Still smarting from their defeat at the polls Republicans gathered in Washington, D.C. this week to pick new leadership. Republicans in the senate had the chance to offer the American people a fresh face as part of their leadership team.

Instead they picked Trent Lott from Mississippi as their second in command. Lott had once been the Republican leader in the senate but was forced to resign that post a few years back after saying America would have been better off had Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948.

Thurmond, from South Carolina, ran as a strict segregationist and spent most of his senate years opposing civil rights. Lott told a birthday party gathering for Thurmond that Mississippians were proud of their vote for Thurmond and that "if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems."

If Republicans like Lott are going to keep modeling their governing skills and political campaigns after figures like Thurmond the country is in for a few more difficult years.

But maybe Lott will surprise us all and make racial reconciliation the centerpiece of his tenure.

It seems to me he has a real choice now to either follow his old instincts of dividing people based on race or he could answer God's call for justice. It's up to him.

It was exciting this week to see progressives and moderates take the reigns of Congress.  Voters also passed legislation in five states increasing the minimum wage.  Missouri voters wisely endorsed state funding for stem cell research.  But there were other important progressive victories worth noting.

While several states did vote to back new anti-gay legislation there was a lot of good news on the civil rights front.  Human Rights Campaign reports:

WASHINGTON -- This year, the Human Rights Campaign flexed its political muscle in unprecedented and strategic ways that helped alter the political dynamic in key races across the country. With victories for strong pro-equality candidates like Florida's Ron Klein and Arizona's Gabrielle Giffords, the 110th Congress promises to be the most fair-minded in history. Voters in Arizona also made history last night, defeating that state's discriminatory domestic partnership ballot initiative.

Out of the 225 candidates that HRC endorsed, 208 proved triumphant, with several races still too close to call. HRC was involved in 18 Senate victories, 179 House wins and 11 successful governors' races. HRC also helped to defeat some of the most anti-gay voices in Congress such as John Hostettler and Rick Santorum, signaling that the era of gay-bashing for political gain is coming to an end.

"Last night we saw unprecedented victories for fair-minded candidates and for equality; we also witnessed a stinging rebuke of anti-gay elected officials in this country," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "The historic rejection of the domestic partnership ban in Arizona is a symbolic turning point in the march toward marriage equality.  We congratulate Arizona Together for their work in defeating the discriminatory, un-American measure."

Click here for more.

Missouri voters endorsed sound health care policy when they voted for a state initiative to allow embryonic stem research. 

The measure was consistent with Christian ethics and was endorsed by a wide array of clergy (including many of my former seminary colleagues and professors from Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis). 

The Stem Cell Initiative will prevent Missouri politicians from banning stem cell research and cures in our state.

It will make it clear in our state constitution that all Missouri citizens have the right to have their diseases and injuries cured with any stem cell treatments that are allowed in our country and available to other Americans.

It ensures that Missouri medical institutions can provide and help find new stem cell cures.

It establishes responsible boundaries and guidelines to ensure that stem cell research is conducted ethically and safely. And, it strictly bans any attempt to clone a human being.

Christians can and do come to different conclusions on issues such as this one but it is notable that in a state so populated by Roman Catholic and evangelical Christians that voters determined that stem cell research was morally valid.

Missouri has sent a message to the nation.  President Bush opposes the research but bi-partisan leaders in Congress - including prominent "pro-life" leaders" - agree that federal funding should be made available to move this research forward.  The benefits could be amazing. 

Congress should pass legislation on this issue ASAP and the president should sign it.  If he won't, this will be one issue the American people will want to judge presidential candidates against in 2008. 

The "God gap" between Democrats and Republicans seem to have disappeared.  Democrats did quite well among religious voters yesterday.  Faith in Public Life has the story.

Good news from the Let Justice Roll campaign:

Minimum wage hikes won in every state they were on the ballot, winning by a resounding 76 percent in Missouri, 73 percent in Montana, 69 percent in Nevada, 66 percent in Arizona, 56 percent in Ohio and 53 percent in Colorado (latest totals).

Let Justice Roll is a project of the National Council of Churches and is led by The Rev. Paul Sherry, former general minister and president of the United Church of Christ.

More on this tomorrow.

Oregon’s Measure 43 has been defeated, according to The Oregonian. The measure, sponsored by Focus on the Family and other leaders in the Religious Right, would have required parental notification for minors seeking abortions – with no exemptions for those who were victims of incest or domestic violence. The measure was opposed by medical groups and children’s advocacy groups. There was a lot of conversation here on this blog about the measure as the campaign moved forward. As a minister, I opposed the measure because it would have put young women at risk and the last thing that teens need when seeking health care are legal roadblocks put in their way by the Religious Right. Oregon voters made a moral choice tonight.  Now that this election is over we should all work to reduce teen pregnancy in Oregon through education and prevention. 

South Dakota voters have rejected tonight an attempt to ban abortion, according to CNN. Supporters of the ban had hoped it would be ratified by a federal court decision and thus overturn Roe vs. Wade but a solid majority of voters in this conservative state said loud and clear tonight that the rights of women should be respected. Most mainline Christian denominations support abortion rights. Abortion is opposed by many evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church. Mainline clergy were active in the campaign to overturn the ban. South Dakota voters should be applauded for rejecting political extremism.

Tonight the American people appear to have given control of the United States House of Representatives to the Democratic Party. For those concerned about the direction of America and the war in Iraq this is good news. Speaker-designee Nancy Pelosi will be the first woman in U.S. history to hold the office. Her career in Congress would suggest that she’ll be a tough leader concerned about wages, health care, public education and the safety of our people. Will Democrats in the House be everything that we need them to be? Nope. Those of us concerned about the “least of these” in America will have to fight hard to keep our issues on the table. We also still have to worry about the man living at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. At least now there will be one chamber of Congress holding the White House accountable.

Photo credit: http://www.house.gov/pelosi/

The Rev. Jim Wallis thinks tonight is turning into a bad night for fundamentalists.  I hope so.

The polls haven't yet closed here out West but some of the preliminary exit poll data is showing a dramatic shift in Roman Catholic voters in the United States.  Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good reports:

A preliminary analysis of National Election Poll data by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good shows a startling 47-point shift among Ohio Catholic voters from 2000, when these seats were last up for election, to 2006.  Pennsylvania and Virginia also show dramatic shifts in Catholic vote to Democrats.  The Iraq War and corruption, issues related to a concern for the common good, are being identified as the most important moral issues.

Republicans did a great job of exploiting the Catholic vote in 2004.  Several influential Roman Catholic leaders even went so far as to suggest that you couldn't vote for pro-choice Democratic candidates (no such edict was placed on voting for pro-choice Republicans...) and remain Catholic.

Our faithfulness to God cannot be determined by our votes on just one political issue or another.  It is tragic that so many have used the abortion issue as a wedge to drive apart people.

What is the common good?

A culture of the common good provides for the health, welfare, and advancement of all people, regardless of race, gender, religion or economic class. This central goal of Catholic Social Teaching expresses our faith's understanding that society functions best when decisions are made with an eye toward what benefits everyone, and not just the few. In the words of Pope John Paul II, the common good refers to the "good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all."

That is an agenda that all people of faith can buy into. 

Gracious God,

This morning we lift up to you in prayer our nation.
We are a divided people facing difficult elections.
Help us to discern your will for the world.
Be with all those today who have offered themselves as leaders.

This morning we lift up to you in prayer the causes our people must address.
We have war, and hunger, and environmental crises.
These are difficult days for the world.
Be with us as we cast our votes.

This morning we lift up to you in prayer the homeless in our midst.
The "least of these" have been left behind in America.
Help us to do better.
Be with those today who have no home.

This morning we lift up to you in prayer the Iraqi people.
Their blood stains us all.
Let justice roll down.
Be with those that suffer from war.

This morning we lift up to you in prayer our American soldiers.
Too many of them have died.
Help us find a way to bring them home.
Be with those that serve with honor. 

This morning we lift up to you in prayer those without health care.
We give too little in a world of plenty.
Let us learn from Jesus what it means to be healers.
Be with those who are sick.

This morning we lift up to you in prayer the prophets in our midst.
We give thanks for voices in a world of darkness that bring light.
Let us have the courage to be more like them.
Be with those who work to build up the Kingdom.

Oh God, your people cry out to you this day.
We want to be a people of reconciliation and justice.
We want to bring an end to needless suffering. 
Be with us all this election as we make difficult decisions.

We pray in the name of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.

Amen.

Texas Governor Rick Perry says that he agrees that non Christians are "going straight to hell with a non-stop ticket," reports UPI (following a story in The Dallas Morning News). Perry is running for reelection and I suspect that his remarks were aimed more at getting his based riled up for the Tuesday vote than a theological statement. But Perry is behind the times. A Beliefnet.com poll out last year showed that 68% of “born again” or “evangelical Christians” believe that a “good person who isn’t of your religious faith” can gain salvation. Perry has supporters in his corner, however. George W. Bush once made a similar comment. Chris Bell, the democratic nominee for governor in Texas, told reporters in response to Perry’s remarks that "God is the only one who can make the decision as to who gets into the kingdom of heaven.”

