Today President Obama signed the debt ceiling compromise with these words:

I’ve said it before; I will say it again:  We can’t balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the biggest brunt of this recession.  We can’t make it tougher for young people to go to college, or ask seniors to pay more for health care, or ask scientists to give up on promising medical research because we couldn’t close a tax shelter for the most fortunate among us.  Everyone is going to have to chip in.  It’s only fair.  That’s the principle I’ll be fighting for during the next phase of this process.   

And in the coming months, I’ll continue also to fight for what the American people care most about:  new jobs, higher wages and faster economic growth.  While Washington has been absorbed in this debate about deficits, people across the country are asking what we can do to help the father looking for work.  What are we going to do for the single mom who’s seen her hours cut back at the hospital?  What are we going to do to make it easier for businesses to put up that “now hiring” sign?

For the record I called U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer - my representative - and urged him to vote for the compromise because default was simply not an option - no matter how bad the deal might have been.  Rep. Blumenauer voted no.   

But creating jobs in this economy just got a lot harder, as Think Progress notes:

The Economic Policy Institute, a top nonpartisan think tank, estimates that the deal struck this weekend to raise the nation’s debt limit will end up costing the economy 1.8 million jobs by 2012...

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years, but even the near-term cuts could shrink already sluggish GDP growth by 0.3% in 2012. According to EPI, the plan “not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.” In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the “failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012.”

As joblessness, poverty and homelessness continue to grow the question is this: does President Obama have a plan to move us forward as a nation?  No one questions the president's values or aspirations but he quickly needs to lay out a progressive platform that he'll fight for.  Where will he draw a line in the sand to fight for those principles he believes in?

There needs to be a more forceful repudiation of the Tea Party movement which rejects traditional religious understandings of justice, compassion and the social contract that has made America a great nation.

People of faith need to continue to put pressure on both parties to address poverty and homelessness.  I agree with what the National Council of Churches stated at Easter time:

...the debate over the national budget has ignored the most vulnerable members of our society -- millions of the working poor, the homeless, children, and disabled persons -- while political leaders of both parties jockey for tactical advantages as if they were more interested in pursuing power and office than a balanced budget.

As we continue to hold President Obama and members of Congress in prayer, let us pray that our nation addresses the sin of poverty and that those held captive by hopelessness find freedom from despair.  It will take renewed efforts from us all to build up the Beloved Community we still dream of. 

President Obama and leaders of Congress have reached a deal to increase the debt ceiling.  Without such a deal the economy would spiral out of control and a worldwide depression would likely result.  This is how tenuous our economic position is in the post-Bush era.  At the same time, the deal (and not all the details are known) apparently calls for cuts in domestic spending that are so deep that they would betray our most cherished values of a nation and put at risk the lives of our most vulnerable citizens.  A vote in favor of the debt ceiling "compromise" might be necessary but could also be fairly labeled as morally questionable.  We've been saved from a hurricane only to be thrown into a tornado.    

We all know that Barack Obama was dealt a terrible hand by coming in as the president who had to clean-up George W. Bush's mess.  In the midst of gruesome political conditions he managed to expand health care for 30 million Americans - though that achievement is now in some doubt as a part of this compromise could result in new cuts to health care programs - and has ended combat operations in Iraq, a war that never should have been fought.

At the same time, it seems that on the big issues (the public option, the Bush tax cuts, the debt ceiling) this president is willing to allow to GOP to set the terms of the debate - the agenda on how we'll move forward as a nation - and that undermines his ability to achieve the goals he articulated in 2008.  President Obama might just get himself re-elected in 2012 as the "great compromiser" but his legacy might also include continued high unemployment and poverty, and a fractured nation that believes change and hope will never touch their lives, because what he promised in 2008 cannot be achieved with GOP policies he advances through "compromise."

The campaign of 2012 needs to be used by President Obama as a reset.  He needs to use the election to offer a vision for where we need to be as a people.  That vision has to stand in stark contrast to the Tea Party.  But didn't he do that in 2008?  Yes, but four years after Bush has left office a lot of the damage has been undone.  Troops are coming home and defense spending is coming down.  Barack Obama will finally have a chance to set the terms, led the charge, and frame the debate in ways the economic reality has constrained him from doing.  We now know his capabilities as a leader and his faults, all too well. 

In the meantime, as the 2012 draws near, I urge religious leaders across the country to use this period to point out the moral challenges facing this great nation with clarity and purpose.  We must work tirelessly to stand against those who would shred our nation's safety net while protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.         

My latest on The Huffington Post

Tonight President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner offered to the American people starkly differnt visions for America as together we face a looming crisis that comes with August 2nd and the end of our debt ceiling - the nation's ability to borrow.

President Obama said tonight that to deal with our nation's deficit we need a balanced approach that involves shared sacrifice - including asking millionaires to pay their fair share of taxes:

Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Speaker Boehner unveiled his latest plan today - one that could cause the greatest increase in poverty in American history - which calls for no shared sacrifice, only continued benefits for the wealthy at the expense of middle class and low-income families.

Tonight the speaker said:

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen. You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support.

Really?

What they actually passed was a highly partisan bill that couldn't even muster half a dozen democratic votes in the U.S. House.  Now they want to pass the buck by voting for another bill that will cause Congress to have this entire debate again in just six months - instead of dealing with the problem now.

President Obama sounded like a statesman but Speaker Boehner sounded like another partisan pol.  

Like other religious leaders, I want to make sure that any agreement reached protects the middle class and the poorest among us, especially children and elders.  Over 6,000 clergy have written to President Obama with this message -  I've written him personally - and I'll share that message again with White House staff this week.

I hope Americans take up President Obama's call to reach out to Congress to demand a plan to deal with the deficit that includes new revenues and also the protection of our national safety net.  Make your call today, toll free at 888.907.1485.  Click here for more from the Half in Ten Campaign on Protecting the American Dream.

Press Release from the National Council of Churches

Washington, July 20, 2011 - In a meeting with President Obama and senior White House staff this afternoon, national Christian leaders asked the president to protect funding for programs for hungry and poor people in the ongoing budget debate and in any deal concerning the default crisis.

All agreed that we can get our fiscal house in order without doing so on the backs of those who are most vulnerable. The shared concern was to cut the deficit in a way that protects the safety net, protects the vulnerable, and maintains our investments in the future.

Christian leaders at today's meeting included representatives from the National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bread for the World, Sojourners, the Alliance to End Hunger, the Salvation Army, the National African American Clergy Network, the National Baptist Convention of America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

They are part of the "Circle of Protection," a nonpartisan movement that insists budgets are moral documents and that poor and vulnerable people should be protected-not targeted-in efforts to reduce long-term deficits. White House staff in the meeting included Senior Advisory Valerie Jarrett, Director of Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes and Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Joshua DuBois.

Leaders have been urging policy makers to recognize that a commitment to protect vulnerable people is a moral-not partisan-concern. They will continue to talk with policy makers as well as educate other Christians and voters about the moral issues at stake in the budget.

"As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people," the leaders wrote in a joint statement. "Therefore, we join with others to form a circle of protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad."

The Circle of Protection statement has been signed by more than 60 heads of Christian denominations and religious organizations, and endorsed by 45 heads of development agencies as well as leaders of other faiths. The Circle of Protection movement has worked to uphold the bipartisan consensus that has long prevailed in deficit-reduction agreements-that programs serving poor and hungry people should be protected and exempted from any automatic cuts.

"As Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world," they wrote.

National Council of Churches representatives at the meeting included the Rev. Dr. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Rev. Michael Livingston, director of the NCC's poverty initiative.

Related Link: A Pastor's Plea to The President: Protect the Poor in Budget Debate

Yesterday I posted a concerning story regarding remarks made by GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in which he stated that U.S. communities have the authority to ban mosques.  This bigoted statement flies in the faces of the U.S. Constitution and feeds on fear and hatred towards Muslims.  Cain, low in the polls and not a serious contender for any office, is none-the-less, a favorite of many Tea Party activists.

One such activist, Robert Smiley (Vice-President of the Tea Party Patriots of Livingston Parish in LA), sent me a particularly hateful and bizarre e-mail.

What's the big deal, all you have to do to stop a mosque from being built on any site--- kill a pig there and leave it, or pour pig blood there, thus defiling it for all time  !!!

 

No practicing Muslim will be able to set foot there ----EVER

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has". --Margaret Mead

Let's leave the sad irony of Mr. Smiley quoting Margaret Mead alone for the moment.

When people argue that the Tea Party doesn't have a racist problem - something that is crystal clear already - they ought to drop by Mr. Smiley's Facebook page.  You'll find this picture proudly displayed on his wall:

The comments that go along with the photo that Mr. Smiley links to makes you think you've time traveled back into the 1950s:

If all of this weren't bad enough it is clear that people like Mr. Smiley have real influence in American politics today.  He boasts his support for Michelle Bachman who has been surging in recent GOP polls due to Tea Party support and check out this screen grab of his Tea Party chapter's website:

Politicians like Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy court his vote at Tea Party events.

That right there is a sad commentary on politics today.  

The good news is that while the Tea Party wields influence and power they do not represent the majority of the American people, who I believe are good and decent and reject the racism and religious bigotry that fuels so much of the Tea Party.

Can We End The War In Afghanistan, Negotiate A Peace With The Taliban, And Protect Human Rights For Women?  

Polls show that the majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Afghanistan.  Ten years after 9/11 the war there goes on.  What has the cost been?  What will the cost be if the U.S. withdrawals?  

Restrepo, which won best documentary at Sundance in 2010, is now available for download on iTunes or purchase elsewhere.  The film offers an extraordinary and sometimes painful glimpse into the everyday lives of soldiers and cilivians in Afghanistan during 2007-08 (before President Obama took office and redirected resources from Iraq to the Afghanistan theatre).

RESTREPO is a feature-length documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. The movie focuses on a remote 15-man outpost, “Restrepo,” named after a platoon medic who was killed in action. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. military. This is an entirely experiential film: the cameras never leave the valley; there are no interviews with generals or diplomats. The only goal is to make viewers feel as if they have just been through a 94-minute deployment. This is war, full stop. 

It would be hard to recommend this too highly.  Nothing like it has shown the human side of American forces trying to fight a war that seems at times highly incomprehensible.  The film does not try to hide the ugle side of war.  Watch and be prepared to see U.S. forces harm children.  The truth is that kids die in war.  We shouldn't run from that truth.    

It is particularly tragic that Tim Hetherington, one of the film's co-creators, was killed recently covering the conflict in Libya.  

A more recent look at the conflict in Afghanistan comes from PBS's Frontline.  This is the opening chapter of their program Kill / Capture: 

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

What seems clear is that as U.S. forces step up their efforts to root out Taliban forces the population becomes more and more anti-American.

As the BBC and others have reported, all of this has led the negotiations with the Taliban:

Now that President Obama has made it clear he wants to draw down the US troop surge in Afghanistan, there is growing emphasis on political and diplomatic efforts to try to bring an end to the war.

