Last week’s election results were historic. John Boehner’s
teary-eyed victory speech was very appropriate because he had just observed a
modern day miracle. Boehner lives in the world of political reality. He is not
a wimp. He is rough and tumble, professional politician. Nonetheless, his heart
was moved by the surprising change in the nation’s political cycle. The 60 seat
congressional swing in favor of the GOP, along with 17 state legislatures
changing from Democratic to Republican, has definitely been a loud statement of
displeasure by the American people. Just as surely as the nation voted to give
President Barack Obama a chance to bring change in 2008, the midterm vote
clearly repudiated both the priorities and tactics of the administration.
Yes, the vote was salted with impatience. Yes, the
administration could have communicated a little better. Yet, truly great
communication starts with empathy and listening. The greatest question in the
post election season is, “Do Washington insiders of either party truly hear
what the people are saying?” I see signs of both parties misreading the
message that the electorate is sending. Unfortunately in this article I only
have time to address the Democratic Party’s foibles.
Can Christians save the mess that is today’s American political scene? Better yet, should we? Charisma asked two pastors to offer their unique viewpoints on the role politics plays in believers’ lives.
The Church as a Prophetic Voice
by Harry R. Jackson Jr.
I am often asked why I spend so much time engaging in the moral battles of our day. My critics see my work outside the pulpit as crass political pandering or fleshly power grabs.
They often are joined by a host of folks in our culture who want to renounce the religious right. These peace-loving believers have not been able to identify with angry, self-appointed spokespersons who have historically dominated the media.
Despite the excesses of some of our forerunners, the church dare not withdraw in monklike fashion from the public square.
Over the past few weeks, black crosses have appeared in various locations around the country, including coalmines and energy meetings. Even the White House became a target. After a march from Freedom Plaza and a rally at Lafayette Park, more than 100 people staged a sit-in in front of the White House to demand President Obama end mountaintop mining. Approximately 100 people from the group, called The Black Cross Alliance, were arrested when they refused orders from U.S. Park Police to vacate the sidewalk.
Why all the hubbub? These people have displayed a negative symbol of a black cross around the nation, including our national capitol. In some ways they remind me of the cross burnings of the South. Cross burners sought to uphold their own twisted brand of justice, while abusing the rights of thousands of blacks. The same group of people who were victimized by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) are the victims in the energy debates of our day -- poor blacks. The Black Cross Alliance shackles people's hopes and living standards. They make it harder for people to heat and cool their homes, pay their rent and mortgage, afford a car or medical treatment.
Two weeks ago the black church world stopped for a moment when Bishop Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta addressed his congregation. The 25,000-member church (once the largest of any kind in America) was briefed concerning a lawsuit that alleges their pastor had sexual relations with four young men. His statement to his church was simple but clear. He said that he never claimed to be perfect but he was not the man the media portrayed him to be. With that in mind, he declared that he wanted his day in court. Further, he vowed to fight the civil lawsuit.
Who is Eddie Long? Simply, he is one of the most exceptional orators of this generation. His international television broadcast has taken him into the homes of people around the globe. Further, as the recipient of the Trumpet Award for leadership in 2005, he has been acknowledged time and time again for his leadership in the black community. He also serves on the board of numerous universities and colleges, including Morehouse, Emory and North Carolina Central.
Last Friday I had the privilege of appearing on the MacNeil/Lehrer Hour. My segment of the program had a Muslim leader, a liberal church leader who had worked extensively in New York just after 9/11, a secular current affairs blogger and myself (an evangelical minister). Our exchange was lively but thoughtful. The rest of the panel accused the majority of Americans of religious intolerance to some degree. They saw the threat of Koran burning made by Pastor Terry Jones of Dove Fellowship in Gainsville, Fla., as emblematic of a huge national resurgence of anti-Islamic sentiments.
On the other hand, I pointed out that the nation has never fully processed its grief about Sept. 11 or been told how to conduct itself in the "new" America. I cited the fact that religious leaders have the greatest access to the bulk of the American public. Unfortunately, many of us have not addressed the twin sisters of intolerance (fear and anger) that lurk within the hearts and minds of many of our parishioners. Political correctness has not allowed spiritual leaders to talk about their members' concerns or encourage them to be tolerant of Muslim neighbors' faith and background. I also was able to declare that tolerance works two ways. A few years ago, my congregation experienced a situation in which several community groups opposed our desire to build in a very exclusive neighborhood. Although we have the right to erect a church on an historic farm, which included the state of Maryland's oldest beach tree and a slave graveyard; it would not have created an environment for ministry in that community. Therefore, we chose to sell the property to a developer and find another location.
This past Sunday, an excited and focused group of people
gathered together for a singular purpose - to let our government leaders know
that we stand for traditional marriage and for the right to vote on issues that
affect the moral compass of our society.
Deitrick and Damita Haddon, the
Rev. Walter Fauntroy and the Rev. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.) were among the notables who spoke. Here
is the speech I delivered at that event.
Today we are gathering in front of the greatest symbol
of American power - the Capitol. We come here today to express our confidence
in the institution of marriage. More specifically, we have also come to say to
the residents of Washington, D.C.; our two houses of Congress, the Supreme
Court and the President of these great United States that marriage (in its
traditional form) is one of the nation's richest treasures.
This past week Rev. Jeremiah Wright emerged again from the ashes of obscurity to the spotlight. Like the mythical phoenix rising again from the fires of death, Wright is still politically alive after becoming a symbol of racism and division for mainstream America. His actions mirror his friend, Louis Farrakhan, who has recently attempted to malign Jews worldwide. The question I would like to answer here is, "How can such vehement hate mongers like Wright and Farrakhan survive so long in a land that longs so much for racial and religious equality?" Let's explore the answer as we look at the current status of Rev. Wright. How did he arise again?
Wright recently taught a weeklong course at the Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS). The school is a 150-year old institution affiliated with the United Church of Christ (UCC). As many may not remember, Rev. Wright's former church (Trinity United Church of Christ) is the largest church in the UCC denomination. This denomination supports Rev. Wright's assessment of America's moral condition and motivations. CTS represents institutions that have continued to embrace the famed Chicago minister long after he dropped off the national radar.
Last week, Rep. Artur Davis (D) lost his primary bid for governor of Alabama in a crushing defeat. His opponent, Ron Sparks, won by 25 points in a contest which some believe shows that the race-based politics of the south have not changed. This conclusion has been postulated because traditional, non-elected black political stakeholders seem to have temporarily derailed the career of one of the Democratic Party's fastest rising black stars.
Before the emergence of President Barack Obama on the national presidential scene, lots of Democrats felt that Davis would eventually become the nation's first black president - especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). His credentials were incredible. In fact he was a classmate of President Obama at Harvard Law. He was incredibly articulate and what he lacked in charismatic speeches, he made up for in strategic thinking and networking ability.
The controversy surrounding Arizona's
new border law is unprecedented. From the White House to girls on the
basketball team, we find people voicing their criticism of the legislation.
Many people upset about the law call it "racist" and "xenophobic."
Unfortunately, it seems the real reason for the outcry is a political attempt
to change the tables in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
The real game-changer would occur if
the largest minority vote, the Hispanic community, falls uncontested into
the hands of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats can ramp up the rhetoric
loud enough and long enough, they may very well attract a majority of Hispanic
voters for the next two and a half years. If they can keep the controversy
going instead of solving the problem, the party will maintain both their
Congressional seats and perhaps even the presidency.
For many years, Africans and immigrants
from the Middle East have secretly remained faithful to cultural rituals and
rights of passage that have been designed to keep their young women chaste and eligible
for marriage. Partial or total female circumcision is one of these practices.
In an alarming reversal of protocol and wisdom, this dehumanizing practice is
gaining acceptance within the U.S. In fact the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) has recommended that American doctors be given permission to perform
"ceremonial" female circumcisions.
Once again American leaders are
fearfully overcompensating for cultural and religious practices from other
lands. America especially seems to be intimidated by rituals found in Islam.
There are some cities in the nation that even desire to allow Sharia law to
operate in the United States. In that spirit of accommodation, the AAP wants to
give pinpricks or to "nick" the genitals of young girls here in the U.S. whose
families come from cultures that mandate female circumcisions. The doctors'
rationale is that if they perform the lesser procedure here in the States,
it would keep their families from sending the girls overseas for full
Before I go further, let me explain
exactly what female circumcision is. The biological reason behind this practice
is to reduce a girl's sexual desire. Many cultures and religious groups are
convinced that this practice will ensure a young woman's virginity until marriage.
Removal of all or part of the clitoris is the essence of female circumcision.
The more extensive procedure could also involve stitching the vagina. Reducing
the size of the vagina is also intended to increase the husband's enjoyment of
the sexual act.
Although the current law "makes
criminal any non-medical procedure performed on the genitals" of a girl in the
United States, the AAP believes that U.S. residents will be discouraged from
returning to their homelands for the cruel surgeries often administered by
midwives or female village elders.
Thankfully, there are many opponents to
female genital mutilations. Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, actually
introduced a bill that would make it a crime to take a girl oversees for such a
purpose. Georgeanne Chapin of Intact America has urged the AAP to avoid moving
down a "slippery slope." More specifically she said, "There are countries in
the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don't allow
people to practice those customs in this country. We don't let people have
slavery a little bit because they're going to do it anyway, or beat their wives
a little bit because they're going to do it anyway."
Today, the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists report that over 130 million women and girls
have undergone female genital cutting. Circumcisions are typically performed on
girls under 15-years old in countries including Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia.
Earlier this week, I saw a BBC special from South Africa which had a village
"mother" explaining her commitment to cutting the genitals of the younger women
with wives tales about their sex organs growing backward inside of their
bodies, thus creating long term health problems. Unfortunately, the true story
is that there are severe consequences to this surgery. The problems
1.) severe complications with
2.) problems with childbirth, and
3.) sexual dysfunction later in
Nonetheless, the AAP restates its
rationale as follows "in some countries where FGC (female genital
cutting) is common, some progress toward
eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual ‘nicks' for
more severe forms."
America needs to take an about face
from our temptation to tiptoe around problems like these. Our national leaders
like Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, are reticent to "tell it like it is"
if another faith -especially Islam - could be seen in a bad light. We must take
a different approach and speak out against genuine sexist or dehumanizing
practices which can harm our people. We cannot let any faith tradition get away
with abusing our citizens - especially children.
We applaud our national desire to allow
religious freedom. This openness is something we have all learned from
Christianity. Other nations, however, are hardly as open or respectful of human
More specifically let's look at the
Muslim faith's track record of religious tolerance. In the Islamic world there
are several nations, which have large populations of non-Muslims who had been
conquered by jihad wars. Historically Islam conquered huge territories in
Africa, Asia and Europe from the 630s AD until 1683 or so. In these
nations, dhimmitude is a status given to non-Muslims and their own
formerly sovereign land. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi,
an Arabic word meaning protected.
Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to
indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma).
Dhimmitude is an extension of the ideology of jihad.
The dhimmis - the conquered
people who remain Christian or Jewish - have a protected status under Islamic
law. Yet, they also are targets of mass discrimination. In Iran, for example, dhimmis
may have to change the names of their children to Islamic names in order for
them to be able to attend school. Their local religious leadership may be
persecuted or deliberately eliminated to inhibit their practice of their
"protected" religion. In addition, strict rules concerning public conduct have
been imposed on dhimmis in certain communities.
In Turkey, religious freedom does not exist according the
definition established by the United States or the international community. Due
to their policy of secularism, religious freedom walks on a tightrope.
Secularism is practiced not as a way to insure that religious groups do not
exploit or abuse religion or religious feelings for personal or political
influence, but it is mechanism for state control over religion and the
practices and rights of religious groups.
In conclusion, our parents, our
schools, our doctors, and our laws must protect our most vulnerable residents
and citizens. Until other faiths, especially the Islamic community, observe the
basic rights and freedoms of all people regardless of their race, color, gender
and religion to enjoy constitutional and legal protection, they cannot lay
claim to humanitarianism. At the same time we must resist non-productive
compromises that endanger our people.
The last two weeks have been anything but calm in the world of faith and religion. Conservative Christians are wondering whether they are being betrayed by both officials in the White House and in the court system. The ruling of a Wisconsin judge that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and violates the concept of the separation of church and state has been like a blow to the solar plexus for battle weary Christians. In the much touted culture wars, there has never been such an open case of liberals throwing down the gauntlet in a specific area that has been deemed "Christian territory."
In recent weeks, several leading Republicans have been crying for the ouster of party Chairman Michael Steele. If Steele is fired or resigns before he completes a critical stabilization plan for the party, it may spell doom for the Republican National Committee (RNC) in 2010 and beyond. Let me say it simply: Steele must be kept in place until there is a clear vision and mandate that is created for the party's future.
His situation is very reminiscent of what happened to world-class CEO and businesswoman Carly Fiorina in 2005. During the time in which the technology powerhouse Hewlett-Packard felt that they needed to change their image and revitalize their brand, they sought to circumvent the normal painstaking process of self-analysis, restructuring and rebuilding by bringing in a management superstar - Fiorina. Her academics were impeccable, framed at Stanford University, University of Maryland and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But all of this was inconsequential because the board of directors had made an improper assessment of where the business was. Their vision was murky. Their mandate was muddled. Therefore the corporate message was unclear. Thus in a few short years, they fired the woman who once graced the covers of major national periodicals in their name.
A few weeks ago, Colbert King of The Washington Post wrote an incendiary op-ed about the Tea Party movement. Titled "In the Faces of Tea Party Shouters, Images of Hate and History," the piece was incredibly skewed. The article’s condescending tone called the protesters “racists.”
King equated the people that rallied in D.C. (just before the health care vote) with the folks who wanted to block the first black student from entering the University of Alabama in 1956. Further, he suggested that those who blocked nine black kids from entering a Little Rock, Ark., high school in 1959 resembled Tea Party members. Most shockingly, he compared the faces he witnessed nearly 20 years ago at a David Duke rally in Metairie, L.A. with the party faithful. He went on to describe the folks at the Duke rally as “sullen with resentment, wallowing in victim-hood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.”
Last night I watched the health care vote on C-Span. I was disappointed in how partisan the vote concluded. Quality health care for all will undoubtedly not be the result of last night's vote. Quality care for all means that the breadth of who is covered is matched with the kind of care that compels foreign nationals from around the world to fly to the Johns Hopkins Hospital or the Mayo Clinic. Balancing these two dynamics of care without bankrupting the nation is a victory that every American would celebrate.
Last week, research company the Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life released a comprehensive report on who the
Millennial generation is and how they think. This group, which is comprised of
people aged 18-29, will soon be the America of tomorrow. On the surface, young
people seem less religious, less materialistic, yet, less relationally anchored
than previous generations. I would like to talk about what Millennials'
attitudes toward faith are and what the evangelical church and social
conservatives should do in response. I am convinced they can be reached,
empowered and mobilized ... but not with the same old tired rhetoric and
judgmental approaches. Before I give a prescription, here are some of the specifics
of the spiritual views listed in the Pew report.
Most of us remember the stellar advertising campaign A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste designed to give underprivileged college children a bite out of the educational apple. This week Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) decided to use this concept to become an advocate for middle school and high school students as well. Lieberman and five colleagues weighed in on D.C. politics, filing an amendment to a tax extenders bill to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP).
The D.C. OSP was created in 2004 under the Bush administration. These $7,500 scholarships made it possible for students to attend a private school. The students that used these scholarships felt a greater degree of safety as well as made major academic strides. A federally mandated evaluation of the program also showed these private school students received the equivalent of 3.7 months of additional learning than others. This has been done while actually reducing the District's costs as these students only received half of the city's $15,000-per-pupil assessment.
Last month Catherine Davis and her
Atlanta-based Georgia Right to Life (GRTL) organization launched a groundbreaking effort to stop the
egregious number of black abortions in their state. The organization decided to
use billboards to present its case for life - that's right - billboards.
The 80-billboard campaign permeates the
skyscape of Atlanta. Because of its scale, the campaign is nothing less than
cutting-edge innovation. The billboards read, "Black children are an endangered
species." The words encircle the face of an adorable black child. In addition
to the message, the only Web address listed is toomanyaborted.com.
Last week Sarah Palin appeared on Bill
O’Reilley’s cable news talk show discussing a crude joke levied at her on the
animated television show — The Family Guy. For those who may not
have seen either the show itself or the O’Reilly interview, here’s what
In the animated show two Sundays ago, a
teenaged character named Chris is romancing Ellen, his classmate. She has Down
syndrome. As Chris delves into Ellen’s background, she makes this statement,
“My dad’s an accountant and my mom is the former governor of Alaska.” The fact
that the actress who does the voice for Ellen, Andrea Fay Friedman, has Down
syndrome in real life complicates this story. In fact, Freidman attempted to
make Palin the bad guy by saying that the former governor has no sense of
This past weekend the nation celebrated an interesting cultural event---Valentine's Day. A new movie by the same name grossed 52.4 million dollars in just three days and topped the nation's box office sales this weekend. The storyline of the movie is interesting. It spins a star-studded yarn concerning the romantic escapes of an incredibly diverse group of fictional Los Angeles residents from a wide range of backgrounds, ages and circumstances.
It intrigued me that so many of our national luminaries could collaborate on such an expansive project. After watching the commercials and trailers, I am personally going to make a point of watching this entertainment phenomenon. Further I am convinced that the film reflects a cultural hunger. The theme of the movie taps into the fascination of people of all ages finding and maintaining true love. All of us want to find a soul mate. We are wired that way.
I was not surprised that a recent Washington
Post article gleefully asserted that D.C.'s left leanings were confirmed in a poll.
I was surprised at the seeming air of objectivity that the writers
attempted to project. I was skeptical of the article and its conclusions
for several reasons. First it was commissioned and paid for by the Post
(not to impugn the work of the research company, SRBI, Inc of New York).
Second a poll could yield very skewed results by focusing on selected
wards. Third private polling obtained by Stand For Marriage D.C. shows very
The writers asserted that their
telephone survey of just over 1,135 participants showed that the majority of
the city's citizens were pro same-sex marriage, for the legalization of medical
marijuana and desired the creation of an elected attorney general's post.
Surprisingly, in order to lend credence to their poll, Post writers
acknowledged that 60 percent of D.C. residents would like to vote on the issue
of same-sex marriage.