Here in Oregon we vote by mail and if you haven't already put your stamp on a ballot it is way too late.  You'll have to drop-off your vote at one of these handy locations.  Everyone needs to vote for this democracy of ours to work.

And if you don't live in Oregon...don't for forget to vote on Tuesday. 

The near constant ringing of my phone, the spike in blog hits, and the 16,000+ unread e-mails in my inbox goes to show one thing: the mid-term elections are next week. There is a massive get-out-the-vote effort underway in communities across the country. Do your part to help. We need to send a message to the White House that their days governing America through fear and lies are over. We need to send a message to all Americans that the common good of society requires health care of all, good schools, and safe neighborhoods. But as you do your part this weekend and through Tuesday don’t forget to keep your family close. Pray for an end to the war and for better days here at home. Take time off to read a good book and listen to some music. Breathe. Don’t let the tension of this electoral season overwhelm you. Your vote and your voice will be needed on Tuesday. Make yourself ready. This is going to be an historic week in America. Enjoy it.

You’d be amazed at the kinds of e-mails that come my way each day. Take a look at these…

Mark doesn’t like Jews:

Being in the Republican Party for four generations I have a real problem with the Republican Party of today and it doesn't have anything to do with Foley. The Republican Party has a large number of Jews working in the Republican Party known as Neo Cons. George Bush sold himself to the voters as a Christian Conservative when in fact he has very few Christian Conservatives working for him in powerful positions. To give you some examples of this. Michael Chertoff the Director of Homeland security is Jewish, Ari Fleisher his first press secretary is Jewish, so are Paul Bremmer, Wolfowicz, Donald Feith, Senor. Why are all these people calling themselves Neo Cons? Why don't they just admit that they are Jewish. The problem here is that Jews are the main enemy of Christian Conservatives. Jews are Communist.

He goes on to say:

So are these Neo Cons that work in large numbers in the Republican Party actually Communists "planted" in the Republican Party? I have uncovered some new evidence proving that the answer is "yes". I am an expert on the Communist Party USA and have solid evidence that the Communist Party USA planted people from their Party int the Republican Party to create scandals and sway elections. Their are even movies showing them doing this like the movie the Manchurian Candidate made way back in 1962.

Paula doesn’t like gays:

Obviously you don't think God knew about sexual orientation. Obviously you don't think God wrote the Bible using the men who recorded those words. And if it was up to evolution, homosexuals would have been selected against as soon as they appeared since they are not able to reproduce to pass down their genetic or otherwise disposition. Homosexuality is expressly forbidden by a God Who knows what He is saying. Hope you get His message. I am not angry by writing this, I am in disbelief about the rebellion and ignorance some people have toward God and His word.

James doesn’t like poor people:

Jesus did not want people to vote for politicians to tax folks so they could have welfare programs. He wanted folks to give of themselves to help the less fortunate. Come on, let the government do what they can do well and people need to take care of people. Just out of curiosity what do you make a year? I’m willing to bet you wont say.

These folks have the same rights to vote as we all do. So be sure to vote this November.

South Dakota voters will decide this month on whether or not to appeal a state-wide law banning abortion.  The Religious Right is hoping the appeal fails and that President Bush's appointments to the federal bench will validate the ban by outlawing Roe vs Wade.  Who is standing in the way of those attempting to strip women of their rights?  Clergy.

Back here in Oregon we have our own dog in the fight over choice.

Related Post: One Christian View Against Oregon’s Measure 43

One of the best developments this electoral season has been the growing bi-partisan consensus (not to mention ecumenical consensus) over the importance of sustaining our environment.  Americans, fueled by Al Gore's superman-like crusade, have come to see the Bush Administration's environmental policies as shortsighted.  Republicans are starting to turn green and that is good for the planet.  Those who aren't on board won't be around after November. 

Over the last three decades mainline churches (the historical Protestant churches) have been addressing the environmental crisis through various ways.  These days even some prominent conservative evangelical leaders are joining the movement.

A coalition of Green Democrats and Green Republicans alongside mainline churches and evangelicals concerned about the care of creation could be a force that literally changes the world.

That scares the Republican Party aligned-Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD).  IRD spends a lot of time attacking mainline church leaders and "liberals" but now they have also turned their guns on conservative evangelical leaders who have broken from the White House over the state of the environment.  IRD and their allies are so close to George W. Bush they routinely confuse his policies for the Gospel. 

If pro-environmental candidates and ballot measures win across the U.S. this November the winners will be generations to come.  The losers will be those finally unmasked who have tried to question the science behind global warming in an effort to pump up their struggling campaigns and fading electoral chances.    

My ballot went out in the mail today and Ted Kulongoski earned my vote for governor. There was no choice. He shares my fundamental values on public education, health care and the environment. We need leaders in Oregon who care deeply about these issues and Governor Kulongoski’s opponent this November has demonstrated none of the leadership one would hope for. The governor has produced specific proposals on children’s issues that are particularly important. I’m hoping that the campaign has strengthened Governor Kulongoski’s leadership skills so that a second term will produce the impressive results Oregon needs to sustain our unique spirit.

Note: Any endorsements that I make for candidates running for public office are personal and do not reflect the position of the United Church of Christ or any other body.  Churches are rightfully prohibited by federal law from from engaging in partisan political activity.  However, ministers (like all citizens) have the right under the Constitution to express preferences for public office.

Embryonic stem cell research is consistent with Christian ethics but that hasn't stopped the Bush White House and their allies in the Religious Right from doing everything in their power to curtail the science.

Michael J. Fox, the famous actor who suffers from Parkinson's, has come under fire this week for airing commercials in support of candidates that favor the research.

Why the fierce fire directed at Fox?

John Nichols wrote a good reflection in The Nation about the controversy and links it back to something Paul Wellstone told him just before the U.S. senator from Minnesota was killed in a plane crash:

Wellstone couldn't stop talking about the actor's (Fox's) autobiography, especially the sections where Fox wrote about his struggle with Parkinson's disease. The senator from Minnesota, whose parents had suffered from that ailment and who had himself been recently diagnosed with a mild form of multiple sclerosis, related to what he was reading. He went on at some length about how important it was for prominent people to be open about their chronic conditions. He felt it helped promote understanding and empathy, which in Wellstone's view was often the first step toward political engagement. And, as the senate's most passionate advocate for medical research and a national health care system, he felt that engaging the great mass of Americans in a discussion about the importance of federal and state funding of groundbreaking -- and sometimes controversial -- studies was essential. 

After President Bush's 2001 decision to sharply limit federal funding of medical research that uses embryonic stem cell lines, Wellstone said, "The sharp limitation of federal support may well close the door on some of the life-saving promise of embryonic stem cell research, which can be conducted consistent with basic ethical and legal principles that respect the value of human life. I do not believe that President Bush's decision will be the final word on this important federal policy. In light of this disappointing announcement, Congress, and the American people, will now surely be heard...."
As he was on so many issues, Paul Wellstone turned out to be prescient.

On this, the fourth anniversary of his death in a Minnesota plane crash, stem-cell research is finally emerging as the sort of political issue that Wellstone thought it should be....

This week, Fox began appearing in televised campaign commercials for Democratic supporters of embryonic stem-cell research -- including Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, Maryland U.S. Senate candidate Ben Cardin, Illinois U.S. House candidate Tammy Duckworth and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle -- who are locked in tight races with Republicans who want to limit support for scientific inquiry.

Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing commentators who once trashed Wellstone are now attacking Fox. Limbaugh has gone so far as to claim that the actor "is exaggerating the effects of the disease," while claiming that the commercials are "purely an act." Why the attacks? It comes back to that point Wellstone made: When a prominent figure who suffers from a life-threatening condition joins the debate over funding scientific research, it can shift the political pendulum. If Michael J. Fox succeeds in framing the stem-cell research fight as the life-and-death issue that it is, then, perhaps, "the American people will now surely be heard." And Paul Wellstone will again be proven right.

America will be better off if Missouri's Amendment Two - supported by many religious leaders - wins and if candidates in favor of embryonic stem cell research are victorious. 

Don't forget to vote.   

The Republican National Committee (RNC) is running a purely racist ad against Harold Ford in Tennessee. Ford, an African-American congressman, is campaigning for the United States Senate. With their hold on power slipping the RNC, headed by George Bush’s appointee Ken Mehlman, is using all their old tricks to hold on to the South. Kanye West was right when he said in the wake of George Bush’s disastrous and deadly slow response to the suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina that the president doesn't care about black people. His party’s racist attacks on Ford prove the point.

Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council- two prominent Religious Right organizations with close ties to the Republican Party - released their Congressional scorecard today (just in time for the elections) ranking House and Senate members for their votes on "pro-family" legislation.

Can you guess how the rankings went?

"They" declared 123 House members --120 Republicans and three Democrats -- to be "True Blue Representatives" who voted in favor of pro-family legislation every time.

In contrast, 142 House members --140 Democrats and two Republicans -- did not support a single piece of pro-family legislation.

Maybe the Religious Right ought to redefine "pro-family legislation" to include economic policies.  You see, I'm betting most of those "True Blue" congressional representatives voted for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class... tax cuts so large that to pay for them the government had to cut health care programs for kids, educational opportunities for teenagers, and other essential services.

And I'm betting those same "True Blue" representatives have blindly supported the President's war in Iraq - a war that has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States.

