Unfortunately for Ms. Rice, followers of God are not allowed to pick and choose

“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.”

via LA Times.

Ms. Rice comes at Christianity from her Catholic persuasion and I agree with some of her criticisms.

And some also depends on what she means by “anti”.

For example, I believe Democrats are wrong most of the time on most issues. Does that make me “anti?” If so, oh well. In fact the terminology confuses me.

Which makes me think she’s confused.

Inserting religion into politics

I wrote the title purposely. It’s bound to get people’s dander up.

I probably could have written “Religious values and politics” and increased folks’ blood pressure just as much.

“Moral values and politics” may have been a little more acceptable.

So how about “Values and politics?”

Am I far off base here? Don’t we all have values? Don’t we want to see all Americans embrace those values?

Isn’t equality for all men a value? Isn’t honesty a value? Try this list:

“…care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness.”

Not bad. And that was a liberal.

Aren’t all of our laws an expression of values? Don’t we all hold certain actions to be right or wrong? We may not agree on the rightness or wrongness, but I think we all have actions we consider right or wrong.

And we all express our approval or disapproval of actions.

If you approve of smoking, you contend it’s freedom of choice. If you disapprove, it’s because it’s a health hazard.

See how it works? Even though we might disagree when it comes to defining values above, most of us could agree with them. So when he says conservatives don’t have those values, is he a “hater?” Is it wrong to now express disagreement based on values?

That seems to be what happens when religious conservatives express disapproval of a lifestyle or choices made by a group of people. We’re “haters.”

Now I agree that religious conservatives haven’t always been smart or convincing in their expression of their values. But does that mean they’re “haters?”

Because I think homosexuality is wrong, it doesn’t mean I hate anyone. I disagree with their lifestyle choices (yes, you read that right, choices) same as I would anyone else’s lifestyle choices. I don’t hate anyone I haven’t met, for one, and you would have to do a lot to make me hate you, like kill one of my kids or something.

I don’t hate them, but I could be called a “hater.” I don’t fear them, but I could be called a “homophobe.”

Substitute any thing else you like.

Well, I didn’t want to go on this long about this because I really wanted to talk about what Mitch Daniels said and the repercussions of it. Because after this post some folks may then be surprised how I feel on the subject.

Maybe in the next post….

“How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?”

Jim Wallis, of Sojourners and the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It which I reviewed awhile back (There is no link anymore, once again thanks to Google), wrote a post simultaneously posted on Huffington Post and God’s Politics on the Tea Party.

I can agree with Jim Wallis on some things, but on most things I would disagree. From this article, it doesn’t appear as though Mr. Wallis knows what the Tea Party is.

This comes out immediately in the title. Mr. Wallis links Tea Parties with libertarianism. My sense is that there are some Tea Partiers that are libertarian there are some who are not libertarian, mostly Republican with a few independents and even Democrats. That’s not to say that libertarianism is not an undercurrent as he points out has been evident in the Republican Party.

I hold some viewpoints in common with libertarianism, but I’m not libertarian.

Painting with a broad brush necessitates making some points that aren’t true for the whole. And instead of looking at the Tea Partiers, Wallis seems to be rebutting libertarianism, or those things that Tea Partiers believe that are the same as what libertarians believe. those points Wallis contends are:

1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue.

Not so. Although perhaps not a virtue, individual choice is the foundation of Christianity. We come to Christ by our individual choice. We are exhorted to live Christ-like in this world, but are not forced to do so. We are our brother’s keeper, but again that’s a choice we make as the Holy Spirit directs us, not one that the government, or anyone else can coerce us to do.

Wallis tries to prove his point by going to the Old Testament prophets, but we must remember that Israel was God’s people on earth, something only a Christian dominionist might contend today. God’s People on earth should exemplify these characteristics, but all political parties fall short here.

2. An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical.

Mr. Wallis erects somewhat of a straw man here, as he says later, “Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to ‘big’ or ‘small’ government.” I think that’s what the discussion IS about as I believe wanting to get rid of all government is called anarchy. And I think most clear thinking Tea Partiers and Libertarians would concede some taxes are necessary. They just think taxes are too high.

He then puts on his rose colored glasses and states, “a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration.” Apparently he and I are not examining the same government. Eminent domain, police abuse, bureaucratic malfeasance seems pretty common.

3. The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.

This might be the area I agree with most and it’s not limited to libertarians; many conservatives feel the same way. In a previous post I thought aloud about some things concerning government regulation. Wallis gave me this food for thought:

Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn’t a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism…”

Some would argue we were fine for hundreds or thousands of years without government regulation, but I’m not sure that’s a valid argument. Others have argued that regulation is the cause of some of these problems.

4. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian.

He shows his hand with this sentence:

“[P]rivate charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion.”

There you have it. Jim Wallis’s position as succinctly as you can get it. Private charity is not enough. We have to redistribute wealth by government decree.

And here, oddly enough, is where Wallis could possibly come closest to agreeing with conservatives and libertarians.

“When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.”

The system could be construed as being the government in some arguments.

5. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. …would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office?

This is his big finish? To answer the second question first, who knows? McCain was not that popular among conservatives or libertarians, so maybe, maybe not. And it’s hard for me to label a whole movement racist when there are African-Americans at the rallies, although no doubt as Wallis says, there are probably some racists attached to the movement. We even have an African-American writer taking the libertarian side on The Civil Rights Act (though most African-Americans would no doubt dispute that he is a valid speaker for the African-American community)!

It seems as though Mr. Wallis needs to learn some more about the Tea Partiers as part of his “dialogue.”