In his speech setting out plans to bring home 33,000 US troops over the next year, the president emphasised: "We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war, without a political settlement."

That means a "political settlement" with the Taliban.

One senior official said that phrase would have been "unthinkable" a year ago.

Just hours after President Obama spoke, Hillary Clinton spoke in a US Senate hearing of a "diplomatic surge to support Afghan-led efforts to reach a political solution to chart a more secure future."

Can the Taliban be trusted?  Hardly.  They are war criminals with a dismal human rights record.  Yet such types have been brought back into coalition governments before after long periods of war and without a negotiated conclusion to this conflict it will go on and on. 

But what would peace look like?

Dr. Ida Lichter, a writer who advocates for women, recently blogged on The Huffington Post that:

Women's rights would suffer a severe setback if the Taliban were given a share of power, possibly in the south of the country. Abandoning women to the Taliban would also spur imitation by extremists outside Afghanistan, including Britain, where the "London Taliban" has reportedly threatened to kill unveiled Muslim women. A Western failure in Afghanistan could stimulate more attacks from radicals, emboldened by their conviction that religious fervour was instrumental in defeating a second superpower.

Some women activists have sounded more conciliatory in recent times, attempting to thwart the punishment they anticipate when foreign troops leave. Most fear that a hasty drawdown of foreign troops could bring more chaos and violence, civil war, and even the return of jihadist training camps. The death of Osama bin Laden has also caused alarm, as the US could claim their mission to destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was complete.

In order to achieve a respectable exit, Afghan and Western negotiators might find it expedient to accept promises by the Taliban and go along with the view that gender culture in the country is too tribal to be changed and should be respected even if it is harsh on women.

Afghanistan will remain a backward, failed state if half the population is prevented from contributing to the social, economic and political fabric of society. In their opposition to misogyny, a pillar of radical Islam, women also provide a challenge to extremism.

What can be done to safeguard women's rights? Taliban guarantees to promote rights for women and girls should be considered worthless, due to lack of coalition leverage.

Women should be included in all talks with the Taliban and gender issues incorporated in documents for discussion.

US aid could be contingent on protecting the human rights of Afghan women, and the pace of withdrawal made dependent on the extent to which the Taliban keep to their word.

Women and children are the main casualties in the war zone, and security will not improve unless the Pakistani government is prepared to stop the Afghan Taliban, Haqqani network and Hezb-e Islami from manufacturing improvised explosive devices on their soil.

Another requirement is a comprehensive settlement of reconciliation and de-radicalisation that goes beyond the Taliban to include other paramilitaries and power brokers. Rather than defend the Taliban, it would be more productive, and consistent with the democratic values of the Arab Spring, to support the victims of violence, the women's movement and other reformers in Afghanistan, so that human rights and civil society can seed and grow.

Is the U.S. willing to fight for the rights of women?  If so, how can that best be achieved through a diplomatic process that finally brings this war to an end?

This morning The Huffington Post published the text of a letter I sent President Obama earlier this week asking that he do everything in his power to protect those living in poverty during the budget debates now under way in Congress.  Click here to read the letter.

Right-wing websites are all a flutter with claims that the United Church of Christ "has decided to banish God 'the Father' from its organizational documents."  Of course, that isn't true and this is much to do with presidential politics and seemingly little to do with religion.

The Patriot Update had the "breaking news" today:

The United Church of Christ, the denomination whose Chicago pastor Jeremiah Wright blasted the United States and white people for years from the pulpit while Barack Obama sat in his pews, has decided to banish God “the Father” from its organizational documents.

A report from Eric Anderson on the denomination’s website confirmed that delegates to the UCC’s “GeneralSynod28″ agreed late Monday to a series of proposed amendments to the constitution and bylaws. The vote was 613 in favor of the changes, 171 against and 10 abstaining.

I cannot find that article anywhere on the UCC's website, however.

But the change was one of dozens of wording changes considered this week to the UCC Consitution by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ.  You can read all the changes that were proposed here.

The Statement of Faith of the United Church of Christ continues to read:

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to his deeds we testify:

He calls the worlds into being, creates man in his own image and sets before him the ways of life and death.

He seeks in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.

He judges men and nations by his righteous will declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,he has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to himself.

He bestows upon us his Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

He calls us into his church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be his servants in the service of men, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory.

He promises to all who trust him forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, his presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in his kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto him.

Amen.

There is, however, a more inclusive version that may also be used.

The General Synod this week also adopted an agreement between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church-USA, Reformed Church in America and Christian Reformed Church regarding the mutual recognition of baptism that calls for the tradition liturgy of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" to be used during baptisms.  

In short, the websites reporting that the UCC have fully dropped "Our Father" as language for God are wrong and perhaps even lying as most of them mention President Obama in their stories and seem to be using this issue as an attempt to smear him for partisan political purposes.

Note how The Patriot Update and the radical right-wing website WND, an internet site known for their racist rethoric, feature pictures of President Obama with The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the president's former pastor who retired in 2008. 

Having written all this, I'll note that I personally believe that inclusive language is best when describing God.  God is God and attempts to make God human by placing gender and other human characteristics on God take away from God's divine nature.  Human language is limiting.  We simply don't have a good vocabulary for labeling our Creator.  

As The New York Times noted in an editorial, health care for the poorest Americans is under attack by Congressional republicans and President Obama must stand-up to them or the consequences will be grave:

The poor and disabled people who rely on Medicaid to pay their medical bills could be in grave jeopardy in this sour I’ve-got-mine political climate.

Older Americans, a potent voting bloc, have made clear that they won’t stand for serious changes in Medicare. Medicaid, however, provides health insurance for the most vulnerable, who have far less political clout.

There is no doubt that Medicaid — a joint federal-state program — has to be cut substantially in future decades to help curb federal deficits. For cash-strapped states, program cuts may be necessary right now. But in reducing spending, government needs to ensure any changes will not cause undue harm to millions.

As Medicaid currently works, the federal government sets minimum requirements for eligibility and for services that must be covered; states can expand on services and include more people. The federal government is required to pay from half to three-quarters of the cost, depending on the wealth of a state’s population. In tough economic times, Medicaid enrollments typically soar as government revenues shrink, adding budget woes.

House Republicans led by Paul Ryan want to turn Medicaid into a federal block grant program that would grow slowly and shift more costs to states and patients. Their plan would save $771 billion over a decade. Mr. Ryan also wants to repeal a big expansion of Medicaid required by the health care reforms. All told, he would cut $1.4 trillion over 10 years — roughly a third of the more than $4 trillion in projected federal spending in that period.  

President Obama, who would retain the Medicaid expansion, has proposed a cut of $100 billion, less than 2.5 percent of projected federal spending, which would be much more manageable, though a lot will depend on how it is carried out. The great danger in proposing $100 billion in cuts at the start is that Republicans will take that as an opening bid that can be negotiated upward, toward the unreasonable Ryan-level cuts the House has already approved.

The best route to savings — already embodied in the reform law — is to make the health care system more efficient over all so that costs are reduced for Medicaid, Medicare and private insurers as well. Various pilot programs to reduce costs might be speeded up, and a greater effort could be made to rein in malpractice costs.

The Half in Ten Campaign - a project supported by the United Church of Christ, the Center for American Progress, and others - is calling on President Obama to protect programs for those living in poverty during budget negotiations:

In these next few weeks, urge the President to stand firm on one important principle as negotiators finalize a deficit reduction plan: protect programs for low-income families and individuals and ensure that deficit reduction does not increase poverty.

Major bipartisan deficit reduction plans in recent decades have met this basic standard. In fact, all of the deficit reduction packages enacted in the 1990s not only brought down the deficit, but also reduced poverty in America. Other deficit reduction measures during this time period also excluded programs supporting low-income families from automatic budget cuts on the principle that low-income Americans should be protected.

Getting our fiscal house in order need not, and should not, mean we do so in a way that increases poverty, hardship, and inequality while financing additional tax breaks for the wealthy.

Call or email the President's office and ask him to oppose harmful cuts to low-income programs and stand by his support of fair increases in revenues to fight reckless cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other important services. You can contact the White House Comment Line today toll free at 1-888-245-0215. 

With critical services for our most vulnerable hanging in the balance, your voice on this issue could not be more needed or important during this time.

Click here to send a message to President Obama.

President Obama didn't endorse gay marriage in New York this evening - as many hoped (I myself wrote to encourage him to do so) but the time is coming soon, I believe, when the president will take the right stand.

It is difficult to imagine how quickly opinion has shifted on this issue.  In 2004, numerous states were adopting constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (even in progressive Oregon).  Just back in the 90s President Clinton backed DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Human Rights Campaign has endorsed President Obama's re-election - and they believe with good cause:

“President Obama has improved the lives of LGBT Americans more than any President in history,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “In 2008 we were promised change and profound change is what we got.  More remains to be done and ensuring that President Obama is able to continue the forward momentum toward equality for another term is an absolute priority of the Human Rights Campaign.”

President Obama’s Administration’s record of accomplishment for the LGBT community includes:

• Pressing for passage and signing legislation to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that bans openly lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers.
• Pressing for passage and signing an inclusive hate crimes law – the first federal statute to explicitly protect LGBT individuals.
• Determining that the administration believes Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional and refusing to defend the discriminatory law in court.
• Requiring hospitals nationwide to adopt LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies regarding visitation.

In addition, the administration’s policies: added gender identity to the equal employment opportunity policy governing all federal jobs; permitted married same-sex couples to use their marriage licenses as evidence of a name change for passports and instituted more reasonable standards for changing a gender marker on passports; allowed the Census Bureau to release data on married same-sex couples; extended a number of benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees possible under existing authority; launched a National HIV/AIDS Strategy and efforts to target populations most at risk; required abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education programs be inclusive of and non-stigmatizing toward LGBT youth; and recognized LGBT families are protected under a host of laws from the Violence Against Women Act to family and medical leave regulations to housing programs.

More information on the President’s LGBT record is available at: www.hrc.org/ObamaEndorsement.

“The records of the other candidates seeking the presidency should be a wake-up call to fair-minded Americans,” said Solmonese. “As the fight for equality moves forward, President Obama is marching with us while the alternatives would stop us in our tracks.”

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, it is my great hope and prayer that President Obama and all those running for office will soon endorse full marriage equality as the General Synod of the UCC did in 2005.  With support from GOP figures such as former Vice-President Dick Cheney and former First Lady Laura Bush this has rightly become a bi-partisan cause.  As I told President Obama in my letter this week, supporting marriage equality is also a position consistent with Christian ethics.

For The Love Of All Creation: A Sermon On Genesis 1:1-2:4a for Pride Month 2011 from The Rev. Chuck Currie on Vimeo.

John McCain is blaming the wildfires in Arizona on illegal immigrants, reports ABC News.

And what does the U.S. Forest Service have to say? 

Tom Berglund, spokesman for the federal group managing the Wallow fire that McCain toured Saturday, said the cause of the fire has been determined as "human," specifically an "escaped campfire," meaning the campfire sparked beyond the confines of the rocks containing it.

