I have consistently said that Christians' first loyalty should not be to any nation, political party, or cause, but to God and the Rule of God.Â I am a registered member of the Democratic Party by default: my political philosophy is closer to the Greens, but we need real electoral reform before 3rd parties can be effective in the U.S. system.Â But I am a frustrated Democrat.Â In the past week, I have gone from moments of pride in my Party to moments of profound embarrassment and shame–often on the same day.
Reasons for Democrats to hold our heads high:
- WE have consistently attended all minority fora and have tried to give more than lip service to racial/ethnic diversity in the party and to working for racial/ethnic equality in the country.Â You haven't seen Univision forced to cancel any Democratic debates before a Latino audience. (Univision had to cancel such a forum for the GOP because only John McCain showed up.) You haven't seen 4 empty podiums at any Democratic forum at a historic black university as happened this week for the GOP since the 4 GOP frontrunners (Giuilani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson) all had "scheduling conflicts." Fmr. Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) had it right when he said, that he was embarrassed for the nation, his party, and for the 4 no-shows.Â Question: If Republican voters nominate one of those no-shows, does this mean they believe they can ignore non-white voters?
- At the New Hampshire Democratic debate earlier this week, I was thrilled that when Tim Russert gave the standard "ticking time bomb" scenario (so beloved by Jack Bauer fans), NONE of the Eight Democratic Presidential candidates would use that scenario to justify torture.Â What a contrast: When that same question was handed to the Republican candidates earlier in the year, only John McCain–once tortured as a POW–refused to justify torture.Â What a great contrast!
- Only 4 House Democrats voted against the expansion of S-CHIP. Every Senate Democrat voted to expand S-CHIP.Â Â This was a bi-partisan bill (indeed, the program was started by Republicans during the Clinton era!), but enough Republicans in the House voted with Bush's compassionless conservatism to keep it from being vulnerable to Bush's veto.
Reasons to be embarrassed to be a Democrat:
- The Democratic leadership in Congress has not used its full muscle to end the war in Iraq.Â It could refuse to pass any appropriations bill that doesn't include a rapid timetable for withdrawal. Without appropriations, one has to bring the troops home anyway.Â The Senate could make the GOP really filibuster and thus have to defend their votes against ending the war –as they are caught on camera.Â They could impeach Bush and Cheney.Â They could subpoena records on all war contracts and investigate and prosecute the war profiteers, beginning with Blackwater and Haliburton.Â They could stop this war if they were serious.
- That the leadership of the Senate and House even allowed the stupid "let's condemn a newspaper ad" resolutions even get to the floor shows an inability to play hardball on things that matter.
- Passage of the Kyl-Liebermann amendment, even after it was stripped of its most egregious language, still marches us closer to war with Iran.Â Congressional Democrats are not showing much more resistance to this push toward war with Iran than they did to the similar 2002 propaganda blitz that got us into the Iraq quagmire.
- At the same Democratic presidential debate that showed all 8 candidates stand up to torture, the 3 "top tier" candidates, those with the best chances of winning the nomination and the White House, would not commit to having all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013! What the !@#$% Yes, that's right: When asked directly, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and even John Edwards failed to promise to have all U.S. troops out in FIVE MORE YEARS! Unless we citizens work to turn this around, Bush's dream of a perpetual occupation of Iraq no matter who is in the White House will be a reality!Â I am writing each of these "frontrunners" and telling them that this is not acceptable.
So, you see why I am frustrated.Â The only Democratic candidates who are really for peace, Kucinich and Richardson, seem to have no chance of getting elected.Â The "electable" 3 promise change in one sentence and give us more of the same old !@#%% in the next.
Concluding Unscientific Postscript: Military types like to talk about "battles for the hearts and minds" of a civilian populace.Â In the same way, I have talked about the struggles within the Church(es) for the heart and soul of faith–between fundamentalism and prophetic faith.Â In the U.S., there is also a struggle for the soul of our nation (nation does not equal either government or state)–about what kind of people we will be.Â The same is true within both of the major political parties.Â We who are Democrats are struggling over our very identity:Â Are we cynics–corporate "pragmatists" who are sold out to big business globalism, lobbyists, and militarists– who struggle only for a "kinder, gentler" corporatism? I submit that is the vision of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the people who brought us the first Clinton admin.–the James Carvilles, George Stephonopolises, Rahm Emmanuels [sic; meant Rahm Emanuel], Thomas Friedmans, Joe Bidens, and, of course, both Clintons. These are the triangulators.Â The alternative vision, long in eclipse in the Democratic Party, but struggling to be resurgent is the vision of social equality and community, of power harnessed only for the common good.Â This is the vision that incorporates the best of the New Deal, the evolving Bobby Kennedy at the time of his assassination , Jimmy Carter's serious commitment to human rights and Al Gore's to stopping catastrophic climate change.Â This is the vision of a Democratic Party that wants to wipe out poverty.Â
I want to belong to this second vision, but it is frustrating because the struggle goes on within Party leaders as well as between them–One sees both in both Obama and Edwards, for instance, and one never knows which will gain the upper hand. Is the secret of Hillary Clinton's double digit lead in the polls that we already know what we get with her (the DLC, corporate clone Democrat), so we can't be disappointed? (Depressing thought.) The second vision will succeed only if it lives most among the people–and we push whatever leaders we get to be more progressive, less corporate controlled, than they would be without that pressure.
We are the people for whom we've been waiting. It's up to us.
RLCC Comment: You see here one who must come to the understanding that the house called the U.S.A. is inherently divided and that he must come out of the house in spirit. The new nation of scripture is the nation that will bring forth. That new nation is the nation of one heart and one soul. Its shepherds are not those of whom one will be ashamed. We are not ever ashamed of Jesus. The leaders of the Democratic Party are not disciples of Jesus. We know this by their fruits. They do all manner of things that are antithetical to the great leveling inherent with the Alpha and Omega who is Jesus and his exemplary life. Don't be a member of something of which you are ashamed and that offends you.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)