David Domke and Kevin Coe have written an important essay on The Revealer web site comparing theological statements made by George W. Bush and other presidents.

Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing and guidance; this president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Most fundamentally, Bush’s language suggests that he speaks not only of God and to God, but also for God. Among modern presidents, only Ronald Reagan has spoken in a similar manner -- and he did so far less frequently than has Bush.

Bush has twisted the message of the Bible into a partisan political cause where the wealthy are lifted above the poor, where war is fought to build empire, and where God’s creation is simply a resource to be plundered for the cause of amassing wealth. He has turned the teachings of Jesus around and perverted them.

Make sure you read this story.

And if you’re in the mood for more but would like it to be a little more humorous take a look at The Gospel of George Bush by Denise Giardina. Funny stuff.

This post has been updated

Sinclair Broadcast Group is a television conglomerate that John McCain once called unpatriotic for their decision to pull an ABC news program that chronicled the lives of soldiers killed in Iraq (see related post). The company said to air the show would do damage to the war effort. Sinclair’s owners are big time political contributors to George W. Bush.

Now the broadcast company has ordered their local affiliates to pre-empt regular programming the week before the November elections to run an anti-Kerry program. UPI reports:

Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its 62 stations to preempt regular programming during primetime to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.

The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated U.S. Navy veteran who later protested the war -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the conflict.

The Kerry campaign blasted Sinclair for what it says is strong arming its stations into broadcasting lies to influence the political process, the Times said.

"It's beyond yellow journalism," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "It's a smear bankrolled by Republican money, and I don't think Americans will stand for it."

David Brook of Media Matters has written to Sinclair asking that they cancel their plans:

October 10, 2004

David D. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030

Dear Mr. Smith:

I'm writing to ask you to cancel plans, reported in the October 9 edition of the Los Angeles Times, to force Sinclair Broadcasting Group stations to preempt regular programming and broadcast a film attacking Senator John Kerry between now and the November 2 presidential election.

According to the Times, the film, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, "features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war." The Times reported that the maker of the film, former Washington Times reporter (and former Bush administration official) Carlton Sherwood, tells viewers on the film's website: "Intended or not, Lt. Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged, drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that has endured for 30 years.

I don't have to remind you, as the Times pointed out, that "Sinclair stations are spread throughout the country, in major markets that include Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas. ... Fourteen of the 62 stations the company either owns or programs are in the key political swing stations of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where the presidential election is being closely fought."

As described by the Times, Sinclair's plan to air the film raises questions about whether Sinclair would be running afoul of federal regulations "requiring broadcasters to provide equal time to major candidates in an election campaign ..." Provisions of the McCain-Feingold law would also appear to be at issue in your decision. The reported effort by Sinclair executives to instruct station managers to classify the film as "news," thus skirting these political broadcasting regulations, would be a charade given its blatant anti-Kerry slant.

I trust that in light of these concerns, you will reconsider your company's apparent decision to air "Stolen Honor."

Sincerely,
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America

You can reach the Sinclair bigwigs directly at:

Sinclair CEO: [email protected]

VP of Programming and Promotions: [email protected]

Tell them to stop their partisan witch-hunt.

UPDATE: Click here to contact the local Sinclair station in your area and to file a complaint with the FCC over Sinclair's actions.

We learned a few new things about George W. Bush in his debate this evening with John Kerry. Bush, for example, promised not to appoint any Supreme Court justices that support slavery (if that’s his bottom line we’re in real trouble). We also saw his sensitive side. When asked if he could come up with any mistakes he’d made he said maybe one or two in his appointments (I bet he meant Donald Rumsfeld) but that he couldn’t say in public for fear of hurting someone’s feelings. Bush also tells us that he sees himself as a good steward of the earth (I was thinking nearly the same thing last week). Let’s just leave that conversation between God and the president when the time is right.

John Kerry had a good debate. He didn’t let the president off the hook for one second. Take this one moment from a question on Iraq:

KERRY: We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going to go alone like this president did.

GIBSON: Mr. President, let's extend for a minute...

BUSH: Let me just -- I've got to answer this.

GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty...

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.

GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft...

BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.

There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you're going alone. And people listen. They're sacrificing with us.

GIBSON: Senator?

KERRY: Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it.

If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States. That's not a grand coalition.

Ninety percent of the casualties are American. Ninety percent of the costs are coming out of your pockets.

I could do a better job. My plan does a better job. And that's why I'll be a better commander in chief.

My hope was that there would have been more questions about domestic issues and less about foreign policy in this forum. However, I thought Kerry did a great job.

The picture at the top of this post is of Kerry and his wife at the after-debate rally that Liz and I attended with the babies. Frances and Katherine were decked out in red white and blue for their big evening out. We joined several thousand others at the America Center to watch the debate on large screens. Kerry joined us about an hour after the debate ended. St. Louis Congressional candidate Russ Carnahan came by to say hello to us and to meet the twins. Liz volunteered on his successful primary campaign. Carnahan is running for the seat vacated by Dick Gephardt.

We also ran into a couple of friends from Eden Theological Seminary. Wes Knight was there volunteering for the campaign (and looking very official for this picture). Our friend Tony Clark was also there. The crowd was huge and fiercely proud of Kerry’s performance. It was announced that the Kerry campaign – which had all but given up on Missouri – would start airing campaign commercials again here next week. That means this Midwest state is back in play.

Entertainment at the rally came from the band Better Than Ezra. They played a long set before the debate started and then kept their crowd dancing as we waited for Kerry to arrive. It was a little loud for the tiny ears of Frances and Katherine, but we still think the entire night will make a great story for them to tell when they get older.

Tonight is the second presidential debate and we’ve decided to take advantage of being here in St. Louis to attend the official Kerry – Edwards debate watch party and a post-debate rally with John Kerry himself. This is all assuming Frances and Katherine can make it through the excitement of the evening without falling into full meltdown mode. Come back and visit this site later for pictures and analysis.

Yesterday I wrote on The American Street blog about Call To Renewal’s Bus Tour To Overcome Poverty. The tour kicked-off this week and is visiting swing states to promote the idea that fighting poverty is a religious issue.

They’re hoping that voters and candidates will endorse the Isaiah Platform:

The biblical prophet Isaiah offered us God’s vision of a good society. His words are as relevant today as they were 3,000 years ago, and show us the way forward. Isaiah envisions a society where:

"No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live a lifetime…They shall build houses and inhabit them: they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit: they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen will long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, or bear their children for calamity; for they shall be offspring blessed by the Lord….” (Isaiah 65:20-25)

The platform developed by Call To Renewal reflects some of the contemporary issues we can understand the Isaiah text speaking to:

1. We recognize that budgets are moral documents that reflect our values and priorities. All tax policies and spending proposals should be evaluated with a publicly available analysis of how they assist people in overcoming poverty and strengthening families and communities.

2. As a society we must commit to supporting all who work and those unable to work by providing:

a. a living family income

b. affordable housing

c. educational opportunity for their children with the goal of reducing the number of children in poverty by half in ten years

d. quality healthcare

e. adequate nutrition

3. We must commit to significantly reducing the number of people worldwide who experience extreme poverty, in cooperation with other nations, through a foreign policy that sees just trade, effective international aid, and reducing the debt of impoverished nations as central to our national and global security.

I COVENANT TO raise the Isaiah Platform in the public debate and to ask all candidates for public office to propose and support policies that would accomplish these goals.

Click here to endorse this covenant for yourself, your church, or organization.

(Thanks to Marh for sugguesting this post)

There are three new projects aimed at getting progressive people of faith to the polls this November that are worth checking out.

Vote ALL Your Values is a new national effort sponsored by several progressive faith groups.

Some vocal religious groups are claiming that our faith requires us to vote based on a narrow set of issues and values. We need to stand up as progressive people of faith and call Americans to vote ALL their values, including truth at all times, justice for all people, and community among all nations and faiths.