Two "subjects of interest" have been spoken to, but as of now, no suspect has been named, Berglund said. When asked if there is substantial evidence that some fires were caused by illegal immigrants, as McCain said at a news conference Saturday, Berglund said: "Absolutely not, at this level."

"There's no evidence that I'm aware, no evidence that's been public, indicating such a thing," he said.

So without any evidence Senator McCain is just making some up to fit a political narative.

"The degree of irresponsible political pandering by Sen. McCain has no limits," Angelo Falcon, the president of the National Institute for Latino Policy, told CNN. "With the lack of evidence, he might as well also blame aliens from outer space for the fires."

McCain should abandon this kind of hateful politicking and return to his roots and embrace President Obama's comprehensive immigration reform plan instead of playing with fire.

President Obama this week gave a thoughtful address on the Middle East which has predictably drawn criticism from U.S. partisan critics and the majority party in Israel who object to the president's call for Israel to return to 1967 borders as part of a peace deal with Palestinians.  But leading Jewish citizens in Israel are calling for support of President Obama's peace efforts.  

Churches for Middle East Peace explains the context of the week's developments:

In a speech to the Knesset May 16, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out principles for negotiations, offering to hand over parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians if they accepted his peace terms. The prime minister said that such a deal would include compromises on "parts of our homeland."  However, he stated that such a deal would not include the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel, would keep West Bank Israeli settlement blocs intact, would involve long-term Israeli military presence along the Jordan River, and would keep all of Jerusalem as part of Israel.  

On Thursday, May 19, President Obama said in a nationally televised speech on the Middle East, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”  

The president countered Prime Minister Netanyahu’s claim to an indefinite Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley saying, “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.  And the duration of this transition must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.” 

The president also acknowledged the challenge of the reconciliation agreement signed this month by Hamas and Fatah leaders. While noting that the agreement raises legitimate questions for Israel, he also called for Palestinian leadership to take responsibility for the implications of that agreement. He asked, “How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? … Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”  

What was clear in the president’s speech is that he intends to press for a return to negotiations and an agreement for peace. With a possible nod toward his own administration’s unsuccessful attempts at progress, he said,  “The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome.  The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”

Obama met privately with Netanyahu for nearly two hours on Friday, May 19. Their remarks following the meeting demonstrated the fundamental differences in the two leaders’ positions on how to achieve peace.  The president will go on to address an AIPAC convention over the weekend, as will the prime minister. The end of this round of speech-making will come on Tuesday, May 24 when Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress. 

A New U.S. Position?

Obama’s statement about the border and security goes further than any U.S. President has in the past. He specifically did not address the issues of Jerusalem or refugees.  There are rumors that  there were divisions within the administration about the speech.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was advocating for Obama to set out principles on all the major issues. However, Special Assistant to President Obama on Middle East issues, Dennis Ross, reportedly wanted to give more time for Israel to assess the Middle East’s changing political landscape. Obama chose a middle ground. 

Many U.S. opinion leaders have recently encouraged Netanyahu to recognize the 1967 borders as a basis for negotiations and are raising questions about his interest in reaching a peace agreement. In a recent column, Thomas Friedman said that instead of trying to make peace, Netanyahu “has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal — and everyone knows it. No one is fooled.” 

In one example of perspectives of the Israeli right, Danny Danon, a Likud party member and deputy speaker of the Knesset, wrote in the New York Times May 19 that if the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood, Israel should annex the West Bank.  Israel “could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities and uninhabited lands of the West Bank,” excluding Palestinians from citizenship.  

Netanyahu’s reaction to President Obama’s speech was frosty. “Withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and … would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] beyond those lines,” he commented from Jerusalem.  It was reported that Netanyahu called Secretary Clinton to say reference to 1967 borders should be cut from the Obama’s speech.

The official Israeli position to President Obama's speech may have been "frosty" but many leading Jewish leaders in Israel took out newspaper ads supporting a return to the 1967 borders.  The ads stated:

We, the citizens of Israel, call on the public to support the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state as a condition for ending the conflict, and reaching agreed borders on the basis of the 1967 borders. Recognition of such a Palestinian state is vital for Israel’s existence. It is the only way to guarantee the resolution of the conflict by negotiations, to prevent the eruption of another round of massive violence and end the risky isolation of Israel in the world The successful implementation of the agreements requires two leaderships, Israeli and Palestinian, which recognize each other, choose peace and are fully committed to it. This is the only policy that leaves Israel's fate and security in its own hands. Any other policy contradicts the promise of Zionism and the welfare of the Jewish people.

You can see the full ad here.

It needs to be noted that the President has not suggusted, as some have argued, that the exact 1967 borders need to be returned to.  What the president was clearly talking about - what is always talked about in this context - is the amount of land returning to 1967 levels.  Politico notes the frustration the Obama Administration is feeling with the misrepresentation of their position:

Netanyahu is being completely disingenuous and irresponsible by trying to suggest that anyone has talked about a return to the exact 1967 borders. That's not what the President said and he knows very well -- because he's heard this in myriad discussions, that when you're talking about swaps, it accounts for the settlement blocs, for security

He's trying to play the security card on us and to suggest that we're somehow endangering the State of Israel.... the idea that the president suggested that Israel should be relegated back to the '67 lines is absurd.

Peace must come to this region of the world.  It will take brave men and women to force the peace - not through war or terror - but through real negotiations.  What remains unclear is whether or not there are peacemakers in positions of leadership in either Israel or Palestine.  President Obama, however, has laid out a principled framwork for the parties.

Update: The U.S. Jewish group J Street also issued a statement in support of the president's speech:  

J Street commends President Obama for his important speech today outlining his approach to the changing Middle East and stating that efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution are “more urgent than ever.” We are grateful that the President reiterated that America’s friendship with Israel is rooted in shared values and that the United States maintains an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

We share, however, the President’s deep concern that the status quo today between Israel and the Palestinians is unsustainable, and that “the dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.” He is correct in saying that Israel will only find security through granting the Palestinian people their freedom, and the Palestinian people will only achieve freedom if Israel finds security.

J Street wholeheartedly endorses the approach to resolving the conflict outlined today by the President, namely, to address borders and security first. This is an approach which J Street first advocated when negotiations stalled last year. He also clearly established that those borders must be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps – an essential component of the ad J Street ran this morning in The New York Times.

We hope the President will now put his words into action in the coming days as he meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu and that he will launch a credible new diplomatic initiative in advance of the looming September United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood.

We urge the President to publicly ask the leaders of both parties to join him in an intensive and immediate effort to achieve a two-state solution on the basis of the principles laid out in this speech. He has laid out the parameters of a workable two-state deal, and now the parties must decide if they are ready to work seriously to achieve that elusive goal.

President Obama gave a powerful speech today on the need for comprehensive immigration reform. The vast majority of Americans want immigration reform and U.S. churches - sometimes divided on difficult issues - are largely united behind the president's vision and want politicians to stop playing politics with this important issue. Reform would add $1.5 trillion to our economy over the next decade and help create nearly a million new jobs while increasing consumer spending by $5 billion a year. People on those right-wing talk shows keep repeating their mantra of "ship all the illegals" home. That would cost a quarter of a trillion dollars - to start with - and take another 2.5 billion of our of economy. It is time to turn off the radio and to get serious about the business of our nation.

I preached on this very issue just two weeks ago. Why is this so important to Christians? We want people to play by the rules and follow laws but also recognize that the system is broken. Those who follow Christ cannot just look at borders. We have to look at faces - the faces of men, women and children - and see within those faces the face of God. In keeping with that spirit, Christians across the U.S. have advocated for compassionate reform that creates a pathway to citizenship and protects families in keeping with the best traditions of this immigrant nation. President Obama's plan moves us in the right direction and I urge you to support his efforts.

Immigrant Rights Sunday (5/1/11) - The Rev. Chuck Currie, preaching from The Rev. Chuck Currie on Vimeo.

Press Release from the National Council of Churches

Washington, DC, April 27, 2011 – Evangelical, Roman Catholic, mainline Protestants, African-American, and Latino Christian leaders have joined together to defend the lives and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in the current budget debate. The release of this joint statement marks the strongest and most unified Christian voice in the budget debate. Signed by more than 50 Christian leaders, it states:

“As Christian leaders, we are committed to fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad.”

In a press call today, heads of diverse Christian organizations said that politicians in both parties have failed to bring moral leadership to the budget debate. In the words of the Christian leaders:

“These choices are economic, political—and moral. As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected.”

Congress will reconvene Monday, May 2, after a two-week recess. The FY 2012 budget and raising the ceiling on the national debt will top its agenda. According to the Christian leaders’ statement:

“Budgets are moral documents, and how we reduce future deficits are historic and defining moral choices. As Christian leaders, we urge Congress and the administration to give moral priority to programs that protect the life and dignity of poor and vulnerable people in these difficult times, our broken economy, and our wounded world.”

The leaders outlined eight principles for ethical decision-making that must be considered in a moral budget. These include protecting and improving “poverty-focused development and humanitarian assistance to promote a better, safer world” and ensuring that budget discussions “review and consider tax revenues, military spending, and entitlements in the search for ways to share sacrifice and cut deficits.” They also call for a focus on creating jobs since “decent jobs at decent wages are the best path out of poverty, and restoring growth is a powerful way to reduce deficits.”

The leaders said that it is the “vocation and obligation of the church to speak and act on behalf of those Jesus called ‘the least of these.’” This basic principle has provided a unifying point for Christians that gets past the partisan politics dominating Capitol Hill. Plans are being made to hold political leaders accountable for protecting programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and for using moral principles to make budget decisions.

For a full list of signatories and the complete statement, please visit www.circleofprotection.us

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

When President Obama said last week it was time to move past the "silliness" over the contrived debate over where he was born he wasn't kidding.  The world faces serious issues and the president was in the midst of a serious national security operation that would lead to the demise of Osama bin Laden, ten years after the 9/11 attacks.  Serious times demand serious debates but still on the far fringes of the left and the right people are engaging today in less than serious behavior.

On blogs and talk radio shows some conservative voices are decrying bin Laden's burial at sea.  The decision was made because what nation state would take his remains and why set-up a shrine for a man who has committed crimes against humanity?  The Creeping Sharia website calls the decision "political correctness run amok" and others have said the burial was too humane.  That's short sighted and little more than an attempt to use the matter as a political wedge issue against the president.  

A better informed perspective comes from Imam Khalid Latif, chaplain for New York University, who wrote today on CNN's website that:

In general, Islamic law would state that a Muslim should be buried in the ground. However, everything is not black and white, and a main objective of Sharia law is to increase benefits and reduce detriments to society.

'No land alternative' prompts bin Laden sea burial

The question here is not about how a body should be buried in general, but rather how specifically the body of Osama bin Laden should be buried. The decision to bury bin Laden at sea exemplifies for us how Sharia is meant to function as it takes into consideration what would be best for society on a whole through a lens of compassion and mercy.

Consider these three points:

1) Humanity on a whole has a right that needs to be considered in regard to bin Laden’s burial. Who would want this man buried next to their loved one? Is it appropriate, especially after he has caused such pain to so many, to put anyone in a situation where they might have to be buried near or next to him? I would say no.