Real pro-family leaders are those that work to create a safe and nurturing world for kids of all ages.  Our responsibility for children does not end - as the Religious Right would have you believe - at birth. 

Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council doesn't care about kids.  Neither group works along side children's groups (like the Children's Defense Fund) that attempt to build up schools, advance health care opportunities, or to reduce childhood poverty. 

All Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council care about is winning the 2006 elections on behalf of Republican candidates.  And they have proven that they'll misrepresent the truth to do that.  I give them an "F" for misusing the Christian faith as just another tool on behalf of their partisan political campaigns.   

Focus On The Family chairman James Dobson is worried about November.

"If people of faith — the so-called values voters — don't come out and let their voices be heard, there are going to be some major implications for this country," he says in the two-part broadcast that began today, much of it recorded at a rally earlier this week in Nashville, Tenn. "There are these statements from the media that values voters don't care this year and that they're going to stay home."

"I'm concerned about my country. I have been concerned in the past, but I don't know that it's been any greater than it is right now," he said. "I have never, ever seen such hatred in my life. I am being bludgeoned in the media. Why? Why now? Well, it's not really personal to me. But they identify me as one of the people who turned out the values voters last time – and they are determined to never, ever let it happen again.

"For two years they have just been livid over what happened in 2004. I'm getting the brunt of it – but you know what, I don't really care about that. And I'm going to cast my vote anyway. Are you?"

Yes, Dr. Dobson, I am. I’m voting against the war, for the environment, against policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the least of these, and for the right of women to make their own health care decisions. In short, I’m voting for values this November.

Are you?

Listening to Christian radio is, I always say, a little like watching a car wreck. You know you should tune it out but for some reason you keep listening. Why?  Maybe just to hear how bad it can get.

KPDQ is a Christian radio station here in Portland. By Christian, of course, they mean right-wing Republican. Yesterday I heard one of their hosts railing against “liberal” candidates for Congress and begging listeners to get out and vote for “conservatives.”

And while flipping through the dial this afternoon trying to find some music the twins could listen to I ran smack into another KPDQ host complaining about the ACLU and other liberals. Liberals, according to show, undermine basic American values. 

Portland’s Standard TV and Appliance was the commercial sponsor when I listened both yesterday and today and the company’s logo is proudly displayed on KPDQ’s website.

I called Standard TV and Appliance to ask if their company really supported voices on the air that believe progressives are out to destroy America.  That's the feeling I got after listening to KPDQ.  They directed me to their marketing director who hasn’t yet called back.

So I did a little research and found that William Gander, the company’s president, and his family have given huge sums of money over recent years to Republican candidates and the Republican Party.

Gander is quoted on KPDQ’s website as saying: "KPDQ listeners have proven to be the most loyal customers. Our documented return on investment with KPDQ exceeds any other radio station!"

KPDQ itself is operated by the for-profit Salem Communications Broadcasting.  They own 60 radio stations across the nation.  Edward G. Atsinger III, the President and CEO of Salem Communications, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes, their editorial board includes a number of conservative political activists and Religious Right spokespeople, and they run a political action committee that gives 100% of their money to Republican candidates. 

When you listen to KPDQ you get a big dose of propaganda from Republican activists but it would be a shame if anyone listening to their programs confused what they air with the Christian message. If you listened to KPDQ long enough you’d think that God was pro-war and supports abandoning the poorest and weakest among us to the wind.

Companies like Standard TV and Appliance and Salem Communications Broadcasting are exploiting the faith to advance their own political agenda and to make a buck or two in the process. In American they are free to do that.  But we don’t have to buy their message… or their products.

From time to time Americans are dragged kicking and screaming to the polls where we are asked to consider which candidates for public office we most trust with the future of our nation and which issues we consider most important. No matter our background we bring with us certain experiences that help to shape the decisions we make. For millions of Americans it is our experience as Christians that help define how and why we vote for certain candidates. Author Jim Wallis tells us that God is not a Republican… or a Democrat.  But we also know that God is involved in the life of creation. Jews and Christians remember through Scripture how God set in motion the events which led to the liberation from slavery in Egypt and Christians remember the price of death God’s own son was dealt by the Romans for preaching the justice of God’s Kingdom. God cared then and God cares now. Our obligation in this time is to discern for ourselves what causes and issues God wants addressed. There is a political dimension to God and we will have to find a way to express that in the 2006 mid-term elections.

The Religious Right has painted God into a corner. I recently said in an interview that if you bring up the term “Christian” many Americans will associate the word with people such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The Religious Right has been able to convince the media and many in the general public that their positions on social issues are the only legitimate Christian views to hold. However, Christianity has always been a diverse religion and for much of history the Christian voice has been one prophetically calling for social justice on behalf of those Jesus called “the least of these.” Christians across the globe, for example, opposed the US invasion of Iraq and Christians in many nations have been at the forefront of movements for economic justice, opposition to the death penalty, and for environmental protection. Christianity is not liberal or conservative. Those are modern political terms. Sadly, some have tried to co-opt Christianity to advance their partisan political agendas.

Those who narrow God’s message down to one issue – say gay marriage - miss the essence of our faith message. God calls on us to be a people of reconciliation and justice. Can Americans today claim to be following God’s will? We have a president in office that seems to believe that he was divinely installed in the White House and yet he peruses economic policies that have resulted in higher rates of both poverty and hunger in the United States. Rather than challenge current administrations policies that seem in area after area to be in conflict with Biblical teachings the Religious Right works to warp Jesus into a Republican spokesperson. Christians ought to be challenging both political parties on moral issues and not claiming that one or the other is godlier. No political part has ever advanced a Kingdom-centered platform.

Our nation (and the world for that matter) is racked by debates over the appropriate role of religion in public life. There are those who would argue that the United States is and always has been a Christian nation and that our government should be run on Christian principles. Some in the Religious Right would replace America's historical respect for religious pluralism and democracy with a theocracy. Are the teachings of Jesus a guide in this debate? Jesus “directly and repeatedly challenged the dominant sociopolitical paradigm of his social world and advocated instead what might be called a politics of compassion. This conflict and this social vision continue to have striking implications for the life of the church today,” wrote Marcus Borg in his 1994 bestseller Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Christians today should emulate the Jesus-model of non-violently speaking out against the dominate culture in a way that serves the cause of lifting people up and building community. We should always reject theocracy and embrace the democratic values that have allowed our admittedly imperfect society to thrive. In a pluralistic society “churches should not seek to use the authority of government to make the whole community conform to their particular moral codes. Rather, churches should seek to enlarge and clarify the ethical grounds of public discourse and to identify and define the foreseeable consequences of available choices of public policy,” read the United Methodist Social Principles.

My hope is that Christians can constructively engage in the political debates of the 2006 mid-term elections. Not all Christians think alike, of course, and not all will discern God’s will in the same terms. Are there, however, issues that the majority of Christians can (perhaps should) agree on as we consider our votes?

“Our Christian faith compels us to address the world through the lens of our relationship to God and to one another,” said the National Council of Churches (NCC) USA when that ecumenical body representing over 45 million American Christians issued a statement on Christian principles during the 2004 elections.

This blog entry – How Would Jesus Vote 2006 – is meant to help jump start conversations among Christians about what it means to be faithful to God in the voting booth. It is not my intention to tell readers exactly how Jesus would vote on any one issue but rather to raise some of the most controversial issues facing voters from one Christian perspective. Not all Christians will agree with the conclusions that I make about God’s will for us (though many certainly will) but I hope at least that all of us that claim the title Christian will see this election as an opportunity to focus on reconciling ourselves to one another and to the world.

So what are the issues Christians should be most concerned with?

During the last election cycle The Rev. James Forbes and Riverside Church of New York City issued a set of Prophetic Justice Principles.  These principles, similar to the ones issued by the National Council of Churches USA, help define some of the most critical issues we face and are worth considering this year:

We, the members of faith communities in the United States, inspired by the Hebrew prophets, lift up the following questions to test public policy against the principles of righteousness and justice in our society. We ask the citizens and leaders of America to bear the following issues in mind as they seek to restore the spiritual, moral, and democratic values upon which our nation was built.

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

2) 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) 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) Does the policy have the capacity to be good news for the poor? Does it reverse the trend toward widening the gap between rich and poor?

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

6) Does the policy refrain from the arrogant assumption that the powerful have the right to ignore the interests and subsistence needs of the less advantaged segment of the society?

7) 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?

8) Does the policy encourage respect for persons and nations other than our own? Does it respect the right of self-determination of other nation-states?

9) Is the policy based on a commitment to a global vision of cooperation and mutuality of respect rather than relying on unilateral military actions for empire-building and domination strategies? Does it use diplomacy as a valued instrument of statecraft in resolving international conflicts?

10) Is the policy supportive of strong measures to insure ecological responsibility and sustainability?

If you want to know how Jesus would vote start with these questions.

Oregon voters will face a ballot measure this November worth serious consideration.

Measure 42 would stop insurance companies from using credit scores to determine insurance rates. The practice makes, for example, car insurance unaffordable for many low-income drivers. Insurance companies claim that people with low credit scores make more claims or are prone to more accidents. Consumer Reports and others have challenged that assumption.