All God’s People is a new project in Missouri, a critical swing state.

Who are we? We are faithful Americans. We are Jews, Christians Muslims, and members of all the great faiths of our nation. We love our country and the values of liberty and justice for all upon which it was founded. We are a highly diverse group spiritually, theologically and culturally. And we have become increasingly uncomfortable with the current religious and political rhetoric that equates a radically right wing political platform with the sacred teachings of the Torah, the Gospels, the Koran and other sacred texts.

Responsible Citizenship: A Catholic Campaign for Civic Dialogue was started this fall by Harvard Divinity student Greg Mancini. I met Greg when he was interning with the Clergy Leadership Network and hold a high opinion of his work.

Searching for a more substantive and balanced dialogue on the inherent relationship between their Catholic faith and politics during this critical election year, a group of young adult Catholic leaders recently founded Responsible Citizenship, a unique initiative designed to educate young adult Catholics on political issues. Since its inception, Responsible Citizenship has been working with university communities, public figures, and national organizations across the country to organize events on college campuses and generate critical conversations on Catholic Social Teaching and current political issues, ranging from jobs to health care to abortion and the death penalty.

Visit all these sites. Religious progressives haven’t been this active or organized in a generation. This is all good news.

Carrboro, NC, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- Police were called to quell a slap fight between two University of North Carolina students that began with an argument over who Jesus would vote for president.

Thanks to both The Revealer and The Heretic's Corner for posting on this.

Vice-presidential debates don’t really matter in the larger scheme of things. They have never really impacted any race (even in ’88 with the clearly unqualified Dan Quayle in the race). My sense from watching parts of the debate and reading transcripts is that it was a draw. John Edwards, however, scored points by talking about the blatant disregard for the truth shown by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over Iraq and by his vigorous defense of John Kerry’s progressive record in the Senate. The vice-president looked tired and angry in a repeat of Bush’s own performance last week. I was particularly glad that Edwards addressed the increase in poverty rates under the Bush Administration.

During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty.

And what the most striking and startling thing is, they are the first presidency in 70 years -- and I'm talking Democrats, Republican, presidents who led us through World War, through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Cold War -- every one of them created jobs until this president.

We have to do better. We have a plan. We're going to get rid of -- by the way, they're for outsourcing jobs. I want to make sure people hear that, the fundamental difference with us. The administration says over and over that the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We're against it.

We want to get rid of tax cuts for companies sending jobs overseas. We want to balance this budget, get back to fiscal responsibility. And we want to invest in the creative, innovative jobs of the future.

- John Edwards

The response offered by Cheney was less than impressive. He used the tired old lines about how tax cuts for the wealthy somehow benefit those living in poverty and claimed, falsely, that the Bush Administration had created jobs. Not so. It was another lie from a man who issues them with a total disregard for the truth.

A coalition of religious groups has asked the presidential candidates to outline their positions on combating poverty and expanding health care opportunities. The debate this coming Friday will focus on domestic issues. John Edwards was the only candidate during the primaries to fully develop an anti-poverty agenda. Poverty rates have climbed under the Bush Administration. Neither political party has made growing poverty a major issue.

"As representatives of communities of faith, we are deeply troubled by the recent Census Bureau report that details the increasing number of people in poverty and the increasing number of people without health insurance," stated the letter which was signed by the National Council of Churches USA, Call to Renewal, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Church Women United, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Presbyterian Church (USA), NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Union for Reform Judaism and the Fellowship of Reconciliation, among others.

"Our nation is also being destabilized by the growing gap between those with extreme wealth and those living in deep poverty," said the letter.

Neither candidate has yet responded to the September 8, 2004 letter.

Bush’s web site offers no specific proposals to address poverty.

However, Kerry’s web site does offer a plan for addressing poverty. This is either something very new or a policy paper I’ve missed in the past. The plan details proposals on job creation, increasing the minimum wage, expanding health care, and building affordable housing, among other things. You can click here to read it. Here is the introduction:

The number of Americans in poverty has risen by 4.3 million since 2000, bringing the total number of people living in poverty to 36 million, including 13 million children. More than one in five African Americans and Hispanics are in poverty, and more than one-third of African American children are in poverty. This is a national disgrace. John Kerry and Edwards have a four-part plan to give families the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty:

1. Create jobs

2. Ensure that work pays by raising the minimum wage and strengthening the Earned Income Tax Credit

3. Offer Affordable Health Care for All and Health Insurance For Every Child

4. Strengthen families and communities through tax credits for child care and investments in communities.

Kerry’s plan offers much more detail than just these bullet points. Download the plan to get the specifics.

The plan offered by Kerry and Edwards is not the kind of comprehensive plan the nation needs to make real headway in the effort to help people lift themselves out of poverty. Having said that, it is also true the plan is a good start and the senator should be congratulated for addressing this issue while his opponent stands silent.

Hopefully, the debate will be used to focus on more than just the very legitimate needs of the middle class. We need a real debate on how to assist those who are poor.

When the history of the 2004 election is written it will be called “How MoveOn.org Saved the World.” Their organization has engaged tens of thousands of progressives in the political process. A win in November would not have been possible without the revolutionary work undertaken by MoveOn.org.

Last week MoveOn.org challenged the findings of the Gallup organization and suggested their polling methodology benefited Republican candidates for office. This is a serious charge and it is important that it be resolved in a way that builds confidence for media polling.

MoveOn.org’s press statement on this matter also suggested that Gallup’s findings were being manipulated to benefit Republicans because the founder of Gallup is a Christian who sees his work as his “mission.” The public is supposed to infer from this statement that polling outfits (or any other political group, I suppose) should be suspect whenever there are Christians involved. This part of the charge against Gallup is completely unfair. People can be Christian and still maintain their professionalism.

Former Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn reacted with these words when he heard the charges:

"I was deeply concerned when I read it," Mr. Flynn said. "There's a growing, blatant, anti-religious sentiment in the United States. It's oftentimes well camouflaged and very subtle. It's very troubling and disturbing."

Mr. Flynn, a Democrat who is a Catholic and served as ambassador to the Vatican under President Clinton, has spoken out against what he perceives to be bias against those who have strongly held religious beliefs. The former mayor said he was particularly offended by the suggestion that Mr. Gallup's political beliefs could be inferred from his religious views.

"You're affecting the Gallup Organization's reputation. You're slandering this reputable, respected business," Mr. Flynn said. "At some point in time, there has to be some level of decency that someone stands up and says, 'No.'"

The national director of the Anti- Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, also decried the religious references in the MoveOn.org ad.

"It's irrelevant, extraneous, and borders on being offensive to evangelical Christians," Mr. Foxman told The New York Sun. "It's one thing to challenge methodology and credibility. It's another thing to say that the methodology and credibility are motivated by faith. ... What if the poll was headed by a devout Jew? How would we have felt?"

As a Christian who wants MoveOn.org to succeed in their efforts, I was personally offended by MoveOn.org's overreaching on this issue. My overall appraisal of their work remains high. Though I do believe that MoveOn.org owes Christians everywhere an apology for the error in judgment they made. The group does have some very legitimate concerns about how Gallup conducts their polls. Hopefully, MoveOn.org's over zealousness on this matter will not overshadow all their efforts.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice sent out a mailing this week that compares the records of George W. Bush and John Kerry on issues regarding abortion, religious freedom, contraceptives, and stem cell research. Click here to read their statement.

We know that presidents have tremendous power to shape our federal courts. A woman’s right to choose could be determined by this election. As people of faith, we need to speak out to make sure women have all the health care options they need.

Many Christians obviously disagree on the question of abortion. We need to be respectful of the different conclusions people draw from their faith. At the same time, those of us who are Christian and pro-choice have the obligation to do everything we can to stop George W. Bush's radical right agenda.