2) The number of individuals who hate this man, including many Muslims, is extremely large. If he were buried in the ground somewhere, even at an undisclosed location, eventually we would know where his body was. Years of anger and frustration that have built up because of him would now have an outlet for expression. Whichever country had the misfortune of hosting his body would need to increase security measures around his grave. It's a good thing that no country, including Saudi Arabia, wanted to bury him in their lands.

3) There should be no opportunity for glorification of bin Laden. A grave that people could visit also would serve as an opportunity for his small group of followers to memorialize him. These individuals are skewed not only in their misreading and misinterpretation of Islam, but also - and more important - in their understanding of morals and ethics. No opportunity should exist by which they could glorify bin Laden in his death, either in the immediate future or in years to come.

In showing respect for Islam, we demonstrated once again that our war is with terrorists and not the Muslim people.  It was a smart decision on a number of levels.  Let's face it:  the debate over the burial is mostly naked Islamophobia along with a deep desire to hurt the president politically no matter the issue.  The Chreeping Sharia website itself is a paranoid waste of internet bandwidth.

On the left, I'm sad to say, we have our own voices of silliness.  Politico reports today that:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan wrote her supporters, “I am sorry, but if you believe the newest death of OBL, you’re stupid. Just think to yourself—they paraded Saddam’s dead sons around to prove they were dead—why do you suppose they hastily buried this version of OBL at sea? This lying, murderous Empire can only exist with your brainwashed consent—just put your flags away and THINK!”

I once thought of Sheehan as a hero for the way she bravely stood up to George W. Bush and helped to bring attention to the foolish Iraq War.  Now?  Her passion is turning her into the equivalent of a leftist "birther."  Her comments are foolish and irresponsible.

There is still too much silliness in the air.  Let's focus on reality and start asking the hard questions about what happens next in Afghanistan, for example, and how we address our economic woes at home and the global climate change crisis that impacts us all.  We don't have time for Donald Trump-style freak shows right now.    

As crowds gather outside the White House to mark the stunning news announced tonight by President Barack Obama that the war criminal Osama bin Laden has been killed by U.S. forces there are fireworks going off in our NE Portland neighborhood.  Let us pray together tonight - no matter our place in the world - for peace and reconciliation in the aftermath of years of terror and war.

Tonight the president rightly said that "the US is not – and never will be – at war with Islam…Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims."

That point, also made by President Bush in the days after 9/11, must never be forgotten. 

Tonight my prayers are with the victims of that terrible September day and their families.  So to I pray for the young men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.  They have been at war for far too long and made great sacrifices.  My prayers are also with President Obama and his staff.  As I said last year on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, I still hope that ultimately good can come from that horrible act of war.  As a follower of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, I also pray for my enemies tonight.  Let those who embrace violence and terror set down their weapons and seek peace.  There is nothing that justifies the acts of terror committed by Al Qaeda.

Let those of us who are people of faith - regardless of our religion - be the ones who lead the way by bringing healing to a hurting world.  This is yet another moment where we have the opportunity to seize history and work in interfaith partnership toward that peace all humanity desires but that continues to elude us.

Donald Trump just doesn't understand why African-American voters support Barack Obama. "The blacks," as the New York business man / reality tv star calls African-Americans, should be more diverse in their politics. Apparently, Trump knows better than "the blacks" about how they should vote (and live their lives, I suspect). It would seem that by virtue of his skin color that Trump is smarter than "the blacks" and thus able to inform them how to think, vote, etc.

I'm sure the African-American community's strong support for President Obama has nothing to do with his political agenda. "The blacks" also strongly supported John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson in modern times. Note that all of them were white. Why? Democrats have supported civil rights while the GOP has fought them. The same goes for social policies that address economic inequality. African-American support for President Obama and the Democratic Party is not based in inherent stupidity. And Obama had to earn that support when he started as the underdog in 2008.

Trump himself is on something of a racist crusade of late trying once again to prove that President Obama was born in Africa. This appears to be Trump's only issue as he considers a run against the president in 2012. It is sad. It is pathetic. And yes, it is racist. Only the truly desperate (i.e. Sarah Palin) try to keep rumors about the President's birthday place alive despite all the conclusive legal evidence to the contrary. In doing so they hope to create the impression that this black man isn't really a true American but something "other" than one of us. You know, like "the blacks."

And Trump wonders why the GOP has a hard time gaining ground with minority voters. Yes, it's a mystery.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Faith leaders in the United States should applaud President Obama for offering a moral vision for the nation while carefully monitoring how the White House and Congress proceed.

My response to President Obama's budget speech in The Huffington Post.

The GOP's budget proposals - which I've already called immoral - keep getting worse.  Their latest fiscal blueprint, offered up by U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan, would continue tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while cutting $4 trillion from the budget over ten years - 3/4 of which will come from programs meant to support the most vulnerable in America.  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports: 

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan would get about two-thirds of its more than $4 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve people of limited means, which violates basic principles of fairness and stands a core principle of President Obama’s fiscal commission on its head.

The plan of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who co-chaired President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, established, as a basic principle, that deficit reduction should not increase poverty or inequality or hurt the disadvantaged. The Ryan plan, which the chairman unveiled in a news conference, speech, and Wall Street Journal op-ed today, charts a different course, turning its biggest cannons on these people.

So what exactly does the GOP hope to cut while they protect tax cuts for millionaries?

$2.17 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care. The plan shows Medicaid cuts of $771 billion, plus savings of $1.4 trillion from repealing the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion and its subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people purchase health insurance.

$350 billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans (other than Medicaid).  The budget documents that Chairman Ryan issued today show that he is proposing $715 billion in cuts in mandatory programs other than Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but do not specify how much will be cut from various programs (although they imply that cuts in the food stamp program will be large). In this analysis, we make the conservative assumption that savings from low-income mandatory programs (other than Medicaid) would be proportionate to their share of spending in this category. Thus, we derive the $350 billion figure from the fact that about half of mandatory spending other than for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. This likely substantially understates the cuts that the plan would make in low-income programs. The Ryan documents show that $380 billion in cuts would come from programs in the income security portion of the budget (function 600), and the overwhelming bulk of the mandatory spending in that category goes for low-income programs. The documents also show $126 billion in mandatory cuts in the education, training, employment, and social services portion of the budget (function 500), which, based on the discussion in those documents, would likely come mainly from cuts in the mandatory portion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students.

$400 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs. The Ryan budget documents show that he is proposing $1.6 trillion in cuts in non-security discretionary programs, but again do not provide details about the size of cuts to specific programs. (The documents do identify some major low-income program areas, including Pell Grants and low-income housing, as prime targets for cuts.) Here, too, we make the conservative assumption that low-income programs in this category would bear a proportionate share of the cuts. Thus, we derive the $400 billion figure from the fact that about a quarter of non-security discretionary spending goes for programs for low- and moderate-income individuals and families.

You'll continue to see the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Churches, among others, work to oppose these cuts because:

There is no greater concern among the churches of Christ than for those in this nation who live in poverty. This could hardly be otherwise because Jesus himself lived among the poor: loving them, eating and drinking with them, healing them, and speaking words of justice and assurance that God's own love for the poor is unsurpassed.

This question is what will President Obama will do?  We know what we need him to do.  But as we await his speech this Wednesday on the economy it appears that he is letting the GOP set the agenda.  His Wednesday address needs to offer up a vision for America that is starkly different from the GOP's and inline with his historic 2008 campaign.

Tonight President Obama addressed why he ordered the United States to become involved in the conflict in Libya:

...much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

As I wrote last week in The Huffington Post and preached on Sunday, the question of whether or not to use violence is a difficult one for Christians. We are called to be peacemakers. But we cannot sit by quietly and allow genocide to occur. We've done that too many times. What President Obama has done is what we should have done in Rwanda and Darfur. War is always a failure of human imagination and tainted by sin but doing nothing in these circumstances would have been the greater sin, I believe.

Related Link:  Can Christians Support UN Intervention in Libya?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

In a stunning tribute President Obama tonight visited the grave of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the martyred "Bishop of the Poor" who served the people of El Salvador until he was assassinated.  The LA Times reports:

Revered in much of the region, the cleric was slain in 1980 by death squads working for the side in El Salvador's civil war that the U.S. government came to support against leftist guerrillas.

On the first visit by a U.S. president to Romero's tomb, Obama was accompanied by Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, elected in 2009 as the candidate representing those guerrillas, now recast as a political party.

U.S Catholic offers a biograhical sketch of this remarkable man:

In 1980, in the midst of a U.S. funded war the UN Truth Commission called genocidal, the soon-to-be-assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero promised history that life, not death, would have the last word. "I do not believe in death without resurrection," he said. "If they kill me, I will be resurrected in the Salvadoran people."

On each anniversary of his death, the people will march through the streets carrying that promise printed on thousands of banners. Mothers will make pupusas (thick tortillas with beans) at 5 a.m., pack them, and prepare the children for a two-to-four hour ride or walk to the city to remember the gentle man they called Monseñor.

Oscar Romero gave his last homily on March 24. Moments before a sharpshooter felled him, reflecting on scripture, he said, "One must not love oneself so much, as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and those that fend off danger will lose their lives." The homily, however, that sealed his fate took place the day before when he took the terrifying step of publicly confronting the military.

Romero begged for international intervention. He was alone. The people were alone. In 1980 the war claimed the lives of 3,000 per month, with cadavers clogging the streams, and tortured bodies thrown in garbage dumps and the streets of the capitol weekly. With one exception, all the Salvadoran bishops turned their backs on him, going so far as to send a secret document to Rome reporting him, accusing him of being "politicized" and of seeking popularity.

Unlike them, Romero had refused to ever attend a government function until the repression of the people was stopped. He kept that promise winning him the enmity of the government and military, and an astonishing love of the poor majority.

Romero was a surprise in history. The poor never expected him to take their side and the elites of church and state felt betrayed. He was a compromise candidate elected to head the bishop's episcopacy by conservative fellow bishops. He was predictable, an orthodox, pious bookworm who was known to criticize the progressive liberation theology clergy so aligned with the impoverished farmers seeking land reform. But an event would take place within three weeks of his election that would transform the ascetic and timid Romero.

The new archbishop's first priest, Rutilio Grande, was ambushed and killed along with two parishioners. Grande was a target because he defended the peasant's rights to organize farm cooperatives. He said that the dogs of the big landowners ate better food than the campesino children whose fathers worked their fields.

The night Romero drove out of the capitol to Paisnal to view Grande's body and the old man and seven year old who were killed with him, marked his change. In a packed country church Romero encountered the silent endurance of peasants who were facing rising terror. Their eyes asked the question only he could answer: Will you stand with us as Rutilio did? Romero's "yes" was in deeds. The peasants had asked for a good shepherd and that night they received one.