When they endorsed Measure 42 Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon said:

The EMO Board believes the use of credit scores in insurance policies does disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color regardless if its use is not intentionally discriminatory. Access to affordable insurance policies is important to individual and family livelihood. Higher premium rates or lack of coverage leave vulnerable populations at greater risk than necessary. The role of insurance is to help spread risk so that the greatest number of people can enjoy certain benefits like homeownership and automobile transportation. Banning the use of credit scores would not be a hardship for insurance companies nor would it prevent them from accurately assessing risk using other factors.

The only bad part of this measure is the force behind it. Bill Sizemore is the chief sponsor. Oregonians know Sizemore as an anti-tax activist whose campaign tactics have led to criminal charges and fines. Some people might be tempted to vote against Measure 42 simply because of Sizemore’s involvement (and that is the campaign message the insurance companies are betting on).  But even really unethical people can every once and awhile come up with a good idea.

Hold your nose and vote Yes on 42.

My sermon this morning focused on the upcoming elections. Our scripture readings were from Am 5:6-7, 10-15 and Mark 10:17-31. There is no podcast of the sermon for this Sunday but my sermon notes are below.

Part of what the Bible provides is a philosophy of how to led both our private and our public lives. If we are compassionate to the individuals we encounter and concerned with justice above all else in community affairs then it is said we are building up God’s Kingdom.

It is always easier for a minister to talk about personal responsibility than it is to talk about what we need to do to improve society. But we cannot as Christians afford to forget about the larger world because Jesus didn’t and part of our obligation as the faithful is to follow Jesus even into difficult places.

Every two years we face a terrible truth: to make it to Christmas we have to get through the fall elections. Ballots here in Oregon will be mailed out soon.

The political process ought to be one that has as a central goal the reconciliation of the American people. But political professionals have found that the easiest way to get votes is to divide people. This can be a disheartening time of year. There are too many times that with great certainty religious leaders announce what God’s position is on an issue or how they believe God would for a candidate. Our faith ought to be free of such political distinctions. God is not a Republican or a Democrat, as Jim Wallis likes to say, and Christianity is not liberal or conservative. Those are modern political terms. Sadly, some have tried to co-opt Christianity to advance their partisan political agendas. All Christians need to guard against that.

Scripture provides us some guidance, however, as we make decisions about how to cast our votes. And if we use Scripture combined with reason, tradition and experience – in the Wesleyan model of doing theology – we can come to some safe bets about where we should and shouldn’t direct our support.

Christians in the United States are some of the most divided people you’ll ever run across. Hot button social issues rip us apart and it may be simply impossible for us to find common ground on some controversial issues.

But are there issues that a large majority of Christians can agree with as we prepare to vote?

Two years ago leaders from the National Council of Churches USA – a body of mainline and orthodox Christians – sat down together and wondered where Christians of all stripes might find such common ground during the elections. They agreed on a set of principles and have asked that all our churches consider them again as we prepare to vote this November. And so, I share these principles with you now for your consideration.

1. 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.

2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. We reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness. We look for political leaders who will re-build our communities and bring an end to the cycles of violence and killing.

3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well being of our global neighbors. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice is an urgent concern.

4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor.

5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice and equal opportunity for everyone.

6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. We look for political leaders who recognize the earth's goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creation.

7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We look for political leaders who will pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia.

8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all.

9. Because of the transforming power of God’s grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with each other. We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it.

10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God’s children is a moral imperative. We look for political leaders who advocate for equal educational opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services.

What do you think? Do these ten items speak to you?

It is very possible that today in other churches ministers are standing up and telling their parishioners that God wants them to vote one way or another on the different ballot measures and maybe even on the races for public office.

Truthfully, there are plenty of times that I myself look at different ballot measures and think that God must surely be opposed (or in favor) of this or that and as an individual – not as a church representative – I sometimes lend my name to different causes. But here is how I approach these issues:

I tell people that after prayerfully considering and studying the different measures and candidates that I have made my decisions on how to vote based on my understanding of where God is calling our society. What I do not do is insist that only my understanding of these issues is the true Christian understanding. We ought to take seriously the Prophet Micah’s call for us to walk humbly with our God.

And during any conversation about church and politics we should acknowledge there is another position that argues that churches should never be involved in political (or social) issues of any kind and should only be places of worship. The desire to remove ourselves from the political fights of the day is understandable but Jesus preached that our call is to build up the Kingdom in the here and now – not simply to wait for someone else to do it – and so we have to be involved no matter the risk to us.

Discipleship is risky business.

As you know, several of us from this congregation attended the fall gathering of the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ this weekend in The Dalles. One of the speakers was Carlos Madrazos, a missionary attached to Global Mission – the joint UCC-Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) mission agency that we here at Parkrose help to fund. Carlos has just finished working for four years in Indonesia working to develop higher education programs. I was asked to drive him to The Dalles and in the car ride over he told me that in the 1970s he and his wife were forced to flee their homeland in the Philippines because the dictator there considering the liberating message of Christian to be subversive. But instead of simply accepting exile Carlos has accepted positions as a missionary that are equally as dangerous because he knows God calls him to this work.

To be uninvolved during these times would be turning our backs on God. There is simply too much war, too many children dying of hunger in a rich world, too much global pollution, and too much suffering for us to stay silent and risk nothing.

When your ballot comes open it, think about the principles we’ve talked about this morning, and vote.

If nothing else is true this is:

The world right now needs people committed to God’s justice to be engaged.

Let us together answer God’s call.

Amen.

We had a good turnout tonight for the showing of THE GROUND TRUTH at Parkrose Community United Church of Christ. The film lets veterans tell their own stories about combat and their difficult journeys re-entering American society. All of us were struck by the imagines of dead children and other "non-combatants." It breaks your heart to watch children die.

It is fair to say that most who watched this film left with anger and with a sense that we have all been called in these times to be peacemakers.

Tomorrow I'll be leaving for The Dallas, a city along the beautiful Columbia River Gorge. The reason for my trip: the fall gathering of the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ. The Rev. Dr. David Greenhaw, president of Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, MO., is our keynoter and I've been asked to introduce Dr. Greenhaw.

Saturday night I've been invited to play poker - a rare treat for me - and will make it back to Portland in time for that.

Then I will be back to preaching this Sunday morning.

On Sunday afternoon, I will also be guest of Air America's State of Belief program. Visit their site for additional information.

Over the years there has been a growing alliance between partisan political efforts and churches that both crosses the line between the separation of church and state and adversely impacts the ability of congregations to faithfully live out the Gospel message independent of political forces.

There are guidelines that all religious groups should abide by.  For example, it is clearly illegal for churches and other non-profits to endorse one candidate over another.  Churches, however, may endorse public causes (such as the effort to end the war in Iraq) or ballot initiatives.  Clergy, like all Americans, are free as individuals (but not as representatives of their congregations) to endorse political candidates.

Churches may also hold voter registration drives, distribute non-partisan voter guides, and hold candidate forums. 

Groups like Focus on the Family and other organizations that are part of the Religious Right routinely blur the lines with their efforts on behalf of Republican candidates.  But, as Jim Wallis likes to say, God is Not a Republican... Or a Democrat.

The United Church of Christ - as part of the Our Faith, Our Vote Campaign - has published a 2-page report called "Guidelines for Congregations and Clergy on Political Action" that is available for download.

A more substantial report from the Interfaith Alliance - A Campaign Season Guide for Houses of Worship - is also available online. 

Get more information on this issue from the Interfaith Alliance and The Rev. Welton Gaddy by clicking here.

Oregon voters will decide on two flawed ballot measures this November that will hurt schools, public safety efforts and social services for the young and old - and everyone in between.

Vote No on Measures 41 and 48.

Here is how Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon describes both measures and why EMO – a coalition of “16 Christian denominations including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox bodies across Oregon” suggests that Christians vote against the initiatives:

Measure 41: Statutory Amendment—Allows income tax deduction equal to federal exemptions deduction to substitute for state exemption credit.

Analysis — This measure would permit state income tax filers the option to substitute the state tax credit for the federal deduction on exemptions in order to reduce state income tax liability. State tax credits reduce the amount of taxes owed by the filer dollar for dollar. The state tax credit was $154 for each personal exemption in 2005. Substituting for the federal deduction would reduce the amount of income used to calculate state taxes owed. In 2005, the federal tax deduction was $3,200. For most tax filers, the net effect would reduce state taxes owed but would increase federal taxes because of a smaller deduction for state taxes under the federal income tax filing. Income tax filers with an adjusted gross income of $15,000 to $20,000 would pay an average of $181 less in state income tax. Income tax filers with an adjusted gross income of $90,000 to $100,000 would pay an average of $439 less in state income tax.

The measure would reduce tax revenue available to the state to pay for public education, public safety and social services. In the first year of implementation, there would be a 6 percent, $355 million decrease of tax revenue. The decrease would steadily reach about 6.5 percent each year. The measure would automatically decrease the size of the tax kicker.

Proponents argue that Measure 41 would result in tax cuts that benefit families. They argue that they would be the biggest beneficiaries. Proponents also argue that tax cuts and smaller government results in greater freedoms for individuals and families. Opponents argue that the value of the estimated tax cut per tax payer is less than the value of public education, public safety and human services that would be lost as a result of the measure. They argue that the most tax relief any taxpayer would receive is $11.17 per month.

