police chief and have been proud to be an early supporter of his campaign. On the City Council he’ll have a strong ally in Erik Sten, a friend of mine since our time working with former Portland City Commissioner Gretchen Kafoury. City Hall will be different with the Potter-Sten team in place. You’ll see a more open government attuned to the needs of neighborhoods. You’ll see a City Hall more concerned with issues of homelessness and poverty. Best of all: you’ll see a mayor worthy of the Rose City.

Update:  You can now contact Mayor Tom Potter via his official web site.

Early Exit Poll Rumors Look Good For Kerry

From Bloomberg.com

Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge posted what he said were early exit poll results from 14 states at about 2:45 p.m. Washington time showing Kerry held a lead over Bush in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Although Drudge took the numbers off his Web site about 20 minutes later, other Internet sites, including Slate.com and Wonkette.com, have similar figures.

Rumors, just rumors. Nothing more. Keep voting. Stay tuned.

Voting In Missouri

Long lines are reported at polling places across America. Our 45 minute wait at the Webster Groves Library in Missouri confirms that. Liz and I brought Katherine and Frances along for their very first presidential election. They both recommended a Kerry vote and we bowed to their wishes. Now we wait.

I should mention they still use punch card ballots here. There are signs on each voting booth warning about the dangers of hanging chad. Liz is 50% confident she didn’t vote for Pat Buchanan. My ballot was chad-free. I double checked.

Since we live in a mostly white upper-class neighborhood there were no Republicans around trying to challenge our vote. Voter intimidation of that sort is reserved for African-American and low-income neighborhoods. It will be an extra sweet night if Ohio goes for Kerry.

English Christians send election monitors to US

The British Section of Pax Christi has sent journalist Paul Donovan to be an observer at the US election process in Florida, a State at the centre of disputes in the 2000 elections.

A delegation of international observers arrived in the US on Sunday to be trained as monitors and then placed on site in four Florida counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, West Palm Beach and Duval, to help to ensure free and fair elections.

It follows concerns, expressed by former President Jimmy Carter and others, about the electoral process there.

Pax Christi is an international Christian peacemaking movement. It works within the Church and wider community to bring about a culture of peace by being a 'prophetic witness' to peace and standing against violence. It also promotes the option of nonviolence as means of resolving conflict and providins peace education materials and programmes.

Click here for the full story.

We need all the help we can get. And the English are known as good ballot counters. Well, I don’t actually know if that last statement is correct or not. But how much worse could they be then us?