For too long the United States supported a series of brutal dictators in Central America.  Sadly, our nation supported those who murdered nuns and priests who preached a message of God's liberation, and civilians by the tens of thousands.  President Obama's visit tonight to the grave of Oscar Romero is a stunning display of reconciliation.  I cannot imagine another president making a similar gesture.   

Like many, I'm wary of U.S. military intervention in other nations. I opposed the war in Afghanistan early because, along with the church I served at the time, I felt that U.S. intervention there would be harmful to the civilian population and that the United States would leave Afghanistan in a position similar to that of the Soviet withdrawal, weakened and humbled, without achieving our legitimate goal of defeating the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11. I also opposed the war with Iraq. Here I had more company as nearly every Christian denomination across the globe that issued a statement concerning the matter opposed invading Iraq. A preemptive war is never legitimate. What is happening in Libya today is not the same as Afghanistan or Iraq. The United Nations, not a U.S.-led coalition under cover of a UN mandate, is working to stop the slaughter of a civilian population. This is what should have occurred in Rwanda.

I'm not sure how other Christian leaders will react. Already, many people I respect have been critical of President Obama and the allied forces attacking Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and his forces. There are legitimate concerns to be raised about civilian causalities. But I agree with Peter Daou, a former campaign aide to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who tweeted tonight: "I don't see a parallel between a war Bush launched based on lies and Obama's action to prevent atrocities in #Libya." So far I have seen no statements from the National Council of Churches or op-ed pieces from religious leaders offering support or criticism. But while I believe that war is always a failure of the human imagination and tainted by sin, I also believe there are times where it can be necessary. Much of my own thinking on the use of violence to protect civilian populations is informed by Samantha Power's book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Power now works in the Obama Administration. For now, I will offer support and prayers for President Obama, prayers for the allied forces, and prayers for all the people of Libya that the violence there ends quickly and that the civilian population can be free from terror. I extend that prayer for all the people of the world and hope for the day when democratic nations no longer support governments that commitment human rights violations with weapons contracts and other forms of aid that prop up too many corrupt governments.

I will also continue to closely monitor the events as they unfold and continue to reassess my views as needed.

As President Obama noted today, the death of Pakistan's Shahbaz Bhatti is a true tradegy.  A statement from the president issued today reads:

I am deeply saddened by the assassination of Pakistan’s Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti today in Islamabad, and condemn in the strongest possible terms this horrific act of violence. We offer our profound condolences to his family, loved ones and all who knew and worked with him. Minister Bhatti fought for and sacrificed his life for the universal values that Pakistanis, Americans and people around the world hold dear – the right to speak one’s mind, to practice one’s religion as one chooses, and to be free from discrimination based on one’s background or beliefs. He was clear-eyed about the risks of speaking out, and, despite innumerable death threats, he insisted he had a duty to his fellow Pakistanis to defend equal rights and tolerance from those who preach division, hate, and violence. He most courageously challenged the blasphemy laws of Pakistan under which individuals have been prosecuted for speaking their minds or practicing their own faiths. Those who committed this crime should be brought to justice, and those who share Mr. Bhatti’s vision of tolerance and religious freedom must be able to live free from fear. Minister Bhatti will be missed by all who knew him, and the United States will continue to stand with those who are dedicated to his vision of tolerance and dignity for all human beings.

Today we once again witnessed the evil of religious extremism.

Fortunately, we have examples from which to draw that show us a better way of life where religious pluralism is respected.  After a bombing at a Christian church in Egypt just before Christmas, for example, Muslim Egyptians volunteered to act as human shields at Christian churches to deter further violence.

Let us pray that it is Mr. Bhatti's vision of tolerance and friendship between people of different faiths that wins the day. 

The World Council of Churches sent a letter to Pakistan’s president today that reads:

Your Excellency,

It is with great shock and dismay that we received news of the assassination of Mr Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister for Minority Affairs in the government of Pakistan. We are deeply concerned by this heinous and outrageous crime directed against a member of your federal cabinet.

We understand that Mr Shahbaz Bhatti was assassinated by religious extremists because he was critical of the controversial blasphemy law in Pakistan.  We have been informed by our member constituencies in Pakistan that Mr Bhatti was a man of courage and conviction who had recently stated that he was ready to sacrifice his life for the principled stand he had taken “because the people of Pakistan are being victimized under the pretence of blasphemy law". It was while Mr Bhatti was openly advocating amending the blasphemy law that he was assassinated by extremist forces.

We condemn the deplorable killing of a lawmaker of the country, and we also are concerned about the vulnerable situation in which Pakistan’s minority communities are living. Once again this act demonstrates that the extremists will stop at nothing in their desperate attempt to force religious extremism and violence on Pakistani society. We are of the opinion that terrorist activities in any form or manifestation pose a serious threat to peace and security in any society. Violence and terror are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of motivation.

Your Excellency, the World Council of Churches has followed with great concern the use and misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan as well as persecution of the religious minorities in the country. 

We urge the government of Pakistan to take all necessary measures to provide safety and security to the Christian minority in Pakistan, and other minorities, and not to be deterred by the violent crimes committed by religious extremists.

The World Council of Churches calls upon Your Excellency’s government to swiftly undertake the investigation necessary to identify the assassins and bring all who are responsible for this brutal murder to a court of law.

Respectfully yours,

Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit
General secretary
World Council of Churches

Click here for additional information.

Former Arkansas Governor and current FOX News contributor Mike Huckabee, who ran for president in 2008 and is considering another bid, sometimes says the oddest things...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested in a radio interview that President Barack Obama's childhood in Kenya shaped his worldview — even though Obama did not visit Kenya until he was in his 20s.

The potential Republican presidential candidate told New York radio station WOR on Monday that Obama's youth led him to resent the West, which he said explains why Obama's foreign policy differs so greatly from that of his predecessors.

"One thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, (is) very different than the average American," Huckabee said, pointing to Obama's decision in 2009 to return a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

He failed to note that the bust was on loan from former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who offered it to President George W. Bush in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a symbol of trans-Atlantic solidarity. Huckabee also didn't mention that Obama replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln.

"The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British," Huckabee said. "But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather . he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."

Full story.

Mike Huckabee would do well to learn more about Barack Obama before launching another presidential campaign. Governor Huckabee is either ill-informed about President Obama's background or he is willfully repeating racially motivated political lies about the president to foster the idea that Barack Obama is something "other" than a real American.  As most people know, the president was born in Hawaii and grew up there.

I rise to defend the First Lady of the United States.

The political right - led by former half-term Governor Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh - are on the war path again against First Lady Michelle Obama.  They're attacking her efforts to reduce childhood obesity and political role within the White House in harsh personal terms.  Politico notes:

Obama’s admonishments on nutrition and advice on breastfeeding are examples of big government “nanny state” intrusion according to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.); her eating habits are evidence of her hypocrisy, according to Rush Limbaugh; her athletic physique is something to be lampooned on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website, which posted a cartoon showing her as overweight and eating a plate full of hamburgers.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee, a possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate who, unlike Palin, actually served out his terms as governor instead of quiting to write a book and make money, was 100% spot on when he said this week:

“She’s been criticized…out of reflex rather than out of thoughtful expression,” he said Wednesday at a session with reporters in Washington. “It’s exactly what Republicans say they believe, which is you put an emphasis on personal responsibility…I thought that’s what we were about.”

Michelle Obama is a wonderful first lady, a great role model for children, and a huge asset to her husband.  Her campaign to get kids to eat better - embraced by the United Church of Christ and many other religious bodies - not only will make a generation of children healthier but it will save tax payers tens of millions of dollars in health care costs (if not more over the long haul).  Our nation is fortunate to have her strong moral leadership in the White House working to protect America's children and also the families of U.S. troops serving overseas. 

The personal attacks against her are unworthy of our democracy and the civil society most Americans strive to build.  

President Obama today directed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending the indefensible: the so called "Defense of Marriage Act" which bars federal recognition of same sex marriages.  This was an act of moral courage on the part of the president - one what will cause some interesting legal debates - and that will further the cause of equality for all Americans.  As I've preached, discrimination against gays and lesbians is sinful and, as The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice anywhere.  The prohibition of gay marriage is the twin evil of the legal prohibition that not long ago existed that barred interracial marriages.  The General Synod of the United Church of Christ made history by becoming the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse full marriage equality in 2005.  The U.S. Department of Justice "will now take the position in court that the act should be struck down as a violation of same-sex couples’ rights to equal protection under the law," according to The New York Times.  This action on the part of the president moves our nation closer to being the Beloved Community.    

My latest op-ed on The Huffington Post:

House GOP Cuts are Theologically Immoral

President Obama was in Oregon today talking high tech jobs and education.  Liz and I felt quite fortunate to be among the 350 or so people to be invited to hear the president's remarks.

I have concerns about some of the president's budget proposals - concerns I outlined again today for an op-ed piece published on The Oregonian's website - but strongly concur with his commitment to public education.  

The Washington Post notes today that Republicans are calling for an array of cuts that the president cannot allow.  The GOP has plans to:

-Cut about $60 billion in spending from last year's levels in a wide swath of domestic programs, including education, environmental protection and community services.

-Block money to implement Obama's health care overhaul law enacted last year.

-Bar federal funds for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and family planning services with its hundreds of clinics across the U.S. The organization says 90 percent of the $363 million a year it receives in government aid comes from Washington or the federal-state Medicaid program.

-Eliminate federal family planning and teen pregnancy prevention grants.

-Block federal aid to overseas groups that provide abortions or counsel women about them.

-Cut the Social Security Administration, which the agency has warned might force it to furlough workers. Democrats say furloughs would slow the flow of benefits to program recipients, while Republicans say offices would not close and call such threats political fear-mongering.

-Prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing regulations curbing emissions of gases that cause global warming.

-Stop the Federal Communications Commission from preventing broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic on their networks.

-Reduce Pell Grants for lower-income college students by $5.6 billion, which the White House says would reduce the maximum $5,550 grant by $845.

-Cut $747 million in food aid for poor pregnant women and women with children up to the age of 5.

-Eliminate federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

-Halt financing for the Americorps national service program, which pays people to do public service jobs and encourages volunteerism.

-Limit this year's budget for the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to $80 million. It would also cut the budgets of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, charged with enforcing other parts of the financial overhaul law.

-Prevent the administration from enforcing a proposed rule making it harder for students at for-profit colleges to get federal loans and grants. Critics say the schools make huge profits while their students accumulate unusually large debts.

As I have already noted, further cuts to anti-poverty programs should be off the table.

The mood at the Intel event this morning was festive.  Besides Intel workers there were school children in the crowd along with many people that Liz and I both know and work with in various capacities.  

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber

Liz and METRO president Tom Hughes

When I had the chance to shake the president's hand I told him, as I have before, that I hold him in prayer.  He thanked me and asked that I continue.  "It works.  I know," he said.  

President Obama arrives in Oregon this morning.  Liz and I are scheduled to hear him speak at Intel.  This morning I have an op-ed on The Oregonian's website welcoming the president back and expressing my concerns about how his budget proposals - and the draconian ones proposed by the GOP - will impact those trying to escape poverty.  Click here to read it.