EMO Recommendation — Vote “NO.”

The EMO Board believes the net effect of the measure would shrink the safety net for the most vulnerable while providing very little social benefit in return. Measure 41 is very libertarian in philosophy, i.e. the less taxes paid, the greater the common good. This is counter to the Judeo/Christian understanding of the common good as distinct from individual good. Paying less tax does not necessarily translate into better services, social benefits or a just society. Taxes are a financial investment for personal and social benefits not always easily quantifiable in dollar amounts. Taxes should be used to provide services that promote the common good. These services include public education, public safety and health care. Taxes are to fund essential services for civil society that individuals or families are unable to afford on their own.

Measure 48: Constitutional Amendment—Limits biennial percentage increase in state spending to percentage increase in state population, plus inflation.

Analysis — Presently, state government spending is limited to no more than eight percent of projected personal income in a biennium. Federal funds and donated moneys are excluded from the spending limit. In 2001, the Legislature enacted the spending limit to replace an existing limit that was complicated to administer. Measure 48 would require the Oregon Legislature to reach a two-thirds majority in order to refer a ballot to voters to bypass the limit.

Proponents argue that state government spends more for public services than necessary due to administrative inefficiency and incorrect priorities. They argue that state spending should fall in line with inflation and population growth. They also argue that a state spending limit is a rainy day fund for economic downturns, although the measure does not specifically call for one.

Opponents argue that a spending limit would affect the state’s ability to provide public services asked for by citizens. They argue that state government serves specific segments of the state’s populations such as unemployed or laid off workers, seniors, children and prisoners that grow at a faster rate than the general population. Education, human services and public safety spending would be inadequate to serve those populations. They also argue that state health services would be severely cut because health care inflation generally rises faster than the Consumer Price Index.

EMO Recommendation — Vote “NO.”

The EMO Board believes that a restrictive state spending limit like Measure 48 is counter to the common good. Democratic government’s role is to ensure that certain social systems permit people to fulfill their individual and mutual interests such as education, health, personal safety, financial opportunity and recreational pursuits. Measure 48 would hurt the elderly, children, the disabled and the mentally ill who depend on state services. Citizens should demand accountability from its government, but it does not mean harming the most vulnerable in doing so with such a blunt tool. Accountability can be achieved by more constructive ways such as participating in the legislative process, voting, communicating with elected officials and government agencies, and campaign finance and lobbying reform.

Both measures are opposed by a wide array of responsible businesses, community groups, children’s organizations, and religious groups.

Religious Right icon James Dobson - leader of Focus on the Family - has had enough of people questioning the commitment of Focus and the Family and their allies in the wake of the Mark Foley / House Republican Leadership scandal. 

From the Citizenlink.com:

"A representative who has been a closet homosexual for years, apparently, was finally caught doing something terribly wrong and when the news broke, he packed up his things and went home," Dobson said.

And that, he said, should have been the end of the story. But it wasn't.
"As we know, the media and the Democrats saw an opportunity to make much, much, more out of it," Dobson said, "impugning the morals and character, not only of this disgraced congressman, but of entire the entire Republican Congress -- and Christian conservatives, including me."

That should have been the end of it?

We know that the Republican leadership was told that a member of their party was inappropriately contacting underage Congressional pages and Dobson thinks nothing should be done?  Kids deserve better.  Dobson's prayerful wish that this matter will simply go away won't come to pass.

Dr. Dobson, molesting children is serious business.

Dobson is upset because his refusal to break ranks with the Republican leadership over this issue has been called hypocritical in light of his call for Bill Clinton's impeachment for having an affair with an adult woman.

He quoted from a New York Times editorial with the headline "Conservative Coalition appears to be Coming Apart at the Seams" that was written by Paul Krugman.

"It will be interesting to see how Dr. Dobson," Krugman wrote, "who declared about Bill Clinton that no man has ever done more to debase the presidency -- responds to the Foley scandal. Does the failure of Republican leaders to do anything about a sexual predator in their midst outrage him as much as a Democratic president's consensual affair?"

Dobson emphatically said he stands by his assessment of President Clinton's scandal. As for Foley's action ...

"In fact, it does outrage me, Mr. Krugman," Dobson said. "We condemn the Foley affair categorically. And we also believe that what Mr. Clinton did was one of the most embarrassing and wicked things ever done by a president in power.

But it doesn't outrage Dobson enough to believe anyone in the Republican Party should be held accountable. 

Of course, Dobson neglected to mention his advocacy on behalf of Republican candidates.

His lack of moral character is showing now more than ever.   

Click on the image for all the info.

Related Link:  One Christian View Against Oregon’s Measure 43

The Rev. John Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, today joined a chorus of voices condemning Tony Perkins for his efforts to link homosexuality to the scandal involving disgraced Republican congressman Mark Foley.

Perkins is the head of the Family Research Council, a Religious Right group with strong ties to the Republican Party.

"Perkins recent remarks are destructive to gay and lesbian persons and their families and distract the nation's attention from the real issue at hand, which is protecting young people from sexual predators," said the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president.

On October 2, Perkins issued a statement claiming "the real issue" in the Foley scandal was a "link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse." On Oct. 3, Perkins made similar accusations on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews," where he likened homosexuals with "sexual deviants."

Thomas said the former congressman's sexual orientation should not be part of the public debate. The American Psychological Association, in addition to numerous other reputable medical and scientific groups, has found that "gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse."

Perkins is a strange choice by the Religious Right to be a spokesperson on values in America.  He spent his political career in Louisiana as an ally of Neo-Nazis and other racist organizations.

Max Blumenthal wrote in 2005:

Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.

If the Republicans keep relying on leaders like Foley and Perkins to be their point people on family values we can only hope that voters hold their party accountable. 

Religious Right Blames Gays For Mark Foley / Republican Leadership Scandal

The Family Research Council - one of America's most prominent Religious Right groups - has carefully considered the ramifications of the scandal faced by Republican leaders in the U.S. House after the Speaker and others were warned long ago one of their members was sending inappropriate e-mails to underage pages and now know who is to blame:

Gays.

From the FRC website:

Democrats seeking to exploit the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) are right to criticize the slow response of Republican congressional leaders to his communications with male pages. But neither party seems likely to address the real issue, which is the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Foley, an unmarried 52-year-old representative, had always refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Now that his emails and messages to teenage male pages have been revealed, it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys. While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. Although almost all child molesters are male and less than 3% of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys--and in one study, 86% of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Ignoring this reality got the Catholic Church into trouble over abusive priests, and now it is doing the same to the House GOP leadership. They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior--probably because they did not want to appear "homophobic." The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children.

Of course, there is no serious scientific evidence that suggests that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men.  FRC provides no sources for the statistics they do list.  What's the truth?

"Gregory M. Herek is a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis (UCD). He received his Ph.D. in social psychology from UCD in 1983, then was a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. He subsequently served as a faculty member at Yale and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York before returning to UCD, first as a research psychologist and later as a tenured professor," according to his biography on the UCD website.  He writes:

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority society's most vulnerable members. Historically, Black men in the United States were often falsely accused of raping White women, and commonly lynched as a result. Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.

In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children....

In recent years, antigay activists have routinely asserted that gay people are child molesters. This argument was often made in debates about the Boy Scouts of America's policy to exclude gay scouts and scoutmasters. It also was raised in connection with recent scandals about the Catholic church's attempts to cover up the abuse of young males by priests....

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so.

Dr. Herek's well researched (and footnoted) article Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation is available online.

Gays aren't the problem here.

The problem is the corrupt leadership of the Republican Party which apparently desired so deeply to stay in power they covered-up possible sex crimes against children in an effort to retain a safe Congressional seat in Florida.   

View the comments on this post from Street Prophets

A third school shooting in a week occurred today. Girls were lined up against a wall and shot execution style. They won’t be the only Americans killed by gun violence today.

From the Brady Campaign:

Nearly eight young people aged 19 and under are killed a day by a firearm in the United States. Nearly 36 per day are non-fatally wounded. The scourge of gun violence frequently attacks the most helpless members of our society - our children.

Are you a person of faith who wants to make a difference?

Join God Not Guns and do everything you can to Stop the NRA and their candidates this election year.

This post has been updated

As a Christian minister, I stand opposed to Oregon’s Measure 43.

The initiative would require parental notification for minors seeking to obtain an abortion.

Requiring parental notification for a medical procedure would seem like a logical position.  Unfortunately, the reality is more complex. Dr. Elizabeth Pirruccello Newhall recently wrote in The Oregonian about her experiences providing teen-agers with medical care:

Nothing would make me happier than to have all my patients in loving communication with their parents.

But what about the girl who watched her sister get pummeled and kicked out of her home when her dad found out she was pregnant? Or the 16-year-old who showed up in labor not sure where to turn? Her 16-year-old boyfriend was trying to find housing, her mom was an unavailable addict on the streets, and her dad in California "doesn't want her."

These young women are real. They're my patients. Where do I go for parents?

I was the doctor waiting to treat Spring Adams. Remember her? She was the Idaho girl whose father shot her dead in 1989 on learning of her intended trip to Portland to abort a pregnancy resulting from his repeated rape.