Newsweek has posted a new poll on their web site showing that John Kerry now has a slight lead in the presidential race after an amazing 61% of respondents said that the senator bested his opponent in their debate last week. Click here for more.

Two news items to draw to your attention this morning:

First, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, my favorite weekend news program, tackles the topic of the “ethics of foreign policy” in the shadow of the first presidential debate. You can read the story or watch it online by clicking here.

The National Council of Churches announced yesterday that Vince Isner will become the first full-time director of FaithfulAmerica.org. Vince is a former executive with United Methodist Communications in Nashville, Tennessee. While there he worked alongside my former boss, The Rev. Dr. Arvin Luchs. FaithfulAmerica.org is a great new advocacy tool developed by NCC to engage the faith community in online advocacy. Over 100,000 have already signed up to participate.

If you watch television news you might think that all Christians are conservatives worshiping at the alter of George W. Bush. The truth is much more revealing. Beliefnet.com has just published a new study on their site that shows that the religious right and the religious left have equal numbers in America. Religious America is actually divided up into twelve distinct groups and not one of them can claim to speak for all people of faith. Check out their study and see for yourself.

Challengers always have the more difficult task in presidential debates. I’ve been watching these events with great interest going back to the Reagan-Mondale showdown of 1984. John Kerry did more than just hold his own against George W. Bush. The senator took charge early on and defined the terms of the debate. It clearly was a referendum on the failed Iraq strategy perused by this president. Kerry offered a foreign policy vision that was more engaged and energetic than the Bush go-it-alone doctrine. My sense is that voters will respond well to his message. There was no knockout ala the Benson–Quayle 1988 debate (which would have been nice). But I think there is no question that John Kerry gave a much needed lift to his campaign.

There was more both candidates could have offered. I appreciated the questions on Darfur and Russia. Sadly, the ongoing genocide in Darfur has been largely overlooked during the campaign. Check out the White House web site and search for the name Darfur. A total of 40 possible entries on the crisis show up. Gay marriage: 848. This president hasn’t used his office to address the difficult issues. Instead he has focused on dividing the American people for political purposes. It was unfortunate that neither candidate was able to offer a fuller and richer debate on issues outside of Iraq and North Korea.

Have you ever seen one of those quickie loan shops that dot the street corners of economically depressed areas of town? They offer fast loans with your paycheck or car as collateral at incredibly high interest rates. Yesterday The Christian Science Monitor ran a good article about how religious ethics clash with loan practices in America.

Many of the world's major religions address the question of lending. Most view lending as moral only if the lender is sincere in desiring to help meet the borrower's essential needs - rather than helping the borrower to indulge in capricious desires - and also if the lender helps the borrower move toward self-sufficiency.

The article also discusses reforms advanced by John Kerry that have been embraced by some in the religious community. Quotes in the article also highlight how Judaism and Islam see debt issues within their own religious context.

For more information visit the United Church of Christ web site.

Jim Wallis was on the campus of Eden Theological Seminary today. Wallis is the editor of Sojourners Magazine and convener of Call to Renewal. He first spoke to a group of progressive clergy in the St. Louis area that have been organizing on the Eden campus and later preached during morning chapel services for the seminary community. I have been fortunate to meet Wallis on several occasions in Portland and Washington, DC and was able to spend time driving him around town this morning. The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon worked to arrange his visit.

There were two important issues that he lifted up today. First, Call to Renewal will be launching a bus tour of swing states next week. The tour is designed to put the issue of poverty before the voters as they make choices in November about which candidates to support. Call to Renewal is a Christian anti-poverty advocacy group that draws their membership from across the theological and political spectrum. Wallis hopes the tour will remind voters that poverty and how we address it is a religious issue for Christians to consider.

Wallis also asked people to take action and write letters to President Bush and the head of the Republican National Committee asking them to apologize and denounce the mailings sent from the RNC to West Virginia and Arkansas voters telling them that Democrats would ban the Bible if elected in November.

Click here to learn more about this action alert.

Religion News Service (part of Newhouse News Service) just published a story on the role “faith-based” bloggers are playing in this election. This blog is one of those featured. Daniel Burke writes:

Equal parts soapbox, confessional and church social, the blogs of religious folk are not easily categorized. On Monday, someone may post a lengthy exegesis of a favorite Bible passage, on Tuesday a screed against Democrats and on Wednesday, a picture of his cat.

Blogs, or "Web logs," resemble personal Internet pages. But advances in computer technology are making such blogs public trading posts in the marketplace of ideas. Bloggers post comments on their pages instantaneously, provide links to articles and other Web sites, and hold running conversations between people on multiple continents.

Like incense in a mammoth cathedral, religion permeates the blogosphere.

Since this is an election year, it's only natural that many faith-based bloggers have gotten political.

Burke profiles several conservative religious blogs, including that of self-described “fundamentalist” Jason Steffens. Steffens uses his blog to promote George W. Bush and pro-life causes. A blog by Kathy Shaidle is also highlighted.

Progressive blogs are represented by two of the usual suspects:

Terry Mattingly, a veteran religion reporter and professor who studies the intersection of the media and religion, contributes to the blog "getreligion.org." He said that more conservatives are led to blogging because they "feel more cut off from the mainstream media." There are, however, a number of religious liberals who blog.

"The Village Gate," formerly called "The Right Christians," is an online community of religious progressives that "serves as an electronic gathering place for those who seek to re-energize the progressive tradition," according to a posting on the Web site by the Rev. Alan Brill, a Lutheran pastor in South Carolina. It can be found at therightchristians.org.

And Chuck Currie, who is training to be a United Church of Christ minister at the Eden Theological Seminary in Webster Groves, Mo., said that blogging is an important part of his ministry to the homeless and disenfranchised.

Currie contributes several hours a day to his blog, chuckcurrie.blogs.com, which has been live for about a year. Recent posts include an interview with the Rev. Bob Edgar of the National Council of Churches, prayers for peace and reports that Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., might not vote for Bush.

Though his wife thinks his devotion to blogging is "semi-insane," Currie said that he will continue to blog, if only "to show that there is a difference" between liberal and conservative Christians.

Sometimes it feels a bit futile, like "a crazy person standing on the street corner and shouting," Currie said. "But then, maybe a few people will stop to listen for a while."

That’s me, the crazy guy out there shouting on the street.

The full article is only available by subscription. However, if I can find a free link in any of the newspapers I’ll update this post and add it.

First, the Republican National Committee sent out flyers to voters warning that Democrats planned to ban the Bible if elected in November.

Now they’ve launched a new web site telling Catholics it would be against their religious beliefs to vote for the (Roman Catholic) democratic nominee for president.

Just when you think George W. Bush and his associates couldn’t go any deeper into the mud they surprise you with something like this.

They dishonor the Christian faith with every action like this they take.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a good article today on how religion and politics are intertwined with the presidential election in Missouri.

More than ever, Missouri Republicans have discovered the political power of that longtime Democratic province, grassroots organizing. While Democrats are expected to lock up much of big-city St. Louis and Kansas City, the GOP is mining the "moral issues" in rural and suburban Missouri -- home to 464 Assembly of God churches, the conservative Christian religion of Missouri's former senator and current U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft…..

But the Democrats are attempting to bridge the God gap with the help of a San Francisco resident, United Church of Christ minister David Keyes. This month, Keyes arrived in Missouri to be the Kerry campaign's religious outreach coordinator. He's got a long history with the candidate -- developed in the 1970s anti-war movement after Keyes married the widow of one of Kerry's Vietnam War buddies who died in combat.

On Monday, under Keyes' supervision, the campaign will hold the first in a series of "prayer potlucks" -- 100-person gatherings of neighbors to appeal to the spiritual side of potential Kerry voters. Monday's potlucks will be in five of Missouri's suburban and small-town GOP strongholds, including Springfield, headquarters of Ashcroft's Assembly of God Church.

"We're not going to, as the religious right has, claim that God is on their side," said Keyes, who is on sabbatical from his ministry to work on the campaign. "God isn't on anyone's side. We want to let people of faith know that faith and values are important in this campaign."

Click here to read the full article.

Our neighborhood here in Webster Groves, MO (a suburb of St. Louis) looks like a civil war battlefield with neighbor pitted against neighbor. People here are obviously paying attention to the election. Almost every house has either a John Kerry or George Bush lawn sign. Bush won this state 2000 and is ahead in the polls today. It would take a minor miracle for Kerry to pull off a win in November. The good news is that I believe in miracles.

I searched long and hard for a copy of this flyer. So here it is (this is the version sent to voters in Arkansas - a similar mailing was sent to voters in West Virgina).

Thanks go to The Washington Note blog entry on this: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000080.html

See these related posts for the context in which the mailer was sent out by the Republicans:

"GOP Mailing Warns Liberals Will Ban Bibles"

United Methodist Bishop William Boyd Grove Responds To Republican Ad Claiming Democrats Plan to Ban The Bible

GOP Proudly Takes Credit For Mailer Claiming Liberals Will Ban The Bible

Sending out this kind of stuff would have made Lee Atwater very, very proud.

I delivered these remarks on Saturday, September 25, 2004 before the St. Louis Association of the United Church of Christ as part of a forum called “Living in Fear in an Election Year.” The other presenters were The Rev. Katy Hawker and The Rev. Dr. Enoch H. Oglesby.

Living in Fear in an Election Year

Let me first offer a few words of self-introduction: I am a seminarian in-care of the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ. My work background includes 17 years of serving churches, ecumenical groups and non-profit organizations that address social justice issues. Besides attending seminary – and being a husband and a father of 11 week old twin girls – I publish a website that reflects on the intersection of faith and politics.

There are plenty of reasons to be fearful in these times – and also some reasons, I believe, to feel hopeful. Who you are, where you grew up, how you read the Bible (if you are Christian), and how you feel about the role of government are but a few factors that help determine what if anything we might be afraid of.

Most of us still operate in the shadow of September 11th and the very real fear of terrorism. The national debate now underway as part of the lead-up to the November elections is not a debate as to whether or not we should fight terrorism: it a more a question of how we fight terrorism. Do we fight this war by unilaterally invading other nations or do we fight terrorism by reflecting on the causes? Do we simply drop bombs or do we focus our attention on fighting world-wide poverty and by promoting efforts to increase dialog between cultures and religions?

Often people of faith cannot come to consensus on these questions, but I agree with the statement adopted by the National Council of Churches in their document Christian Principles In An Election Year:

War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers. We look for political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict.

Fear of war and fear of terrorism are driving the debate this election year but there are other very real fears that we are all facing.

Poverty is growing in America. Our environment is in decline. More people are without health care than ever before. Schools are in jeopardy. While I have endorsed one candidate in the race for president (I’ll leave it up to you all to guess which one) it has to be said that neither major political party has fundamentally addressed any of these concerns.

Sadly, some political and religious leaders, in an effort to divert our attention from these real and pressing problems, have used this election to further divide our people by creating bogymen to blame our problems on. Let me offer two examples:

Shortly after 9/11 the Congress passed and the president signed legislation that created the Patriot Act. This legislation greatly expanded the powers of the federal government to carry out surveillance on citizens and even to incarcerate citizens without full legal protections for the accused. Secret courts now hear evidence in “national security” matters. This intrusion into American democracy, passed with nearly unanimous approval of both democrats and republicans, could only have happened in an atmosphere of fear.

It is fear that drives the debate over gay rights in our country. Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered people have been blamed for everything from the attacks of 9/11 to a decline in family values. The Republican National Committee even sent out a mailer to West Virginia voters last week that claimed that if Democrats were elected in November they would ban the Bible and grant special rights to gay men. The RNC has defended their advertising by offering the rational that Biblical passages on homosexuality could be declared hate speech and thus the Bible would be outlawed. You might not be able to find a more pure example of playing on fear.

It is my contention that the political world lacks the capacity for dealing with these issues in any real way. All of these crises we face are more spiritual in nature than political. How we treat God’s creation – and that means the environment, human creation, and everything else – is a test of how we view our relationship with God. We are called to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).

Too many of our churches ignore this calling as a primary test of the Christian faith. We tend to view our pastoral care duties in individualist terms. As an example, if a parishioner is ill and without health care we tend to offer emotional support, often we’ll arrange meals, and sometimes even take up a collection to help with financial needs. All of that is necessary. Yet we need to spend as much time – even more – questioning why the richest nation on earth is the only industrialized nation on earth without universal health care. In a time of so much uncertainly, anxiety, and fear we need to respond to the root causes.

During the spring I talked William Sloane Coffin for an interview that was published on my web site. Coffin, as most of you will know, has been for decades - in his positions as Yale chaplain and later at Riverside Church in New York - one of the foremost American Christian advocates for peace and justice. I asked him after all these years and after all the battles he has fought how he could remain hopeful. This is what he told me:

I think that hope reflects the state of our soul rather than the circumstances that surround our lives. So hope is not the equivalent of optimism. Its opposite is not pessimism but despair. So I’m always hopeful. Hope is about keeping the faith despite the evidence so that the evidence has a chance of changing.

As I wrote in my book Credo:

Hope criticizes what is, hopelessness rationalizes it. Hope resists, hopelessness adapts.

There are 38 days until the election. My suggestion is this:

Let us use that short time to offer a vision of hope that is rooted deeply in our faith. Let us challenge the voters and the candidates to put the homeless, the sick, our children, the elderly, and the environment at the top of their list of concerns as they prepare to make important decisions in November.

And let us recognize that no matter who wins the election the difficult issues will still be there. So let us make sure we are there to criticize what still is and to resist that which diminishes our relationship with God.

The New York Times reports today that the Republican National Committee has taken credit for mailing out literature to voters in West Virginia and Arkansas claiming that if liberals were elected they would ban the Bible.

The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.

"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."

The mailing, which the RNC told The New York Times was part of their effort to mobilize religious voters, drew some support from a prominent Southern Baptist leader.

Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."

Land did offer that the ad was “probably stretching it a bit far."

A bit far? This is one of the ugliest attempts to divide Americans that I have ever seen from a political campaign. George Bush should be ashamed (though he obviously isn’t).

United Methodist Bishop William Boyd Grove offered a statement condemning the ad that was published exclusively on this site on Saturday.

The Interfaith Alliance has also called for the advertising to be condemned.

“No political party can claim that it holds the monopoly on religious morality, much less that it has received divine endorsement," said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of the non-partisan Interfaith Alliance, the nation’s largest interfaith organization.

“We call on President Bush and Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie to denounce these divisive tactics and to support the appropriate healing role of religion in this nation. Manipulation of religion for partisan purposes has no place in a democracy that is founded on the Constitutional guarantee of the freedom of religion.” Gaddy said.

The Rev. Dr. Albert M. Pennybacker, Chiar/CEO of the Clergy Network, has also issued a statement:

Banning the Bible? Can you believe that the Republicans would stoop to using religion for that sort of political trick in West Virginia?

Such a cynical and manipulative use of religion is simply shameless. It crosses the line. It demeans the Republican Party and the Bush/Chaney campaign. Even further, it demeans the Bible itself. And yet unintentionally, it calls us again to the biblical vision of peace and justice for the world, this time in sharp contrast to a desperate strategy for a campaign appearing to lose its moral moorings.

I am confident that people of faith will not be fooled. They will not believe this wild claim about the Bible and a Kerry victory. But they will see that the Bush/Chaney campaign is not above playing cheap with their biblical faith.

I call on the Bush/Chaney campaign totally to repudiate this misuse of the Bible. Also, I suggest that our current President apologize to the Bible-believing people of our country for implying that any American president can take their Bibles away from them.

If any ever asks you why the country is so polarized and divided you have to answer that it is because of people like George W. Bush and his idolatress friends.

My side blogging gig is over at The American Street where I post once a week (in theory). Today I’ve got a post up on a joint effort by hip hop artists and the faith community to register voters. Jeff Alworth has written an update on Ralph Nader’s ballot woes in Oregon. Michael Berube writes about the number of young liberals who supported the war in Iraq and now have misgivings. And the founder of The American Street, Mr. Kevin Hayden, has a number of great election related posts up. Head over and visit.

Message from the National Council of Churches

Between now and Oct. 15, the NCC is urging churches to participate in one of 5,000 non-partisan public dialogues as part of The People Speak series. The project is inviting high schools, colleges, churches and interfaith groups, civic and business groups to organize events around one or more of the following topics: American Power and Global Security; Energy Choices and Environmental Challenges; and Prosperity in a Global Economy. Religions for Peace-USA, an interfaith partner of the National Council of Churches, will be offering mini-grants of up to $500 per site to local religious communities to support the hosting of dialogue events. Deadline for applications is Oct. 1. A consortium of 25 cooperating organizations is helping foster local discussions in all 50 states. Read more.

The political race I’m following with the greatest interest is the race for Portland mayor. Portland is, after all, my hometown (despite being temporarily exiled to attend seminary). It also happens that I know both the leading contenders from the many years I spent working on issues of homelessness and affordable housing.

I made known my preference for Tom Potter in the fall of last year.

It was with great interest that I read the account published today in The Oregonian about the mayoral debate held on Tuesday. Jim Francesconi apparently questioned Potter’s commitment to adequately address homelessness if elected. Here is how the exchange played in the paper:

Francesconi also drew on a statement Potter made Monday night at an East Portland Chamber of Commerce forum when he said he supported programs such as the Dignity Village homeless camp and would like to expand them.

Potter said Tuesday that Portland has a lot of tent cities under bridges and that Dignity Village has proved a great experiment where the homeless have helped themselves. Potter also said police sweeps of homeless people don't work.

Francesconi countered that the better strategies for homeless people are to work toward placing them in vacant apartments throughout Portland. He also cited his introduction of a living-wage ordinance in 1998 that required companies doing business with the city to offer health benefits.

"You don't put people out of sight, out of mind," Francesconi said.

Francesconi is once again blowing hot air.

During his tenure as a Portland City Commissioner he has done absolutely nothing to address homelessness. He hasn’t lifted a finger. In fact, Francesconi has voted to oppose efforts to address homelessness and efforts to build affordable housing that people living in shelters could actually afford. In the meantime, he has supported the goals of his downtown business contributors to sweep homeless people off the streets and into jails. He has the worst voting record of any member of the city council.

Potter, on the other hand, worked with me during his tenure as police chief to improve relations with the homeless community. When I served as chair of the Multnomah County Community Action Commission (then the county’s lead anti-poverty agency) he appointed his top deputy, Charles Moose, to serve on the commission as his liaison. The police bureau, under his leadership, supported our efforts to revamp the downtown shelter system in 1990-91. When he left the police bureau he ended up as the executive director of an agency that worked with homeless youth.

Potter’s record is why other homeless advocates such as Erik Sten and Gretchen Kafoury also support Tom Potter over his opponent. Francesconi apparently discovered the homeless issue for the first time on Tuesday. Potter has been on the ground working for years.

Let me address one other issue:

This week I received anonymous e-mails from someone making personal attacks against Potter. These e-mails addressed some of the very same items that Willamette Week made mention of in their cover story today.

The nature of Francesconi’s negative campaigning – of which I consider this apart – is an embarrassment to the entire city.

Potter is a good man with a great record of public service. He should be applauded for taking the heat of this campaign and for being willing to serve Portland again.

Are you registered to vote? Deadlines are starting to loom. Click here and get the registration process started online. In the meantime, check out my Election 2004 archives for commentary on all the big issues.

Republicans seem to be questioning George W. Bush at every turn. This weekend several moderate Republican Senators questioned Bush’s Iraq policy. I’m sure that didn’t go over well at the Bush / Cheney campaign HQ.

Now comes word that U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) may not even vote for Bush in November. Chafee is a moderate who has clashed with the White House on several important issues. Reuters reports:

Asked if he might not vote for the president, Chafee said: "That's accurate." His office said this has been his position for months, though it has gotten little, if any, attention in Washington.

"There is no secret that on some very important issues I have difference with the current administration," Chafee said, listing abortion rights, the environment and war in Iraq (news - web sites).

"Like all Americans we are looking for some answers to key questions in the weeks ahead," Chafee said. "You wait until November 2 and make your choices."

Chafee has long been one of my favorite Republicans. He has the same strength of character that Mark Hatfield (the only R I’ve ever voted for) showed during his years in the Senate. If Chafee was at the top of a national ticket - regardless of party - I might vote for it.

I hope that Republicans listen to his concerns and come to their senses. If not, I bet the Democrats would bring out the welcome wagon.

United Methodist Bishop William Boyd Grove e-mailed me today from his home in Charleston, West Virginia with the following statement which he asked that I post:

The Republican ad being distributed in West Virginia, implying that the election of John Kerry would lead to the "banning of the Bible" is outrageous, and represents demagoguery of the worst sort. No one connected to the distribution of that ad could possibly claim fidelity to the Bible for themselves!

John Kerry is a Christian, and the policies of his campaign, concern for the poor and the middle class, care for the environment (God' creation), and health care for all, are far more faithful to biblical principles than are the policies of the President. This administration has ignored the needs of the poor, and has left no millionaire behind. Increaing numbers of people have fallen into poverty, laws that have protected the environment for 30 years have been set aside and little hope has been offered to persons without health care. Which candidate and party are really faithful to biblical religion? The answer should be obvious to anyone who really understands biblical religion.

+William Boyd Grove
Bishop, The United Methodist Church

Bishop Grove is a well respected and nationally known United Methodist leader. I am fortunate to know him through our work with the Clergy Leadership Network.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — According to a national poll, a majority of people of faith oppose same-sex marriage.

But denominations, congregations, and members of the clergy diverge on whether to support Ballot Measure 36, which would ban same-sex marriage in Oregon, according to an analysis by The Oregonian.

Full story

A couple of items to point out in regards to this article:

First, for reference I’ll remind those who might be interested that I posted on this very subject recently. It is disappointing that The Oregonian article did not point out that the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ has urged their members to vote against this measure.

The article does, however, point out that Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon is taking no position on Measure 36. EMO has an outstanding record of supporting gay rights. Some people will be confused as to why they are not opposing this ballot measure.

“EMO is an association of 17 Christian denominations including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox bodies” and that kind of theological diversity can sometimes make finding consensus on social issues difficult. Both the pro-Measure 36 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland and the anti-Measure 36 Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ are members. EMO simply couldn’t agree on a position in regards to Measure 36.

The group does publish a ballot measure guide each election and it is worth looking at. It offers a thoughtful statement on Measure 36 and the internal debate EMO went through in deciding not to take a position:

The board of directors makes no recommendation on Measure 36. After a lengthy discernment process, the board recognizes there is a diversity of theological understandings when considering a definition of marriage and how it is to be understood in a religious and legal context. Some of EMO’s members understand marriage to be reserved for heterosexual couples only, while others support same gender marriage. It is within this context that the board is unable to reach consensus both on the theological and legal definition of marriage among its members.

Clearly, what is held in common, however, is the need for ongoing dialogue and discernment. The myriad of issues of human and legal rights associated with marriage must be explored. There are also questions of religious freedom and the practicality of defining marriage in the state constitution. Does amending the constitution with a particular religious definition of marriage impose upon other religions with different definitions? Can civil unions or civil marriage coexist with religious marriage? Can religious differences on marriage coexist in a legal context? Are there human and legal rights associated with marriage that are denied to certain populations because of sexual orientation? These are just a few of the many questions that need further discussion and public discourse to fully appreciate the complexities that defining marriage legally presents. The board is acutely aware of the personal human impact this measure has on all Oregonians. The board is united in opposing any effort to use this measure to denigrate any religion, person or community in this state. The board of directors has consistently acknowledged and advocated for the human dignity of all people regardless of sexual orientation, legal status, race, religious affiliation, gender, age or disability. It is in this spirit of inclusiveness that the board advises discernment, prayer, reflection, civil debate, discussion and thoughtful study in a manner that acknowledges that all are children of a loving Creator.

That fact that EMO made the effort to be public about their differences speaks volumes about the integrity of the people involved with their process. I’ll note that my trust level in these folks is higher because I have worked with many of them.

However, I still don’t like the eventual outcome. My hope is that one day all churches and Christian organizations will be able to speak loudly with one voice in opposition to discrimination of all forms.

This post has been updated

George W. Bush and his allies have hit a new low. The Republican National Committee has sent out mailers to voters in West Virginia warning that liberals will take away their Bibles if democrats win the election. The AP reports:

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn't aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. "It wouldn't surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage," Gillespie said.

The flier says Republicans have passed laws protecting life, support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and will nominate conservative judges who will "interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."

Below are a few of my Bibles. These are just the ones I keep on my desk. I also have one downloaded on my palm pilot and have access to nearly every translation through the internet. Every place I go there is a Bible with me.

No liberal is going to take your Bible away. The worst thing we will do is insist enough funding is put in place in our schools so that everyone is literate enough to read the Bible when they get home. Bush won’t make that promise. He just wants to scare you.

Update: John Edwards issued a statement on Saturday concerning this issue:

Republicans always say they want to have a values debate but lying and spreading hate were not the values I learned growing up in a small town in North Carolina where the Bible was the most important book my home. George Bush and Dick Cheney should be appalled by these despicable mailings. They should condemn this practice immediately and tell everyone associated with their campaign to never use tactics like this again. The American people deserve better.

Update: Read United Methodist Bishop William Boyd Grove's response to the RNC ad.

The conflict in Iraq continues to dominate the news and none of that news is good. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians continue to die in large numbers. The American government remains upbeat about the prospects for democracy taking hold in Iraq but a memo leaked this week (written by US intelligence officials) raised the real possibility that civil war will soon tear the country apart.

Theologians debated in 2003 (and no one really listened) the question of whether or not invading Iraq would be in Christian terms a “just war.” The concept is ancient and revolves around principles such as stating that preemptive wars cannot be just and that civilian lives have to be protected in any conflict. Most Christian theologians came to the conclusion George W. Bush’s planned invasion of Iraq did not reach the just war threshold. The National Council of Churches USA opposed the war and so did most mainline Christian denominations. The only major Christian denomination to offer support for Bush’s war was the Southern Baptists Convention.

The message could not have been more different from the mainline churches and the Southern Baptists. The Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite President, Chicago Theological Seminary, spoke on behalf of many mainline Christians when she preached:

For Augustine, the intent of both the nation and the individuals in war have much to do with evaluating whether a war can be justified. “[F]or it makes a great difference by which causes and under which authorities men undertake the wars that must be waged.” (Against Faustus the Manichean, 222) “The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like” (City of God, book 22) for “the natural order which seeks peace” (Ibid) to be upset, it must be that the reason for undertaking war is to restore human affairs to peace. (Ibid). “For peace is not sought in order to kindle war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained.” (Letter 189) Even in war, soldiers must conduct themselves as peacemakers, targeting the enemy and not engaging in wholesale slaughter. The innocent must be protected, not killed as combatants.

The virulent, revengeful cruelty and the lust for power that Augustine so feared as the worst moral evils in war are our biggest risk. Are we just lashing out in emotional desire for revenge and to just get out from under this anxiety? For even more dispassion and reason in considering the use of violence, look at the development of Just War theory in the work of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th to 14th centuries.

Aquinas’ time was far different from the cosmic struggles of Augustine’s. In the high Middle Ages the divinely run society seemed finally to have arrived, at least for the elites. Influenced by the reintroduction of Aristotle’s writings into the West via the Muslim world, Aquinas posited a seamless, great chain of being from God as first cause to the last spec of secondary causality in the material world. Whereas Augustine was preoccupied with intentionality and the corruptions of the lust for power, Aquinas, as a rationally deductive thinker, took Augustine’s question “What is the moral evil in war?” (Book 22) and sanitized it to the question “When is a war just?” His answer is not an exploration of the corruptions of the will to power, but a straightforward list: “For a war to be just three conditions are necessary.” (Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae.23-46) The list is not unhelpful. There needs to be a right authority to declare war, a just cause and finally a right intention on the part of the belligerents, i.e. achieving some good or avoiding some evil. This list is subsequently expanded to eight.

So, it all really comes down to whether we have a Just Cause or not. Are we defending ourselves from attack (and that only came in with Aquinas; Augustine didn’t include self-defense in his original writings on Just War), are we defending someone else from attack? No and no. We are proposing to act pre-emptively; to strike first because some suppose this will prevent a future attack. 100 Christian Ethicists this fall published a rejection of a pre-emptive war with Iraq based on Just War criteria. The major protestant denominations, the American Catholic church and the National Council of Churches all have issued statements questioning the proposed war with Iraq and have often referred to Just War theory. To have a just cause, you have to be defending yourself (or defending someone else from attack).

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, was a strong advocate for the war. He conducted numerous appearances before the media to offer Bush theological cover for his policies. Baptist Press news covered his pre-invasion views:

DALLAS (BP)--In refusing to rule out military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, President Bush has an ally in Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land -- and that has the talking heads talking.

"I have stirred up a hornet's nest," Richard Land said Oct. 12 on his weekly talk show, "Richard Land Live!"

"It seems that I have surprised many Americans, at least those in the media, with my views about 'just war' theory and how it applies to the unfolding situation in Iraq," said Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission….

Land was the lead signatory on an Oct. 3 letter to President George W. Bush that affirmed the president's policies concerning Hussein's Iraqi regime were "right and just." Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson and Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, were among others who signed the letter that said the administration's efforts were "within the time-honored criteria" of just war theory…..

Just war theory, Land explained, was constructed by St. Augustine and other early church fathers in the late 4th and early 5th century A.D. as a tool to determine when military action could be justified within a Christian framework.

"We cannot give blind allegiance to the government; we can't give over control of our conscience to the government," Land noted. "Jesus made clear that ultimate allegiance must always be to God, not Caesar. We cannot allow the government to take control of our ethical and moral decision-making process."

Land said Jesus made clear individuals are not to seek private retribution for wrongs done against them. "Romans 13 tells us God ordained the civil magistrate to punish evildoers and reward those who do right and that the state bears not the sword in vain," he said, noting the Greek word the apostle Paul used for sword in this instance was the lethal instrument used to decapitate those found guilty of capital crimes.

"We do not have the right to take the law into our own hands. Only the government is authorized to use lethal force," said Land, explaining the foundation of just war theory.

"Sometimes war is necessary; sometimes war is permissible under certain criteria," he continued, noting the theory requires a "just cause" be in place. "Only defensive war is defensible," he said.

Lethal military action must have a just intent; the motive must not be revenge, conquest or economic benefit, Land said. And such action must be a last resort, he said, noting that Saddam Hussein has had 11 years to comply with U.N. sanctions and resolutions.

The issue of legitimate authority was settled when Congress gave Bush authority to use force against Hussein, Land added.

The end result of the war in Iraq is from nearly all independent observers considered a disaster. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found and a new US government report confirms that none may have existed. The Bush Administration also called the invasion a response to 9/11 by claiming a link between Iraq and the terrorists. It turns out there was no link. Large numbers of civilians have been killed. American troops have even tortured Iraqi prisoners. Bush walked into Iraq without just cause and now we are stuck there with an even further diminished moral authority.

Bush claims at nearly every opportunity that God guides his foreign policy. During his acceptance speech before the Republic National Convention he talked about Iraq and America’s role there:

"Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world."

Bush apparently sees his role as God’s instrument for freeing oppressed people (though this doctrine only seems to apply to oppressed people with large oil reserves).

The president is right on one thing: God does not want God’s people to be oppressed.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free

- Luke 4:18. (NRSV)

Yet neither Jesus or God asked nations to raise armies in their service. Jesus’ weapon in the pursuit of God’s goals was the weapon of love. Jesus did not kill for his ministry.

Voters should consider the record of George W. Bush and his actions in Iraq before casting their votes. I’m confident that John Kerry would not have brought us into this disaster.

Bush misunderstood the concept of just war and only listened to those who would agree with him. The president refused to meet with the United Methodist Bishops (Bush is a United Methodist) because of their opposition to the Iraqi conflict. In the end, he dishonored God by waging an unjust war, killing large numbers of civilians and soldiers, and creating a climate where more terrorists attacks are likely. No one should call his actions the Christian position. Most of all him.

Mark O'Keefe writes this week on the different ways the presidential candidates approach their faith and political careers in an article for Newhouse News Service. Click here to read it.

One of the most pressing issues voters will have to consider in November are the environmental records of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

This earth is God’s creation and we have a responsibility as stewards to ensure it is protected and nurtured. One of the best statements on this subject comes from the United Methodist Social Principles:

All creation is the Lord's and we are responsible for the ways in which we use and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy resources, plants, animal life, and space are to be valued and conserved because they are God's creation and not solely because they are useful to human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship duties through acts of loving care and respect. Economic, political, social, and technological developments have increased our human numbers, lengthened and enriched our lives. However, these developments have led to regional defoliation, dramatic extinction of species, massive human suffering, overpopulation, misuse and over- consumption of natural and nonrenewable resources, particularly by industrialized societies. This continued course of action jeopardizes the natural heritage which God has entrusted to all generations. Therefore, let us recognize the responsibility of the church and its members to place a high priority on changes in economic, political, social and technological lifestyle to support a more ecologically equitable and sustainable world leading to a higher quality of life for all of God's creation.

Both candidates claim to be environmentalists. The record is clearer than the rhetoric. Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writes that:

George W. Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has actively hidden its anti-environmental program behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats.

Kennedy’s full article on the Bush environmental record is a must read. I’ve recommended it before and do so again today.

The truth concerning the depth of the world’s environmental crisis demands that Christians act on Scripture and protect what God has given us to protect.

Sallie McFague is the former Carpenter Professor of Theology and former Dean at Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville. In her book Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age she underscores the importance of the environment for Christians:

What is at stake here is not a sentimental love of nature or a leveling of all distinctions between human beings and other forms of life but the realization, as Teilhard de Chardin says, that his and everyone else’s “poor trifling existence” is “one with the immensity of all that is and all that is still in the process of becoming.”

Deciding who will be the next president will not in and of itself restore humanity’s relationship with God and God's creation. That much is obvious. The environmental question is more a spiritual one than a political one. How do you treat such a precious gift from God as the sustaining source of all life?

Another truth is that this election will matter. The current administration has sided time and time again with the polluters against nature. Check out the record. Could there be a greater sin?

Visit the Interfaith Climate Change Network for more information on faith and the environment. The network is a joint project of the National Council of Churches and the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life.

Rep. Ed Schrock of VA was the first to fall. Now comes word that California Rep. David Dreier, CA-26 maybe the next to join the scandal crowd. These two congressmen have at least two things in common: they are conservative Republicans who have voted for anti-gay legislation time after time and it appears they’re both gay - a web site figured it out and let the world know. Outing someone is an ethically questionable tactic. You never know what the outcome will be. What happens if one of these congressmen breaks down after being outed and does something terrible? Retribution is a dangerous game. So is living a duplicitous life, hiding the reality of your existence, and then using your power to harm those who are just like you but who have had the courage to be open about who they are.

Read the full story from Daily Kos.

Beliefnet's God-o-Meter (Gah-DOM-meter) is tuned to both the Kerry-Edwards and the Bush-Cheney camps, measuring factors such as mentions of God per 30 seconds, context (invoking God to, say, justify tax cuts would send the God-o-Meter into a frenzy), and other subtle criteria. With a startling degree of scientific accuracy, God-o-Meter then rates each campaign on a 10-point scale from "secularist" to "theocrat."

During the 2000 election, our first God-o-Meter led us to describe that race as having "the most faith-talk of any in the 20th century." Records, of course, are made to be broken. While Bush recently flew overnight to grab a photo-op with the pope and Kerry jabbed politely back with a reference to the Book of James (see chart), the upcoming set-to between a born-again Bush and Catholic Kerry already has God-o-Meter's needle twitching ominously.

Here's a fun way to keep track of how the candidates for president are taking about faith this election year.

Want a fiscal conservative for President? John Kerry is your man. The Washington Post is reporting that George W. Bush wants to spend $1 trillion more than the senator has proposed. That’s a lot of spending and a lot of debt to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and cutbacks in education, health care and programs for the poor.

The 1994 law that banned military style assault weapons expires today after the Republican-led Congress allowed the law to sunset. George W. Bush, who said he would sign an extension of the law, actually worked to make sure Congress wouldn’t pass the extension (how Machiavellian of him).

Law enforcement groups backed the law. The National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of more than 2,000 police unions and associations, endorsed John Kerry today in his bid to become the next President.

The National Rifle Association opposed the assault weapons ban and they consider this a major victory.

Studies have found that the law resulted in a dramatic decrease in deaths and violence at the hands of assault weapons. The Bush Administration and Congress have clearly put the needs and desires of the NRA (and the criminals they protect) ahead of public safety.

Let the killing begin.

My seminary colleague Scott Elliot (the only other Oregonian on Eden’s campus) sent this my way. Very right on.

Bush Administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson was booed today while addressing the National Baptist Convention USA. The AP reports:

The booing started when Jackson, who is black, told the annual meeting of the National Baptist Convention USA that the Republican Party is committed to helping blacks.

Some of the ministers laughed at Jackson's comment. Then a chorus of boos started and went on for about a minute until a church official stepped to the podium and asked the audience to stop.

Jackson said afterward that the National Baptist Convention is made up mostly of older people who are set in their ways, so the booing didn't surprise him. He added, "The so-called black leadership — Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond — creates and continues black victimization."

Why would people of faith boo the HUD secretary? Since George W. Bush took office there has been an on-going effort to cut back programs designed to help people lift themselves out of poverty.

Jackson says that his party wants to help back communities, but the president has refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP. No wonder the ministers broke out in laughter. They know the record of the last four years.

In May of this year, Jackson told Congress that 'being poor is a state of mind, not a condition." He used this reasoning to argue for cutbacks in social service programs.

When the booing got loud and the pressure intense Jackson did what all good Bush employees do: he attacked the audience by labeling them as “older people who are set in their ways,” according to the AP.

The Oregonian is reporting today that the Oregon Catholic Conference will endorse Measure 36. Measure 36 is the ballot measure voters will consider in November that bans same sex marriage. No one should be surprised by the Catholic position. Their church hierarchy almost always takes the conservative position on the gay marriage question. I actually have a lot of respect for the Oregon Catholic Conference and their work on anti-poverty issues, but on this issue they are simply wrong. My guess is that many members of the Oregon Catholic Conference will simply ignore their leaders and vote against the measure.

Not all Christians support the measure. The Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ is urging their members to vote against Measure 36. This is the conference that I belong to. You can expect that other denominations and individual churches will also oppose the measure. Christians are divided on this issue and even the Catholic Church only speaks for part of their own membership.

Over the summer the National Council of Churches offered a document containing “Christian Principles in an Election Year” for Christians to use when considering which candidates they might vote for. New York City’s Riverside Church has now issued a similar set of principles. The Prophetic Justice Principles are meant to be used for judging the policy positions adopted by candidates. Check out what they have to offer:

We face a time of choices, and a recognition that our nation has strayed from some of its founding spiritual, moral and democratic principles. People of faith who care deeply about the soul of our country may feel inspired to hold up, as the Prophet Amos did, a series of principles against which to test their leaders’ policies for moral depth.

1. Seek the common good: Does the policy represent the common good of society rather than the interest of an elite few?

2. Be truthful in facts and motives: Is the policy based on a true analysis and does it disclose its true intention? How likely is the outcome to achieve its proposed purpose?

3. Promote unity and inclusion: Does the policy hold the prospect of reducing the polarization and fragmentation of the society due to race, religion, class, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin?

4. Care for the poor: Does the policy provide good news for the poor? Does it reverse the trend toward an ever-widening gap between rich and poor?

5. Protect the vulnerable: Is the policy good for children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged? Does it show sensitivity to the spirit of the golden rule?

6. Guard freedom of thought and discussion: Does the policy provide for free press, free discussion, and the expression of dissent, along with fair and just methods of participation in the democratic process?

7. Respect other nations and peoples: Does the policy encourage respect for peoples and nations other than our own? Does it respect the fundamental dignity and rights of every human being? Does it use diplomacy as a valued instrument of statecraft in resolving international conflicts and refrain from unilateral military actions for empire-building and domination strategies?

8. Ensure stewardship of creation: Is the policy supportive of strong measures to insure ecological responsibility and sustainability?

9. Cherish the human family: Does the policy practice good global citizenship involving respect for all cultures and nations, and collective responsibility for the common good of the global community? Does it refrain from nationalism, militarism or imperialism based on a sense of national superiority?

10. Provide moral leadership: Does the policy lead by example, doing the right thing and holding the right lessons for our children and our citizens? Does it promote a more ethical society, and uphold trust in public offices?

The Riverside Church of New York
www.mobilization2004.org

The Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Jr, senior minister at Riverside Church, has agreed to do an interview with me for this site about his efforts. Look for it soon.

Photo credit: Riverside Church

BY MARK O'KEEFE
c.2004 Newhouse News Service

NEW YORK -- With a full-page ad in the New York Times, a flashlight-illuminated protest on Broadway and a plea from rock star Bono for spiritually motivated, poverty-fighting activism, the religious left has sent a message to the presidential candidates and the voters during the Republican Convention.

After years of impotence, their movement is back, progressive religious leaders say.

While it is hard to tell if that assertion has real political muscle behind it, political analysts on the right as well as the left agree that the movement appears determined to make the case that God is not a Republican.

Full story

Published on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 by the Atlanta Journal Constitution

Letter to Zell Miller: 'You Have Betrayed our Trust'
by Jimmy Carter

To Sen. Zell Miller:

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor [of Young Harris] and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as state senator, lieutenant governor and governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge and Sam Nunn, disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican National Convention because of your being a "Democrat," and it's quite possible that your rabid speech damaged our party and paid the GOP some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign's personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders --- and a good friend.")

I, myself, served in the Navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don't believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacifist.

Zell, I have known you for 42 years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.

Sincerely, and with deepest regrets,

Jimmy Carter

No joke. The vice-president said today that America will "be hit” by terrorists if voters choose John Kerry over George W. Bush. Here’s the direct quote:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

John Edwards responded with the following statement:

“Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that.

“John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it.”

Cheney’s attempt to scare the American public into voting for his ticket will go down in history as one of the most despicable moments in presidential campaign history.

Earlier this summer an informal group of interfaith clergy and laity met on the campus of Eden Theological Seminary to discuss ways of promoting a theological viewpoint this election cycle that was progressive and responsive to social justice concerns.

One of the results of that meeting is an open letter to the people of St. Louis the group hopes to publish twice in the St. Louis Dispatch before the November election. Click here to read the letter.

The total cost of publishing the letter will come to $10,260. We need help raising that money. Missouri is an important swing state this November and it is critical that the voters take into consideration issues such as affordable health care, the environment, and child poverty as they pick candidates to vote for.

Can you help the progressive religious community in St. Louis make this statement? Readers of this blog could make the difference in getting this letter published. You come from around the country and have the chance to make a real difference this November.

Checks should be made out to The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon and mailed to:

The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon
c/o Eden Theological Seminary
475 E. Lockwood
St. Louis, MO 63119

This is a private effort and not endorsed by Eden or any other organizational body. Contributions are not tax deductible. Contact Dr. Kinnamon via e-mail at [email protected] or call 314-918-2588 with any questions.

Last week former President Bill Clinton spoke at New York City's historic Riverside Church. He used the appearance to speak out against the Religious Right and in support of values of tolerance, understanding and community. You can now watch his address on the Mobilization 2004 web site. I pray for a swift recovery for President Clinton on this day of his surgery.

"I like to write" is trying to raise the profile of ACT - a group trying to turn out voters in swing states. Visit his site and support this effort (or another good one you know of) to change American this November.

I like to write

From the people who brought you “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” comes the squeal: “I Saw Tanks In The Streets” staring California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger stars as the young child who witnesses communist tanks charging through Austrian streets. This film is not based on historical events. From CNN:

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Austrian historians are challenging California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and that he left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968. Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

Historians, however, are questioning Schwarzenegger's version of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.
Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

Full story

Truth just doesn’t get in the way of George W. Bush’s Republican Party.

Our Republican friends holding their convention in New York let a little light shine on their real agenda this week. A special meeting of conservative Christians sponsored by the Bush campaign took place where the main speaker, US Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, told the audience Bush intended to win the “culture war.” Brownback, speaking on behalf of the president, laid out the elements of exactly what Bush’s culture war look like. The New York Times reports:

At a closed, invitation-only Bush campaign rally for Christian conservatives yesterday, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas called for a broad social conservative agenda notably different from the televised presentations at the Republican convention, including adopting requirements that pregnant women considering abortions be offered anesthetics for their fetuses and loosening requirements on the separation of church and state. "We must win this culture war," Senator Brownback urged a crowd of several hundred in a packed ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel, reprising a theme of a speech by Patrick J. Buchanan from the podium of the 1992 Republican convention that many political experts say alienated moderate voters in that election.

Called "the Family, Faith and Freedom Rally" in e-mail invitations sent to Christian conservatives in New York for the convention, the event was organized by the Bush-Cheney campaign "to celebrate America and President George W. Bush," according to a copy of the invitation. The e-mail called Mr. Bush "a conservative leader who shares our values, who takes a strong stand for his faith."

Ralph Reed, a senior campaign adviser and liaison to conservative Christians, also addressed the crowd. Several campaign staff members, including the deputy political director, Christian Myers, attended, along with Timothy Goeglein, the White House liaison to Christian groups. One invited participant said the rally, which was closed to the news media, was the main event sponsored by the campaign for social conservatives attending the convention.

Full story

Bush’s call for a culture war is notably different than the public face of his “compassionate conservative” campaign themes and stands in stark contrast to the platform of John Kerry and John Edwards. However, Bush’s record in office reflects his culture war views with attacks on affirmative action, civil rights for gays and lesbians, and fierce assaults on reproductive rights for women. Bush truly believes he is waging war against the values of the American people on behalf of his God. Let’s put an end to his war in November.