Press Release from Faith in Public Life

National Christian and Jewish leaders are sending a Valentine's Day message today to elected officials, responding to proposed budgets cuts that slash spending on critical, life-saving programs for women, children, and families. Their message: A budget that leaves out families is like a valentine that leaves out love.

Rabbi Steve Gutow, President and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Sr. Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; and Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, are rallying around three specific proposed cuts to programs that are critical to keeping families healthy.

These prominent national faith leaders are opposing cuts proposed by Congressional leaders to Community Health Centers, which provide primary health care to millions of low- and middle-income families in underserved communities; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which provides food assistance to low-income women and their children; and Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, which give low-income pregnant women, mothers and their children access to health care.

"As Americans celebrate Valentine's Day, vital programs that support families and the most vulnerable now face drastic budget cuts. Sound fiscal judgment makes perfect sense, but cutting the heart out of effective programs that help mothers, children and hard-working citizens is both cruel and misguided," said Sr. Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK. "House Republicans are attacking our nation's safety net at a time when millions are struggling to find work and put food on the table. This ideological assault undermines human dignity and the shared values that make our nation flourish. Both Congressional leaders and the Obama administration, which has proposed its own cuts to important programs, need to start showing real moral leadership to ensure that vulnerable families are protected during efforts to balance the budget."

Faith leaders, who have long advocated for health care and other vital assistance for poor and working-class families, expect moral leadership from our elected officials. As political leaders take on the challenge of tackling the deficit, the faith community is demanding solutions that don't unfairly target the most vulnerable members of our society.

On Valentine's Day, faith leaders hold their political leaders accountable for remembering families in need with the budget, just as love is a critical component of any valentine.

"As we observe a holiday that embodies love, millions of Americans struggle to find employment and afford health care for themselves and their loved ones. Particularly in rural and underserved communities, the hardships and unmet needs are immense," said Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Michael Kinnamon, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. "Draconian budget cuts that take away sorely needed investment in these communities are morally inexcusable, and cutting off resources today in low-income and rural communities will weaken our nation in the long run. Such policies are at best a penny-wise and pound-foolish approach to the challenges our nation faces."

It really has been amazing to watch the events in Egypt unfold as they have the last few weeks.  The last few days have been nothing short of dramatic.  Like most Americans, I feel a deep sense of amazement at the courage of the protesters and relief that the old regime has fallen.  

President Obama's words today were appropriate:    

The Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thislethwaite wrote today:

No dictator lasts forever, no lie is so big that somewhere, somehow the truth will not will out.

Today the arc of the moral universe just caught up with former President Mubarak of Egypt. Even up until the speech last night, apparently this longtime dictator would not or could not see the truth, that indeed no lie lives forever and indeed, eventually, people reap what they sow.

Scenes of jubilation erupted when the announcement by Vice President Omar Suleiman was broadcast in Cairo's Tahrir Square, "Egypt is free! Egypt is free!" they said. 

No, Egypt is not free, not yet. But it's much farther up the arc of the moral universe than it was last night.

My prayers continue to be with the people of Egypt.  Hopefully, today will be the beginning of real freedom for the people there.  

The new generation there lifted up the hope in the last few weeks that the world could be more free.  We owe them our respect.  

We're getting signs that President Obama's soon to be released budget will hurt those living in poverty.  The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama wants to cut $2.5 billion from a $5 billion home heating aid program for the poor, a person familiar with his 2012 budget proposal said Wednesday, halving the popular fund as he looks for places to rein in federal spending.

The proposal would cut the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to its 2008 level of about $2.5 billion.

The person discussed the details on condition of anonymity because Obama's spending outline has not been formally released. The White House plans to send the proposal to Congress on Monday. The plan is for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

Separately, House Republicans on Wednesday outlined a plan for $35 billion in immediate spending cuts that would practically eliminate the program's contingency fund. Republicans would cut $400 million from the $490 million fund.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., urged Obama not to cut the funding. He said more than 3 million families would lose assistance.

"I've always supported serious efforts to restore fiscal sanity, but in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens," Kerry said.

This isn't the first signal sent by the White House this week:

In Sunday's edition of The New York Times, Jacob Lew, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote that Obama will seek to pare 7.5 percent, or $300 million, from Community Development Block Grants in the budget he proposes next week.

Obama has said he is committed to reducing the country's projected $1.5 trillion deficit by cutting spending in many areas.

But city and county officials, still smarting from the 2007-09 economic recession that devastated municipal budgets, say lower grant amounts from the federal government will hurt their poorest citizens and they fear Obama will suggest deeper cuts.

"It is literally the lifeblood for creating affordable housing in Philadelphia," Michael Nutter, the city's mayor told Reuters, saying the program commonly called "CDBG" has helped get homeless people off the street and built up neighborhoods in the City of Brotherly Love.

"Everyone knows that it works. You will hear as much about it from Republican mayors as from Democrat mayors," he said.

The grants help finance housing, sewer, streets and economic development in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, Lew wrote. He added the Obama administration is "very aware of the financial difficulties" cities and counties face.

"CDBG funds provide immediate, direct, and tangible benefits to millions of Americans right where they live," said National Association of Counties Executive Director Larry Naake in a statement, calling Lew's proposal "alarming."

President Obama said in his State of the Union address last month that the budget shouldn't be balanced on the  "on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens."  He needs to keep that promise.

House Republicans have already released their budget proposals.  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes:

House Republican leaders announced yesterday the next steps in their plan to impose deep cuts in non-security discretionary (annually appropriated) programs.  Under the plan, non-security programs would shrink, on average, by 15.4 percent below current funding under the continuing resolution (which expires on March 4) and 19.4 percent below what President Obama proposed for fiscal year 2011.  Programs and activities that face the risk of such cuts include funding for K-12 education, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Centers for Disease Control, and food safety inspections, and a number of programs that serve low-income children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Their budget would increase poverty and suffering for millions.

Cutting programs for the poorest of the poor to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is a sin.  As U.S. religious leaders have argued, we need President Obama to forcefully articulate a different vision of what America should be.  Everyone understands the need to bring the deficit under control after the reckless economic policies of the last decade.  That being said, hurting those who are already suffering the most should not be an option.    

At Chicago Theological Seminary, I met Karen Mooney. Karen is an M.Div. student at Meadville Lombard Theological School. Karen has taken words from President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech and developed them into a chant, a classical form of religious music and expression. The words from our president (combined with Karen's music, voice and images from across the world) - particularly in the context of the crisis in Egypt and on-going war in Afghanistan - remind us that we are "not prisoners of fate. Our actions matter and can bend history in the direction of justice." Please share this video with your friends.

Whenever I advocate for a stronger government role in fighting poverty a few people (most of them well meaning, I assume) come back with some variation on this question:  why can't the churches just deal with the problem?  President Obama answered that question this morning at the National Prayer Breakfast:

...there are some needs that require more resources than faith groups have at their disposal.  There’s only so much a church can do to help all the families in need -- all those who need help making a mortgage payment, or avoiding foreclosure, or making sure their child can go to college.  There’s only so much that a nonprofit can do to help a community rebuild in the wake of disaster.  There’s only so much the private sector will do to help folks who are desperately sick get the care that they need. 

And that's why I continue to believe that in a caring and in a just society, government must have a role to play; that our values, our love and our charity must find expression not just in our families, not just in our places of work and our places of worship, but also in our government and in our politics.

The president also addressed in very personal terms how his faith guides his politics:

As I travel across the country folks often ask me what is it that I pray for.  And like most of you, my prayers sometimes are general:  Lord, give me the strength to meet the challenges of my office.  Sometimes they’re specific:  Lord, give me patience as I watch Malia go to her first dance -- (laughter) -- where there will be boys.  (Laughter.)  Lord, have that skirt get longer as she travels to that dance.  (Laughter.) 

But while I petition God for a whole range of things, there are a few common themes that do recur.  The first category of prayer comes out of the urgency of the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel itself.  I pray for my ability to help those who are struggling.  Christian tradition teaches that one day the world will be turned right side up and everything will return as it should be.  But until that day, we're called to work on behalf of a God that chose justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable.

We've seen a lot of hardship these past two years.  Not a day passes when I don't get a letter from somebody or meet someone who’s out of work or lost their home or without health care.  The story Randall told about his father -- that's a story that a whole lot of Americans have gone through over these past couple of years. 

Sometimes I can't help right away.  Sometimes what I can do to try to improve the economy or to curb foreclosures or to help deal with the health care system -- sometimes it seems so distant and so remote, so profoundly inadequate to the enormity of the need.  And it is my faith, then, that biblical injunction to serve the least of these, that keeps me going and that keeps me from being overwhelmed.  It’s faith that reminds me that despite being just one very imperfect man, I can still help whoever I can, however I can, wherever I can, for as long as I can, and that somehow God will buttress these efforts. 

It also helps to know that none of us are alone in answering this call.  It’s being taken up each and every day by so many of you -- back home, your churches, your temples and synagogues, your fellow congregants -- so many faith groups across this great country of ours...

 ...a second recurring theme in my prayers is a prayer for humility.  Now, God answered this prayer for me early on by having me marry Michelle.  (Laughter and applause.)  Because whether it’s reminding me of a chore undone, or questioning the wisdom of watching my third football game in a row on Sunday, she keeps me humble.  (Laughter.) 

     But in this life of politics when debates have become so bitterly polarized, and changes in the media lead so many of us just to listen to those who reinforce our existing biases, it’s useful to go back to Scripture to remind ourselves that none of has all the answers -- none of us, no matter what our political party or our station in life.  

The full breadth of human knowledge is like a grain of sand in God’s hands.  And there are some mysteries in this world we cannot fully comprehend.  As it’s written in Job, “God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways.  He does great things beyond our understandings.”

The challenge I find then is to balance this uncertainty, this humility, with the need to fight for deeply held convictions, to be open to other points of view but firm in our core principles.  And I pray for this wisdom every day.

I pray that God will show me and all of us the limits of our understanding, and open our ears and our hearts to our brothers and sisters with different points of view; that such reminders of our shared hopes and our shared dreams and our shared limitations as children of God will reveal the way forward that we can travel together.

And the last recurring theme, one that binds all prayers together, is that I might walk closer with God and make that walk my first and most important task.

In our own lives it’s easy to be consumed by our daily worries and our daily concerns.  And it is even easier at a time when everybody is busy, everybody is stressed, and everybody -- our culture is obsessed with wealth and power and celebrity.  And often it takes a brush with hardship or tragedy to shake us out of that, to remind us of what matters most. 

We see an aging parent wither under a long illness, or we lose a daughter or a husband in Afghanistan, we watch a gunman open fire in a supermarket -- and we remember how fleeting life can be.  And we ask ourselves how have we treated others, whether we’ve told our family and friends how much we love them.  And it’s in these moments, when we feel most intensely our mortality and our own flaws and the sins of the world, that we most desperately seek to touch the face of God. 

The president's personal testimony of faith was appropriate considering his faith continues to come under attack by political partisans and his comments on the role of church and state in the work to fight poverty were spot on. The president should be congratulated for a fine speech.