Oregon voters and the Oregon Legislature have rejected attempts to require parental notification or consent before because of the deep concern shared by most Oregonians for the welfare young women.

Measure 43, an extreme law, makes no exceptions for rape or incest. Young women would be placed at serious risk.

Leaders in the Religious Right see parental notification / consent as an opening in their campaign to outlaw all abortions. Measure 43 is supported by some of the most politically extremist right-wing groups and leaders in Oregon.  We cannot allow them to win this fight.

Support for reproductive rights is consistent with Christian ethics. As the United Church of Christ has stated:

God has given us life, and life is sacred and good. God has also given us the responsibility to make decisions which reflect a reverence for life in circumstances when conflicting realities are present. Jesus affirmed women as full partners in the faith, capable of making decisions that affect their lives.

If the full range of options available to women concerning reproductive health are compromised, then women’s moral agency and ability to make decisions consistent with their faith are compromised. Furthermore, poor women should have equal access to full reproductive health services, including abortion and information on family planning.

The United Church of Christ has affirmed and re-affirmed since 1971 that access to safe and legal abortion is consistent with a woman’s right to follow the dictates of her own faith and beliefs in determining when and if she should have children, and has supported comprehensive sexuality education as one measure to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. (General Synods VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XVI, XVII, and XVIII)

Most mainline Christian denominations support reproductive rights in the United States.

Communities across the nation are facing the same debate and many states have already enacted parental notification and consent laws and young women suffer because of such laws. “Experience shows that teenagers who cannot involve their parents in their abortion services suffer harm in states with mandatory parental consent and notice laws. Whether they travel to other states or obtain judicial approval, the results are the same: delays that can greatly increase both the physical and emotional health risks as well as the costs,” reports Planned Parenthood.

Christians can and do come to different conclusions on the issue of abortion and I respect that.

But I don't respect legislation that would put young women at risk in Oregon.   

Help defeat Measure 43. Make a contribution to the campaign and take the pledge to vote against Measure 43 this November.

Note:  Endorsements made on this site are my own and unless otherwise stated do not reflect the opinion of any UCC congregation or related body.

Republicans in Congress are keeping up their attempts to shred the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. The Interfaith Alliance reports:

(Washington, D.C.) Today Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), in an election-year appeal to the Religious Right, introduced a bill that would compromise the sanctity of religion. The bill, S. 3957, would amend the IRS Code to allow houses of worship to endorse candidates from the pulpit and engage in partisan political activity without harming their tax-exempt status.

“Senator Inhofe wants to turn houses of worship into political convention halls,” said Interfaith Alliance President, the Reverend Welton Gaddy. “This bill would allow politicians to exploit the moral authority of the pulpit to advance a partisan agenda. When religious leaders endorse candidates for office, they compromise their prophetic voice. The very sanctity of religion is at stake in this debate,” he said.

Inhofe’s bill is similar a H.R. 235, introduced in the House by Representative Walter Jones (R-NC). At last weekend's Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit in Washington, Senator Inhofe spoke in favor of the Jones bill and promised action on the Senate floor before Congress adjourned to home for the November elections. The Interfaith Alliance has been successful in bottling up the Jones bill through the dedicated grassroots efforts of its 185,000 members.

In addition to endorsements of candidates, Inhofe’s bill would also allow houses of worship to make political contributions to candidates and political parties.

The House bill has been opposed by the National Council of Churches USA (representing over 45 million Christians in the U.S.) and interfaith leaders. Only extremists in the Religious Right – a group that routinely confuses the Republican Party Platform for the Gospel teachings – support the legislation advanced by Jones and Inhofe.

Don’t let them turn our churches into Republican Party chapters.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has said that children are his number one priority and just yesterday proposed “increasing cigarette taxes by nearly 85 cents Monday to give health coverage to thousands of uninsured Oregon children,” according to The Oregonian.

But the truth is that few politicians of either party are taking the needs of children seriously and a new report confirms that.

September 26, 2006 – Oregon earned a grade of “D+” in overall child well-being in the Children First for Oregon annual Report Card on the Status of Children issued today. As the state passes another target year for benchmarks set by the Oregon Progress Board, the data show downward trends and sluggish progress in several areas, resulting in another year of disappointing grades. Modest improvements since last year in the Family Financial Stability category are encouraging, but stronger political and public will are needed to move the state in the right direction.

“If your children continued to bring home C’s and D’s on their report cards, wouldn’t you do something?” asked Robin Christian, Executive Director of Children First. “Wishful thinking won’t improve these grades – it’s time to act and step up our investments in programs that work.”

The ongoing decrease in the teen pregnancy rate and improvements in reading and math scores among 3rd graders are bright spots, but grades in three of the five categories – Health, Early Care & Education, and Child Welfare – continue to languish. Oregon is held back by its failures, which include: 117,000 uninsured children; nearly 6,400 eligible 3 and 4-year-olds unable to access Head Start; and 11,255 known victims of child abuse or neglect.

“Candidates running for office should look at this report card and ask themselves what they can do to get us to an “A” grade, and voters need to pay close attention to what they propose” said Christian. “A lack of solutions isn’t the problem. We know what we need to do. What we lack is the courage to act.”

FIVE STEPS TO HELP GET OREGON TO AN “A” GRADE:

1. Protect Our Investments: Defeat Measures 41 and 48 at the ballot in November.

2. Stabilize State Revenue: Convert the corporate kicker tax refund into a “rainy day” fund.

3. Increase Access to Health Care: Enroll all children currently eligible for the Oregon Health Plan (approximately 67,000 of the 117,000 uninsured children).

4. Improve Outcomes for Abused and Neglected Children: Increase supports to foster families, including relatives, and expand the availability of proven substance abuse prevention and treatment programs.

5. Invest in Early Childhood: Fully fund Head Start/Oregon Prekindergarten and strengthen the state’s child care subsidy program for working families.

SUMMARY OF 2006 GRADES:

Overall Grade:D+

Family Financial Stability: C

Health: D+

Early Care and Education: D-

Youth Development and Education: C

Child Welfare: D

Click here to learn more.

If the governor wants to campaign on being a children’s advocate he will need to more forcefully address the issues raised by this report. His plan to increase health care for children is the kind of bold step needed (one sadly rejected by his opponent). 

The candidates will have the chance to debate children's issues this Thursday.

Related Post:  Oregon Candidates For Governor Address Poverty (Sort Of)

Harold Ford, the democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Tennessee, made a commercial inside his church (scroll down) proclaiming how his religion helps define his views on public policy.  It is illegal for campaign commercials to be filmed in churches.

The Interfaith Alliance has sent a letter to the heads of the DNC and RNC asking that they refrain from exploiting religion during this election cycle.

The recent rush of candidates/political parties- and their often aggressive tactics - to reach out to "people of faith" lures religious organizations and religious leaders into dangerous legal territory.

I write you today out of concern for religion and what the manipulation of religion for partisan gain is doing to Americans of all faith traditions.  A partnership between religion and government should preserve the autonomy of houses of worship and ensure that religious institutions are not held hostage to the priorities and interests of federal, state, or local governments. Religion's powerful healing force will be severely compromised if America's shared values are replaced by values that advance only one particular sectarian interest.

Houses of worship are permitted by the IRS, and encouraged by The Interfaith Alliance to provide nonpartisan information to worshippers on a broad range of issues and to encourage civic participation and hold non-partisan voter registrations.   The Interfaith Alliance and its 185,000 members from over 75 faith traditions believe it is important that religious leaders encourage their worshipers to cast informed votes this November.  Yet when candidates and their supporters use the language of faith to advance partisan interests, or when they seek to emphasize their beliefs as the only truth, Americans and our houses of worship become deeply divided.

For the sake of religion's prophetic voice, The Interfaith Alliance urges you to carefully consider and advise your respective state parties and/or political candidates to:

Refrain from speaking from the pulpit, bema or lectern;
Refrain from using sanctuaries or houses of worship as backdrops for campaign ads;
Refrain from collecting and/or using congregational membership directories;
Refrain from organizing congregants inside a house of worship or distributing partisan material on behalf of a candidate.

The Interfaith Alliance does not mean to suggest that religious leaders should refrain from discussing the important issues of the day with their congregations.

We firmly believe religious leaders can and should encourage an open dialogue about issues important to the country, the communities, and the congregations.  Many historians contend that no other form of discourse has held the place of importance in this nation's life as that of preaching. Those of us who deliver meditations, homilies, and sermons have a responsibility to seize teachable moments in our national life -moments like those involved in a national election -as opportunities for talking with people about the basic values that emerge from our sacred scriptures and oral traditions and how those values impact and shape our civic involvement.

If we omit politics from the subjects to which we turn in those moments, people will assume either that politics is not important enough to be included in discussions of matters of faith or, worse still, that religion has nothing to say about politics.  Truly great preaching -or any form of religious discourse -can no more ignore the great issues of the day than it can ignore the great texts and truths of the scriptures of the tradition within which it is done.  Congregations look to their religious leaders for guidance - spiritual, moral, and otherwise - not manipulation on behalf of political organizations with a partisan agenda.

Our nation can benefit from a recovery of a real, vital, and viable partnership between religion, politics, and government in which each treats the other realms with appreciation and respect without seeking to confuse them or join forces with them. 