<a href=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060834471?ie=UTF8&tag=musingsofatho-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0060834471″>God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It</a><img src=”http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=musingsofatho-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0060834471″ width=”1″ height=”1″ border=”0″ alt=”" style=”border:none !important; margin:0px !important;” />

National Day of Prayer

[Ed. note--This would have been part of one of the columns I would have submitted to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.]

As a Christian and a conservative, stories like this from the April 17 Journal Sentinel always catch my eye.

A Wisconsin federal judge on Thursday found the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, saying it violates the First Amendment prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin was a victory for the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Since then the group also wants to expand the prohibition to holidays like Good Friday.

Now since I am a Christian, you would think that I would be dismayed by this decision. You would be wrong. It doesn’t concern me that much at all.

The reason is simple: I don’t need the government proclaiming a day of prayer for me to pray. I don’t need the government declaring a holiday for it to be a holiday. I don’t need an amendment to pray in school. I don’t need a tax deduction to contribute to worthy causes.

So am I not troubled by this? Am I not concerned by the erosion of morality in the country?

Certainly. I remember the 50′s and 60′s and while certainly far from perfect, America was a much nicer place to live in than now. And while one can never go back, it would be great to capture part of that time today.

Is it because I don’t believe America should pray and exercise religion more?

Not at all, but that’s a matter for the individual, not something that can be legislated or proclaimed by the state. Nor anything that should be.

But if America, and especially America’s Christians, needs proclamations and legislation and a favorable environment for Christianity to be great, then we’ve missed the message of the Bible.

I’m not a judge, nor a constitutional lawyer, but I know establishment of religion when I see it.

This is not a decision against prayer, nor a decision against prayer for the government. I pray for my government and its leaders every day. I don’t need a proclamation for that.

It’s a decision to keep government out of places they don’t belong.

And I’m always for that.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Recently, I took the tour of The Dead Sea Scrolls at the Milwaukee Public Museum.

Being a Bible geek, I found it utterly fascinating. That ancient writings could survive so long is amazing.

That they would agree so much with manuscripts that date from much later is miraculous.

It’s a tad pricey at $26, but you do get a museum admission also. If you’re a member it’s much cheaper.

Robertson, Rush, Danny Glover and the National Alliance for Liberty and Freedom

What do these four have in common? They said some things about Haiti that brought derision and rightly so. [Ed. note - any bolding below is my own]

First Pat Robertson,

Pat Robertson, the evangelical Christian who once suggested God was punishing Americans with Hurricane Katrina, says a “pact to the devil” brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti.

…

The Haitians “were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever,” Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. “And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’ “

Besides being mean and hurtful, it shows Robertson’s lack of Biblical knowledge. Any one who has even a cursory knowledge of Scripture knows that sometimes good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.

There’s another problem. It may not be true.

Part of the revolution mythology is that one of the revolution leaders sacrificed a pig in Bois Caïmin in a voodoo ceremony and made a contract with Petwo [Haitian voodoo spirits]. It may or may not be true, but to call that a pact with the devil is a gross misrepresentation of what voodoo is. It’s about anything but the devil. He’s imposing an evangelical religious order on a much more sophisticated practice, and he’s turning it into a cheap invocation of Satanism.

Some evangelicals, especially the charismatics, of which Robertson is one, would contend that these types of ceremonies are a pact with Satan.

Robertson’s spokeman denied that Robertson claimed God was punishing Haiti,

Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.

The only versions of the statement I saw was on YouTube which is blocked on my network so you’ll have to make your own decision.

Here’s my point: If Harry Reid can be forgiven an insensitive remark because of his years of action, why can’t Robertson’s insensitive remarks be forgiven for the same reason?

On to Rush:

Rush Limbaugh is not backing down from his claim that President Barack Obama is trying to score political points off the earthquake in Haiti.

Challenged by a caller during his show Thursday, Limbaugh said: “If I said it, I meant to say it, and I do believe that everything is political to this president.”

“Everything this president sees is a political opportunity, including Haiti, and he will use it to burnish his credentials with minorities in this country and around the world, and to accuse Republicans of having no compassion,” Limbaugh said in comments flagged by the liberal blog Think Progress. [links were already in the article linked to]

I take Rush with a grain of salt whenever I get the rare chance of listening to him. He says outlandish things. He says them to gain listeners. Listeners bring him money. If people don’t know that by now….

And the fact that a politician would do something for political gain is shocking! Shocking I tell you.

I think it was the wrong time to say it, but Rush really doesn’t care what I think.

Danny Glover, in contrast with Robertson, believes the earthquake was caused by global warming.

“What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming,” Glover said. “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

Um, no, Mr. Glover, we don’t.

Finally, there is a petition circulating online, purportedly by “National Alliance for Liberty and Freedom, a coalition of national libertarian, tea party, objectivist, and Ayn Rand groups and written by Glenn Adamson (glennadamson78@yahoo.com)”. This petition wanted no public funds to go to help Haiti earthquake victims.

Who is this organization? A Google search only brought me back to the petition and some interesting tweets,

First – @owillis that petition looks fake … who is Glenn Adamson and the “national alliance for liberty and freedom”?

Second –  @velvethammer [commetator Alan?] Colmes is blaming Freedom Works for a petition that clearly says it was written by “National Alliance for Liberty and Freedom”

Last – Hey [MSNBC's Rachel] @maddow does The National Alliance for Liberty and Freedom exist? regarding Haiti petition by “Glenn Adamson” can’t find them on web.

Who is Glenn Adamson? An email to the address on the petition has brought no response thus far. Another Google search only gave me hits for an arts writer, or posts about this petition

So I regard this petition as fake until someone can give me some information on the organization and the author.

There.