As the world watches events unfold in Egypt, the World Council of Churches has issued the following statement:

The World Council of Churches is following the situation in Egypt with great concern.  Member churches in all parts of the world are praying for the people of Egypt.  There are disturbing reports of increasing numbers of people being killed, of assaults and threats and of many living in fear.  Our hopes and prayers are for the safety of citizens, for wisdom and compassion on the part of the authorities and for a non-violent and just resolution of conflicts and grievances. 

We call for peaceful dialogue and joint efforts at every level of society to find the way forward to a future that brings hope and security for the good of all people and communities.

We pray to God for mercy and protection for the Egyptian people and for all religious communities, and we are standing together with the churches in these challenging times.

President Obama is right to call for President Mubarak's transition from power to begin now - not September, as President Mubarak has suggested.  I believe, however, that the U.S. must go further in light of today's violent acts against peaceful protesters.  All U.S. military aid to Mubarak's government should be immediately suspended.

Let all people of faith - regardless of nationality or religious tradition - keep the people of Egypt in our prayers. 

Barbara Bush, the daughter of former President George W. Bush, is coming out in favor of marriage equality.  The walls of injustice are tumbling down for gay and lesbian Americans and that makes us all more free.  

Ms. Bush joins her mother Laura Bush (a good United Methodist), Cindy McCain (Baptist) and former Vice-President Dick Cheney (possible practitioner of the Dark Side of the Force) among prominent Republicans who have endorsed legal marriage for gays and lesbians.  

President Obama, who says he feelings on this issue are "evolving" should stop following and start leading on this issue.  

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the denomination in which President Obama first became a Christian, endorsed marriage equality in 2005.  That made the UCC the first mainline Christian church to take such a stand (similar to one the UCC took in the 1960s to end the legal ban on interracial marriages that the Religious Right at the time so strongly backed).

And now for a musical interlude:    

And let's end with a sermon (as I am a pastor):

It Is Good: Family & Community In The Tradition Of Jesus (A Sermon For Pride Sunday)

A Florida judge ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional today.  Several other judges have upheld the law.  The Affordable Care Act was strongly support by religious leaders across the United States.  Today the White House's Stephanie Cutter explained in a White House blog post what this all means as conservative activists and politicians try and keep Americans from getting the medical care they need: 

Today, a judge in Florida issued a decision in a case filed by 25 Republican Attorneys General and Governors striking down the Affordable Care Act.   This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion.   Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law.   In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law.  

Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching.   The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain.  And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision.  This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has  consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk.

Under today’s view of the law, seniors will pay higher prices for their prescription drugs and small businesses will pay higher taxes because small business tax credits would be eliminated. And the new provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying, capping or limiting your care would be wiped away.

We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.

History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act -- were all filed and all failed. And contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.

Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market.  As Congress found, every year millions of people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, shifting tens of billions of dollars in added cost onto those who have insurance and onto taxpayers.   There can be no doubt that this activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and Congress has the power to regulate it. 

The Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone, if they can afford it, to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for. For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, their insurance premiums will decrease over time.  Many of those who are currently struggling to pay for insurance will get a new tax credit. Only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it. Because most people would voluntarily purchase coverage as it becomes more affordable and the policy exempts those for whom purchase would cause a financial hardship, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016.  

The Affordable Care Act also bans insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.   However, unless every American is required to have insurance, it would be cost prohibitive to cover people with pre-existing conditions. 

Here’s why:  If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for insurance – especially those who have health problems and are potentially more expensive to cover – then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can’t say no.  That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care spending nationwide. 

We don’t let people wait until after they’ve been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don’t want to do that with healthcare.  If we’re going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance.  

Two federal courts and more than 100 constitutional scholars agree with these arguments. And representatives from important organizations like the American Cancer Society Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Hospital Association and the American Nurses Association have all filed amicus briefs in similar cases supporting the Administration’s position. Event President Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried has written, “the health care law’s enemies have no ally in the Constitution.”

In the end, we’re confident our arguments will carry the day and the health reform law will continue to make the health care system stronger for all of us.

Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Advisor.

The State Of The Union: A Christian Response To President Obama

A White House official said tonight that just because an issue didn't get mentioned in the State of the Union Address doesn't mean the president doesn't care about it.  The National Council of Churches, representing over 45 million U.S. Christians, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism - along with other people of faith - asked that the president use tonight's address to re-affirm his campaign commitment to offer up plans to cut poverty in half by 50% over ten years.  That didn't happen.  Does this mean poverty isn't on the president's agenda?  Of course not.   

I'm disappointed that President Obama didn't lift up the needs of the nearly 47 million Americans living in poverty but know that action speaks louder than words and that the president's Recovery Act and the Affordable Health Care Act have kept millions from falling into poverty during the Great Recession and helped tens of millions more from falling deeper into poverty.  No one should doubt the president's sincerity on this important moral issue.

At the same time, the president needs to take a more public role in addressing the issue of poverty.  "We can't allow this kind of suffering and hopelessness to exist in our country. We can't afford to lose a generation of tomorrow's doctors and scientists and teachers to poverty. We can make excuses for it or we can fight about it or we can ignore poverty altogether, but as long as it's here it will always be a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans. It's not who we are," said candidate Barack Obama in 2007.  He was right then and we need his voice now more than ever. 

Church leaders wrote to the president earlier this month that: "There is no greater concern among the churches of Christ than for those in this nation who live in poverty. This could hardly be otherwise because Jesus himself lived among the poor: loving them, eating and drinking with them, healing them, and speaking words of justice and assurance that God's own love for the poor is unsurpassed." 

And so, people of faith regardless of party should support the president's economic policies - particularly around education, innovation and health care- because these goals all advance the fight against poverty.  Tonight the president also said, unfortunately, that his budget will include "cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs."  We'll have to fight those cuts because they will hurt the most vulnerable, which would violate the president's stated goal tonight of making sure the budget was not balanced "on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens."  As the Half In Ten Campaign notes, some members of Congress have proposed even deeper cuts in anti-poverty efforts.  That cannot be allowed and we must use our voices and our pulpits to demand a better America for every child.

We must also work with the president to end the unneeded tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  These tax cuts add to the deficit and create added pressure to cut important domestic programs.  In short, we're giving away money to the richest of the rich and taking it away from those Jesus called the "least of these."   

Why is it important to set a goal in this area?  If President Kennedy had said that "one day America should go to the moon" it never would have happened.  Today, we need President Obama to give hope to the tens millions of Americans who through no fault of their own have fallen into poverty during the worst economic period since the Great Depression by offering a road map with a time table to cut poverty dramatically.  No one should live a third world life in a first world nation. 

There were other issues that the president addressed in which America's faith community can find common cause. 

We should congratulate the president and bi-partisan leaders  in the U.S. Senate for finally passing the New Start Treaty which, as the president noted tonight, means that "far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists." 

And faith leaders that disagree on important issue like abortion - Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, members of the United Church of Christ and other mainline churches - all support the president's call for immigration reform. 

Certainly, we've witnessed a growing consensus between Roman Catholics, mainline Christians, and evangelicals (along with other people of faith) over the need to protect our environment.  Supporting the president's goals for cleaner energy will make sense to most people of faith. 

As for the issue of poverty, I've already reached out to the White House and asked that the president find a venue of some importance to more fully articulate his vision for a better America where poverty declines instead of grows.  As the leaders of the National Council of Churches told the president recently, "this is a very ambitious goal and there are far too many politicians in this nation who might not take the risk or pursuing it without the strong advocacy of the President. But as you renew this commitment, be assured that we stand with you and that you have the support and prayers of all 37 member communions of the National Council of Churches."  As the president has already demonstrated through the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act, he cares about those living in poverty.  We know that.  But to reduce poverty we need more.  We need the president's leadership and passionate voice fighting for an America where equality means that no one goes hungry or lives in homelessness.  Only then can we truly say that state of our Union is strong.          

President Obama, as The New York Times reports, marked the anniversary of Roe vs Wade today:

President Obama reaffirmed his support for abortion rights on Saturday, the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established a woman’s right to an abortion.

“I am committed to protecting this constitutional right,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”

Mr. Obama, the father of two young daughters, called on Americans to “recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Mr. Obama said the 1973 Supreme Court ruling “affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

Anti-choice forces are confident that they are winning a battle to restrict reproductive choices available to women, including abortion, and they have reason for their confidence.  The 2010 elections brought numerous victories for those who believe government should make reproductive choices for women and anti-choice organizations are gloating.

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice also offered a statement noting the anniversary of this historic Supreme Court decision:

Washington, DC - On the 38th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, women’s access to abortion services faces an unprecedented barrier. While the nation moves forward to expand health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, women’s reproductive health care is being bargained away by federal and state legislators working in tandem with Religious Right organizations. Their target is the removal of abortion coverage from the insurance exchanges - the insurance marketplaces being formed by individual states. With more than 80 percent of insurers now covering abortion, the potential loss of coverage in the exchanges will affectmillions of women in both public and private insurance plans.

Coverage for abortion was a bargaining chip in congressional negotiations over the health care bill. In an unconscionable deal, extremists demanded that coverage for abortion - a key part of women's lifetime reproductive health services - be restricted before voting to pass the bill. Singling out abortion – and treating it differently from all other health services – was a shameful political calculation that we must work to correct at the state level. Already, five states have passed legislation banning insurance companies from covering abortion services in the exchanges, and legislation is being introduced in other states daily.

RCRC today launched an interfaith social justice campaign - Insure Women, Ensure our Future – for full coverage of abortion services in the insurance exchanges. We act as people of faith whose strong family values are rooted in our diverse traditions and who believe that women’s lives are sacred, as are all lives, and must be protected. Guided by compassion and our commitment to a more just world, we hold that women deserve safe medical care throughout their lives, including abortion services if and when necessary, both for their own health and for the well-being of their families.

We appeal to state insurance officials, commercial insurers, health care providers, legislators and other concerned individuals to protect access to the full range of reproductive health care – including abortion, birth control and contraception, and pre- and post-natal care. Going backward, to a time when women lacked rights and access, is not an option.

It will be important for pro-choice advocates to work harder then at almost any point since 1973 to make sure that women don't lose their right to make their own health care decisions.

Like many churches and religious groups, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has offered support for reproductive choice:

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.  

There are many justice issues related to reproductive health, including access to pre- and postnatal care for all women, equal access to the full range of legal reproductive health services  including abortion, the right of women to determine when, if and how many children she should  have, access to emergency contraception and other family planning services and information, the  right not to be sterilized against one’s wishes, and the ability of women to negotiate safe sexual  practices and non-coercive sexual experiences.

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 it has supported comprehensive  sexuality education as one measure to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and to create  healthy and responsible sexual persons and relationships.  (General Synods VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XVI, XVII, and XVIII)  

A 1987 resolution adopted by the General Synod of the United Church of Christ resolved that the national setting of the UCC:

• affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;
• encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies  to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or  releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;  
• upholds the right of men and women to have access  to adequately funded family planning services, and  to safe, legal abortions as one option among others;
• urges the United Church of Christ, at all levels, to  provide educational resources and programs to persons, especially young persons, to help reduce  the incidence of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and to encourage responsible  approaches to sexual behavior.