The core values of the nation's religions ultimately will lend strong support for the core values of our democracy.  And our democracy will continue with vitality by allowing religion to remain independent as a contributor to the public's conscience, a facilitator of healing, an advocate for the weakest and poorest among us, and as a community of prophets, priests, and care-givers.

I also point you to our election year guides for political candidates located online at InterfaithAlliance.org/Elections.  This resource helps political candidates to draw the distinctions between: Reaching out to religion for personal strength; Respecting all religions publicly; Misusing religion for partisan political purposes; and Misusing religion as a strategy for winning.  These guides have been mailed to your respective organizations but we are happy to send you additional copies.

I also make myself or any member of The Interfaith Alliance available to you for further discussion on these important matters.

Warm Regards,

Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
President, The Interfaith Alliance
Pastor for Preaching and Worship, Northminster (Baptist) Church (Monroe, LA)

Harold Ford is a good guy but his campaign made a terrible mistake.  Republicans and Democrats alike are crossing the line and turing houses of worship into centers for partisan political campaigns.  As leaders of religious communities, we cannot allow them to do that. 

Harvard's Diana Eck noted in 2002 that America now has more Muslims than Presbyterians.  Our religious landscape is changing.

It makes sense that our political landscape reflects those changes.

Democrats in Minnesota have nominated a Muslim, Keith Ellison, to serve in the United States House of Representatives.  Ellison would be the first Muslim to take a seat in Congress. 

He ran on a campaign platform of "withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and universal health care," according to the AP.  Good issues.  Check out the rest of his ideas.

His district is heavily democratic and thus his primary victory should be the end of the story.  But because he is a Muslim you can expect that the bigotry that Muslims face will play a role in the personal attacks he will now face as America's fall campaign season heats up.    

Read the comments on this post from Street Prophets   

Elections were held across the nation today and my eye was focused on a couple of them.

The partisan in me worried about control of the Senate notes that Lincoln Chafee’s Republican primary victory makes it more difficult for progressives to take the upper chamber come November. But I remain convinced that America needs Republicans opposed to the war in Iraq and supportive of the environmental movement in the Senate. Rhode Island’s voters turned back Chafee’s conservative challenger and gave the incumbent’s progressive views a solid victory.

New York primary voters made a great decision today as they handed the democratic nomination for state Attorney General to Andrew Cuomo, the former secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I had the opportunity to meet with Cuomo on several occasions when he served in the Clinton Administration and worked closely with some of his staff (including deputy assistant secretary Fred Karnas – the top federal official under Clinton working on issues of homelessness). Cuomo is an extraordinary individual deeply committed to issues of social justice. How many candidates do you know that even mention social justice as a concept in a campaign for public office? Andrew Cuomo will make a great Attorney General.

A couple of weeks ago The Interfaith Alliance held a town hall meeting in Portland on “Navigating the Intersection of Religion and Politics...2006 and Beyond.” I was one of the panelists. The audio of the forum – which also included host Welton Gaddy, Phillip Kennedy-Wong from Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Brendan McDonald from Air America, and writer Donna Zajonc – is now available online. Similar forums will be held in Pittsburgh, Las Vegas and Detroit.

"I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people where an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him," Brig. Gen. James Walker, U.S. Marine Corps staff judge advocate told a Congressional hearing. - Reuters

As a Christian, I am called to seek non-violent responses and agree with those who assert that war is contrary to the will of God.  That is not to say that I believe violence is never justified as a defense.  But I do believe that violence - particularly state violence - nearly always represents a failure of our response to God's will for us.

Many Christians have spoken out against the U.S. use of torture in the on-going conflicts associated with Islamic fundamentalism.    In fact, the invasion of Iraq was opposed by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches.  The National Council of Churches USA (NCC) helped led domestic opposition to the war. 

This week the president of the United States announced - as human rights groups had previously charged - that the CIA has run secret prisons where detainees are stripped of all rights.  In response, NCC "reaffirmed its abhorrence of secret prisons operated by the United States and called upon the government to bring American prisoners to trial."

The president now wants prisoners to go to trail but does not want them to have access to evidence against them or other basic rights.

"Pentagon lawyers balked at Bush's proposal to limit the terrorism suspects' access to evidence," reports Reuters. 

"I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people where an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him," Brig. Gen. James Walker, U.S. Marine Corps staff judge advocate told a Congressional hearing.

Back in 1965 NCC offered theological language that addresses the rights of prisoners during a time of war.

"Christians believe that man is made in the image of God, that every person is of intrinsic worth before God, and that every individual has a right to the fullest possible opportunity for the development of life abundant and eternal. Denials of rights and freedoms that inhere in man's worth before God are not simply a crime against humanity; they are a sin against God."

Human rights groups are also concerned with the president's plans. 

Legislation proposed by the Bush administration and introduced in Congress yesterday would recreate a system of fatally flawed military commissions akin to those that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down on June 29, 2006 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch said today.

Moreover, the legislation would decriminalize the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by civilian interrogators. This would rewrite the standards of basic humane treatment that have guided U.S. policy since the Second World War. 

"The last thing the U.S. needs is for public attention to focus on the unfairness of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's trial rather than the seriousness of his alleged crimes," said Jennifer Daskal, U.S. advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "The U.S. should be seeking justice - not preordained convictions."

Clearly, the president is on a campaign to stoke fear among the American people in advance of the November elections and the debate - as it always is with Bush - has been couched in language that boils down to you're either with the president or for the terrorists.

Several key Republican leaders seem ready to buck the president and align themselves with religious leaders and human rights groups opposed to the president's plan.  Brig. Gen. James Walker provided a great service to the nation with his testimony before Congress. 

What happens this week in Congress will speak volumes about our relationship with God.  Are we a people of faith committed to Biblical principles of justice or have we abandoned our most sacred values for political expediency?  The president has already answered the question for himself.  Where does the Congress stand?   

Read the comments on this post from Street Prophets

How would the candidates for Oregon governor address poverty if elected to a four-year term this November? Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon asked the candidates to “name three actions you would encourage state government to take to reduce poverty in Oregon” as part of EMO's Election Guide and incumbent Ted Kulongoski, Republican challenger Ron Saxton and Constitution Party nominee Mary Starrett offered up some answers.

Governor Kulongoski would use another term to:

“Offer first-rate educational and job-skills training so that all Oregonians can improve their lives; Lower the cost of health care to help reduce Oregonian’s medical bills; Preserve our minimum and prevailing wage laws so that people receive a fair wage for their labor”

Since no one that I’m aware of is advocating that we decrease Oregon’s minimum wage there isn’t a lot to be inspired by in the governor’s response.  There is little evidence that the governor's policies during his first term in office have made a difference in poverty levels. 

Saxton, however, was even less bold.

“Increase accessibility and school choice in public education; Reduce bureaucracy to better serve those in need; Make state social service agencies do a better job of providing services to low income citizens”

When the candidates were asked to name “three actions you would encourage the private sector take to reduce poverty in Oregon” there was a little more in Kulongoski’s statement to be hopeful about:

“Provide pre-school to every three and four year old in Oregon through an increase in the minimum tax paid by corporations; End the practice of charging outrageous interest rates on things like car titles and check cashing; Expand Oregon Harvest Week, a yearly event I created to raise awareness about hunger in Oregon through a coalition of public and private groups”

The Republican nominee suggested that Oregon….

“Allow the private sector to provide more services to our low income citizens in place of inefficient government programs; Encourage the private sector to be more involved in public education; Increase its partnerships with and support of non-profit organizations that serve the poor”

Starrett, a former television host running as an anti-abortion candidate, offered up nothing more than anti-government rhetoric:

“By encouraging self-reliance we encourage people not tobe [sic] dependent on the state. That will reduce poverty by not promoting a welfare mentality.

Nothing the candidates offered in these brief answers will do much to actually address poverty in Oregon (though most will agree Kulongoski’s pre-school plan is needed). As the Oregon Center for Public Policy noted this week, without real increases in income and health care, and an overhaul of economic policies in the state, poverty will remain persistent. In a new report they state:

“Since 1980, Oregon has seen rising inequality among the rich, as well as rising inequality between the rich and the rest of us,” said (Michael) Leachman.

“The ultra-rich top one-tenth of one percent of Oregonians have seen their income nearly quadruple since 1980, even after adjusting for inflation, while the rest of the top one percent have seen their incomes merely double.”

The report also found that the median Oregon household has lost $73 to inflation since 1980. The report shows that the jobs Oregon has produced since the end of the 1990s economic boom have been predominantly in low-wage industries. “Nearly two-thirds of the new jobs we’ve created pay less than $30,000 a year,” said Leachman.

Just 56.8 percent of Oregon workers had at least part of their health insurance paid by their employers in 2002-04, down from 63.7 percent in 1997-99. In 2005, 31 percent of private-sector employers in Oregon offered 401(k)-type retirement plans, while just 10 percent provided guaranteed pensions. Most Oregon employers do not offer retirement plans.

Poverty is, of course, a national problem and no Oregon governor can make a real dent in poverty levels without a change in federal policies.  But an activist governor could make a difference.  So far none of the candidates have offered any real cause for hope.

EMO, “an association of 16 Christian denominations including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox bodies across Oregon,” addressed the same questions about poverty to legislative candidates. Candidates were also asked to address issues central to the environment. This was the first time that EMO’s election guide – which traditionally includes endorsements on ballot initiatives – asked candidates to offer their positions on issues.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman David Wilhelm, a former top aide to Bill Clinton, has launched a new website designed "to rally Christian Democrats and attract socially moderate evangelicals," according to USA Today.

Faithful Democrats state that:

We are an online community of Christian Democrats - religious leaders, political leaders, writers, and regular Americans who are committed to the Gospel and the common good. We discuss, we debate, we take action. And we will make our voices heard in the 2006 election season and beyond.

We don't believe that good Christians have to be Democrats. Nor do we believe that one religion has a monopoly on faith. But we make no apologies for rooting our identity as Democrats in our faith as Christians. That is who we are. And we are eager to act on our beliefs to make the country we love a more just and compassionate place.

Most of the time I have some sort of advance notice when projects like this get started - but not this time (though they are linking to my site). 

I'll be interested to keep track of the site and the causes it advances.  I appreciate their very appropriate declaration that "we don't believe that good Christians have to be Democrats. Nor do we believe that one religion has a monopoly on faith."  I agree.  But I also agree that Democrats need to openly proclaim their faith - not to misuse faith for political gain - but to speak in a language that most Americans understand.  Democrats will do a better job of connecting with voters when they reject the language of policy wonks in favor of arguments born in our town halls, churches, and temples. 

- United States Constitution

Our nation has been well served by a Constitution that rejects any religious test for public office.  No one can be denied a public office by virtue of their religion - or lack of religion.  

Someone should read this section of the Constitution to Southern Baptists in Florida.

U.S. Rep. Kathleen Harris, the leading Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate race in Florida (and the former state secretary of state known for throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush), made news this weekend for answers she gave in an interview to a state-wide Baptist publication.  Harris called the separation of church and state a "lie" meant to keep Christians out of public life and said that only Christians should serve in office.

If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong. ...

Take a look at the Florida Baptist Witness 2006 Primary Election Special Report and read the questions they asked all the candidates for governor and senate:

What is your personal religious faith?

Are you a part of a local place of worship, a local church?

....at some point in time we're going to stand before God and give an account. When you are in that position are your confident that you're going to spend eternity with God in Heaven?

Someday when you die, if God asks you, "Why should I let you in My Heaven?" What would your answer be?    

These sound like religious tests for public office.  Clearly, Florida Baptists have a right to judge candidates using any criteria they like.  They can even ask questions like the ones above.  But what does their candidate survey show?

The Florida Baptist State Convention rejects the values embodied in American constitutional democracy.

Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis declined to participate in this survey.  Good for him.  Florida Baptist Witness did not offer the incumbent U.S. Senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, the opportunity to respond. Read the comments on this post from Street Prophets

The new Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll on religion and American politics was published today and there are some surprising results.  Nearly as many Americans, for example, identify with "liberal Christianity" as with "evangelical Christianity." 

But unlike the religious right, the Pew Research Center notes that those in the "religious left" tend to be more divided and less, well, orthodox about issues.

The survey finds that religious conservatives, and white evangelical Christians specifically, have no equal and opposite group on the religious left. About 7% of the public say they identify with the "religious left" political movement. That is not much smaller than the 11% who identify themselves as members of the "religious right," but the religious left is considerably less cohesive in its political views than the religious right.

The survey traced the spiritual roots of the religious right and left to two broader faith communities. On the right, white evangelical Christians comprise 24% of the population and form a distinct group whose members share core religious beliefs as well as crystallized and consistently conservative political attitudes.

On the left, a larger share of the public (32%) identifies as "liberal or progressive Christians." But unlike evangelicals, progressive Christians come from different religious traditions and disagree almost as often as they agree on a number of key political and social issues.

These differences in the makeup of the religious left and right are an important reason why white evangelicals remain a more politically potent force. On issues ranging from the origins of life to Christ's second coming, evangelicals express distinctly different views from those held by the rest of the public and even other religious groups.

Political partisans who want a counter weight to the Religious Right will be upset that progressive Christians cannot articulate a political vision with the same success as groups like Focus on the Family have done. 

As a progressive Christian, I take (of course) another view:  the divisions among progressive Christians on different social issues may show evidence of a rich theology at work that allows for debate and discernment instead of ridge adherence to a political master. 

With an eye cast to the November elections it is worth noting that only a quarter of Americans viewed Democrats as being "friendly" towards religion.  No surprise there.  When U.S. Senator Barack Obama gave the keynote address earlier this year at the Call to Renewal Conference and spoke about his faith and emerging views on religion and politics there was an outcry from some quarters of the Democratic Party (certainly among many liberal bloggers).  Democrats seem unable to speak about faith even though most of their members are religious.    

There is a wealth of information to read through in this poll.  Enjoy.   

Sometimes you just shake your head....

BALTIMORE, August 13 - A protester staked out the home of a Muslim candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates, holding a sign and wearing a T-shirt that mocked Islam.

Timothy Truett sat in a folding chair Saturday on the cul-de-sac outside Saqib Ali's home in Gaithersburg with a sign reading "Islam sucks," and a shirt with the slogan, "This mind is an Allah-free zone."

Montgomery County police sent a trespass notification form to Truett warning that he would be subject to arrest on trespassing charges if he steps onto Ali's property within the next year.

Truett called his protest "an experiment," explaining: "I had heard that Muslims were generally intolerant of views other than their own, and so I thought I would put it to the test."

Ali took several photographs of Truett but refused to speak to him, saying he did not get the impression that Truett wanted to start a constructive dialogue.

"We don't waste our time talking to people who hate us," Ali said Sunday.

Truett said he did not think the sign or the T-shirt expressed a message of hate.

"It's an opinion," he said. "I don't think there's anything intrinsically hateful about it."

Ali, a Democrat, would become the first Muslim member of the House of Delegates if elected, but has not made his religion a major tenet of his campaign.

Read the full story on Beliefnet.com.

Want to do something nice today?  Send a note of support to Ali (or leave a comment on his campaign blog).  Tell him that you appreciate his willingness to run for public office and reject the hate that he encountered.

Everyone in the U.S. has their eyes fixed on Connecticut tonight (at least the politically obsessed crowd). While I’m interested in the Senate race there are other important races and that includes the fight between Scott MacLean and Miriam Masullo for the Republican nomination for the First Congressional district.

I’m ready to declare MacLean, a political moderate and retired United Church of Christ minister, the winner based on late returns.  From WFSB.com:

With 92% of the precincts counted MacLean is ahead 62% to 38% for Masullo.  Click on the graphic for more.

Now I don’t actually have any creditability in calling races. The final vote count might find me wrong. But this appears to be a good conclusion to a difficult race. Masullo has waged a vicious campaign where she attacked MacLean’s background as a UCC minister. She appears to think you can only be Christian if you back George W. Bush on every issue. Masullu has relied on anti-UCC web site to help spread her message.

Connecticut Republicans seem to have rejected her negative campaign and chosen a moderate (pro-choice, pro-gun control) nominee to face the incumbent this November: U.S. Congressman John Larson. Larson, a progressive democrat, is considered popular in the district and is seen as the strong favorite.

A Republican candidate for Congress in Connecticut, who is attacking her Republican opponent for being a minister in the "liberal" United Church of Christ, was highlighted today in an article where she claimed she has been "persecuted by the media, the left" and allies of her opponent.  From The Bristol Press:

(Miriam) Masullo said she is not attacking the church itself, but rather than "the justification of terrorism and anti-Semitic posture" of its president, John Thomas.

(Scott) MacLean, a retired minister in the church, called Masullo's charges "preposterous" and refused to denounce his church's leadership.

"While I don't agree with everything that comes out of the national setting of the UCC, I don't agree with everything my wife says either and I have no intention of divorcing either one," MacLean said.

MacLean is the GOP's endorsed candidate in the little-noticed 1st District congressional primary. The winner will take on U.S. Rep. John Larson, an East Hartford Democrat, in the Nov. 7 general election....

"Nobody will convince me that I am not being attacked because my opponent is a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male, and I am a Hispanic woman," she said.

She isn't being attacked based on her race or gender but on her outlandish and bigoted views.  But her views are making the right-wing proud.   

The UCC has come under attack for advocating on behalf of displaced Palestinians and for calling for an immediate cease fire in Lebanon.  Unfortunately, the UCC's stance has been labeled by some to be anti-Semitic.  The UCC's views, however, are shared by the Pope, World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches USA, Human Rights Watch, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Tikkun Magazine, a leading Jewish publication.       

Masullo urged readers of the article to visit UCCtruths.com - an anti-UCC web site that coordinates its message with the Republican Party aligned - Institute on Religion and Democracy and the anti-gay group Biblical Witness Fellowship - to learn more about the UCC.

I have a better idea.

Visit UCC.org.  You'll be directed to a site truly committed to honesty and Christian principles - both of which Masullo and her anti-UCC friends seems to care little about.

The primary election will be held tomorrow.

Related Post:  Republican House Candidate Attacks Opponent For Being United Church Of Christ Member