We should undertake our advocacy on this issue with prayer and humility.  We should acknowledge despite our strong difference of opinion on this issue that for many of our opponents they act not out of malice but with genuine concern.  Some anti-choice opponents may not act out of good faith and may continue to hurl hate and venom at those who are pro-choice but we should ignore such rhetoric and focus our attention on the battle to protect the gains made by the Roe vs. Wade decision a generation ago.  When possible we should seek to find common ground with those we disagree with on this difficult issue.  As President Obama said today, we must "recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

My blog post - President Obama Should Outline Plan to Reduce Poverty By Half - is up on The Huffington Post today. Check it out, share it on Facebook, Twitter, etc. and leave a comment. 

For a year now I've been campaigning to get President Obama to talk about poverty in his upcoming State of the Union address.  As a candidate, Barack Obama made a commitment to offer up plans to reduce poverty by 50% over ten years.  But then he inherited an economic nightmare.  Poverty rates skyrocketed along with unemployment and hunger.  

The good news is that President Obama never gave up the fight and through the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act (health care reform) he kept millions more from falling into even deeper poverty.  Even the tax compromise with the GOP that was reached before Christmas includes anti-poverty measures that will help lift more Americans out of poverty.  President Obama has earned his stripes as an anti-poverty advocate time and time again.

None-the-less, 43.6 million Americans lived in poverty last year.  That is morally unacceptable.  Congress - insisting on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that in turn drive up the deficit - are calling for reductions in anti-poverty programs to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy.  In all honesty, we can expect to see poverty grow and more people suffer in the long-term. This week the deep poverty in America drove religious leaders to write this message to President Obama:

We who lead the member communions of the National Council of Churches believe it is time for you to renew the pledge you made during the campaign to cut poverty in half in the next decade. We ask that you use the influence of your office to assure those living in poverty that this nation has not forgotten them.

Mr. President, we urge you to renew this pledge like a clarion call in the 2011 State of the Union Message.

As you have noted, this is a very ambitious goal and there are far too many politicians in this nation who might not take the risk or pursuing it without the strong advocacy of the President. But as you renew this commitment, be assured that we stand with you and that you have the support and prayers of all 37 member communions of the National Council of Churches.

The New York Times also issued a call for the president to more forcefully address the issue of poverty:

With 14.5 million people still out of work, and more than 6 million of them jobless for more than six months, reducing federal help now will almost ensure more poverty later. That would impose an even higher cost on the economy and budget because ever poorer households cannot spend and consume.

We know it goes against the prevailing rhetoric to argue that more and better government policies are still needed to repair the economy. It is also unpopular to argue that programs that have succeeded for decades in reducing poverty, like Social Security, need to be preserved even as they are retooled for the 21st century. To do otherwise is to deny the evidence.

President Obama must explain to the American people that the country needs to continue relief and recovery efforts, especially programs to create jobs. Without that, tens of millions of Americans stuck in poverty will have little hope of climbing out — and many more could join their ranks.

I'm praying this week that President Obama uses the State of the Union to re-affirm his commitment to cut poverty in half with specific proposals. In doing so he will offer hope to tens of millions of Americans who are struggling in unimaginable ways.  

I'd bet that raising the issue of poverty in America is the last thing political professionals would advise any president.  But I'm placing my hope in President Obama himself and the staff at the White House who I know from experience care deeply and passionately about this issue.  Lifting up the needs of those living in poverty, particularly children, should be an issue beyond political considerations. 

Visit the Half In Ten Campaign to learn more about the fight to reduce poverty.

The GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted today to repeal the historic health care reforms passed by the last Congress and signed into law by President Obama.  The repeal has no chance in the U.S Senate and even if it did President Obama has said he would veto the bill.

This was just a day about politics as usual in Congress but it also tells us something about the values of those now leading the House.  As my friend U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer noted today, repeal would mean:

• Children with pre-existing conditions will again be denied coverage and families will again have devastating annual and lifetime caps;
• Middle class Americans will lose the tax breaks that help millions of families and small businesses pay for coverage.
• Seniors will see their prescription drug costs rise again when the donut hole is reinstated.
• The federal deficit will increase by $230 billion over the next ten years and by more than $1.2 trillion in the following decade
• And the Republican proposal would simply give everyone under 55 a voucher and involve them in a serious experiment in personal sacrifice by arbitrarily cutting the value of care without any regard to quality or cost increases

Thankfully, the Senate and the White House are there as a firewall to stop ideas like this from advancing.  Leaders from America's faith community - like the National Council of Churches - fought hard for passage of healthcare reform and spoke out strongly against the repeal vote held today.  

As President Obama welcomed Chinese President Hu to the White House the U.S. president brought up the always touchy subject of human rights:

The United States welcomes China’s rise as a strong, prosperous and successful member of the community of nations.  Indeed, China’s success has brought with it economic benefits for our people as well as yours, and our cooperation on a range of issues has helped advance stability in the Asia Pacific and in the world. 
 
We also know this:  History shows that societies are more harmonious, nations are more successful, and the world is more just, when the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all people are upheld, including the universal rights of every human being.

Some are saying that in raising the issue of human rights with China the U.S. risks an important relationship.

But morality demands that human rights be at the center of any political or economic engagement strategy with China.  As Human Rights Watch notes:

(Washington, DC) - The Chinese government has failed to deliver on commitments in its first-ever National Human Rights Action Plan (2009-2010) to protect key civil and political rights over the past two years, Human Rights Watch said today.

The 67-page report, "Promises Unfulfilled: An Assessment of China's National Human Rights Action Plan," details how despite the Chinese government's progress in protection of some economic and social rights, it has undermined many of the key goals of the National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) by tightening restrictions on rights of expression, association, and assembly over the past two years. The report highlights how that rollback of key civil and political rights enabled rather than reduced a host of human rights abuses specifically addressed in the NHRAP. 

"If this plan had been vigorously pursued - and had not been accompanied by a slew of government-tolerated abuses - it could have marked a real change in the Chinese government's human rights performance," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "But the government's failure to implement the Action Plan makes clear it is more of a public relations exercise than a meaningful tool for protecting and promoting human rights for the people of China."

We have a clear obligation to make human rights a center piece of our foreign policy.  Unfortunately, both Republican and Democratic administrations (including this one) have often put economic interests ahead of human rights.

President Obama should be applauded for his comments today.  

Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort from the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. 

Let us be dissatisfied until those who live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security. 

Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family will live in a decent, sanitary home.

- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (Where Do We Go From Here?, 1967) 

Honoring The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shouldn't be just about service projects - though service to others is an essential part of moral character.

To truly honor Dr. King we should seek to continue his ministry of justice and transformation.  

One way we can do that is to continue the struggle to end poverty.  The National Council of Churches is calling on President Obama to re-affirm his commitment to outline plans for reducing poverty by 50% over the next ten years, a  promise made during the 2008 campaign.  You can join churches in calling on our president to keep this important promise by clicking here.  There could be no greater tribute to Dr. King than continuing his last crusade - the fight against poverty.

Related Link:  Letter to President Obama regarding poverty in the United States.

Photo credit:  Life, Paul Schutzer.  Portrait of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking at 'prayer pilgramage for freedom' at Lincoln Memorial, 1957.    

President Obama challenged the nation tonight at a memorial for the victims of the Tucson massacre to unite with common purpose to build a better America:

If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. It should be because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.

I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here – they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.

Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.” On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life. “I hope you help those in need,” read one. “I hope you know all of the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart. I hope you jump in rain puddles.”

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in restful and eternal peace. May He love and watch over the survivors. And may He bless the United States of America.

The President's words lifted up a vision for us of America as it should be. When President Obama speaks of the reconciliation needed in our nation today we hear an agenda that should be shared by all - regardless of politics. There is too much violence in society today - too much anger in our politics - but we know we are better than this. Our nation is still a great nation. We need to live that out by becoming better neighbors - by being our brothers keeper, our sisters keeper - and working with intention to build a stronger national community.

Photo Credit:  President Barack Obama hugs members of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ staff at the University of Arizona’s McKale Memorial Center in Tucson, Ariz., Jan. 12, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

This morning those of us here today at Chicago Theological Seminary - at the urging of President Obama - joined people across the nation in a moment of silence for those injured in the Arizona shooting. (Photo credit: White House)

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

This afternoon I joined a White House conference call with Stephanie Cutter and others to discuss the Affordable Care Act - the health care reform package pushed forward by President Obama and supported by the National Council of Churches and other religious leaders - that the U.S. House will consider repealing next week.  

What would happen if reform was repealed?  Cutter wrote today on the White House website:

Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the economy has created over 1 million private sector jobs.  The unemployment rate is 9.4%, lower than it was in March 2010—9.7%. 

In the period during and right after the enactment of the law, the economy grew by 2.7%.

Consumer confidence in a range of areas have improved, including retail and food sales by 4%, and auto sales by 7% since the enactment of the law.

Slowing the growth of health care costs—as the Affordable Care Act does—will have the likely impact of creating more jobs since businesses will have to spend less on health care for their employees.  This reduction could create more than 300,000 additional jobs. 

The law widely expands coverage to Americans, thereby reducing the hidden tax of about $1,000 that families with insurance pay each year in additional premium costs to cover the uncompensated costs of the uninsured. 

The law reduces small businesses’ health care expenses by giving them $40 billion worth of tax credits,and through the creation of new, competitive state-based insurance Exchanges.  Exchanges will enable individuals and small businesses to pool together and use their market strength to buy coverage at a lower cost, the same way large employers do today, giving them the freedom to launch their own companies without worrying whether health care will be available when they need it.

The law will lower the deficit by over $100 billion this decade and by over $1 trillion in the following decade.

It is important that people write their members of Congress today in support of the Affordable Care Act.  Repeal would cause over 30 million Americans to lose their health care coverage, would increase private insurance costs, and add over $200 billion to the budget deficit, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. 

The GOP's #1 legislative goal is the repeal of President Obama's health care reform that passed during the last Congress. A new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows such a repeal would drive up the deficit and cost over 30 million Americans their insurance:

Rescinding the federal law to overhaul the health care system, the first objective of House Republicans who ascended to power this week, would ratchet up the federal deficit by about $230 billion over the next decade and leave 32 million more Americans uninsured, according to congressional budget analysts. The rough estimate by the Congressional Budget Office also predicts that most Americans would pay more for private health insurance if the law were repealed. The 10-page forecast was delivered to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), installed a day earlier to shepherd the new GOP majority. He immediately dismissed it.

Full story.

The reforms passed by the last Congress were strongly supported by U.S. religious leaders - including the National Council of Churches. Health care reform was perhaps the most significant moral victory in American politics since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Speaker Boehner is engaged in what George H.W. Bush once called "voodoo economics." Repealing the health care reforms championed by President Obama would further crush the economy and hurt millions of American families.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad