Over the past couple days, I’ve been listening to a story on NPR about soldiers coming home from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Make no mistake, conditions are improving where they were when the Walter Reed scandal broke. However, there are still problems. The Army is often hesitant to classify soldiers with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which raises questions of cost-cutting or public relations.

Of coruse, the Army had also ordered Veterans’ Affairs representatives not to help soldiers complete disability paperwork.

To me, the worst part is that we are killing some of our own soldiers with shoddy prescription instructions. Take the case of Sgt. Robert Nichols, who was found dead at Brooke Medical Center this past January.

Susan Nichols said that several times before he died, Robert Nichols asked his doctors to reduce the medications “because he felt like he was a zombie and he could only function for a small portion of the day.”

Stories abound. Of course, you’ll have a hard time finding them in certain circles. I have heard and even been part of conversations in which it’s been considered smearing troops to talk about mental health issues and flawed military care. Some have even accused me of just trying to smear President Bush or the United States.

In reference to Bush — if we find that he ordered or encouraged any such deception, then let’s take steps. I have no such evidence, so I don’t see this as having much to do with him. Except, of course, that he could be taking more-active steps to look into this.

To the US — this line of argument is an obscene perversion of patriotism. If the US is treating its soldiers as worn-out boots, then the attack is valid. If the truth ever becomes un-American, then there is something seriously wrong.

I have to admit that I nearly had to pull over and cry when listening to this story on Friday. PTSD is one of those problems that we need to address honestly. Much of society, especially the flag-wrapped pundits who haven’t actually ever fought a battle, say that those who talk about PTSD are accusing our troops of weakness. I don’t know how to express calmly my feelings about those people and what they say. I don’t know that you want to see my suggestions about their eternal living arrangements.

By this kind of pressure, we are furthering the stigma of mental illness, and denying troops the care that they deserve.

Let me make this abundantly clear: We sent these people to war. Yes, they volunteered. Good for them. But they didn’t volunteer to be used and thrown away. They volunteered to serve their country. Our country.

Us.

We owe them the best care we can possibly give. Our troops have offered to do things that most of us would find unbearable, and risk their lives, their health, the wholeness of their bodies, and many other things. We owe them, at the very least, the care to help them return to the lives that we have. Yes, that’s expensive. It’s part of the cost of going to war, and if we as a society aren’t willing to pay it, then we have no moral business sending our troops anywhere.

Our men and women should not be coming home to moldy rehab wards, they should not be poisoned because their doctors can’t keep the prescriptions straight, and they should certainly not be classified as having anxiety disorder when they’re fighting PTSD. That’s like saying that a soldier has a lingering splinter in his toe when he’s lost a leg.

Do we care?

Are we willing to pay what we owe?

Do we want to help the soldiers who have risked so much for us, or are we just going to pay lip service to them while we really cast them aside?

I do, by the way, need to give credit to a member of the Bush administration. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has come out encouraging soldiers to seek treatment for PTSD and is taking steps to make sure that treatment for mental health won’t be as likely to cost a person his/her security clearance.

At least he indicates that he’s aware of the procedural problem. The greater problem is that we as Americans seem to be content to avoid the issue. Instead of looking at the moral and ethical obligation we have to these troops, it’s easier to get caught up in slogans.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Just a quick post today … sorry, it’s been one of those days.

I was listening to President Bush carefully referring to the economic “slowdown” as he denied that there’s any chance that this is a recession, and I was thinking … he likes to parse things, doesn’t he? Mostly, he likes to deny the applicability of bad-sounding words.

For example, he prefers to call waterboarding, which is clearly torture and for which we prosecuted Japanese troops after the Second World War, and “aggressive interrogation technique.”

When different factions are fighting for control of Iraq, he was very insistent that it wasn’t a civil war, though what the difference would be was pretty unclear.

He wanted to rename suicide bombers as “homicide bombers,” perhaps because people who use trucks or time-delays have purposes other than homicide for setting their bombs.

Rather than “prisoners of war,” we’re somehow now capturing “enemy combatants caught on the battlefield.”

I know, the term “recession” refers to a specific economic situation, and it’s very possible for the situation to be unpleasant for people without fitting the technical definition of a recession. In those times, I suggest not trying to nit-pick the definition and simply concede that it’s as bad as — or worse than — a recession and move on, rather than trying to pick the concern apart. With massive inflation in the food and fuel markets, incomes not keeping pace, and no end in sight, no one cares whether we’re technically in a recession. It’s bad out here in the real world. But to top it off, it’s rather likely that we are in fact, in a recession. It’s hard to tell until afterwards, because of that definition. But virtually every leading indicator is bad right now.

President Bush, though, doesn’t like to acknowledge that bad things happen. At least, not with those words.

I wonder how he would reword it if I said that he is clearly deep in denial.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

An interesting thing is happening in my church, and I have to say that I’m very excited about it. Right now, we’re taking a real, serious look at the nature of worship and the Holy Spirit — and how they relate.

I’m a part of a group from our worship team, which is also meeting with the elders to discuss such matters. It’s very interesting and exciting watching how all of this is playing out. To be perfectly honest, what’s really exciting might be how it’s NOT playing out.

We were afraid that this whole discussion was going to degenerate into a discussion about “worship styles.” We hear a lot about this, from people who want more hymns, no hymns, louder music, quieter music, faster songs, slower songs, more guitar, less guitar, no guitar, and lots of other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with worship. The elders also hear a lot of this, and it was a bit of an issue a year or so ago — there was actually talk about having an additional service just to accommodate different styles (specifically, this would have been a louder and harder music style). the worship team, by the way, is near-unanimous in our opposition to such an idea. Even those who are fans of that style of music don’t want to see the congregation dividing on musical lines — especially not when the point of our music is supposed to be worship, not musical tastes.

Our worship minister has a question up on his white board, asking:

Is there any reason that a deeper understanding of worship should precede any talk of changing style?

I would argue that the only reasonable answer to this question is, “Yes.”

You see, I think that simply changing styles so that one group likes the music better doesn’t do anything to improve the worship atmosphere. What we need to do is take another step back and look at the real question … What does it mean to worship?

To take a simple, and only partial, definition, worship means expressing our love for God. There isn’t a strict Biblical definition of what worship is or should be, which strangely makes it more difficult for people. I would argue that this should show us freedom — God wants our love to be expressed. How? Who cares?

At home, in the car, or out and about, I enjoy listening to the music of Rich Mullins, Mitch McVicker, Andrew Peterson, Chris Rice, the Newsboys (yes, that’s a leap), Mark Schutlz, Casting Crowns, and many others. And there are times when I’m really engaged with worship to this music. If you can listen to “Nothing to Say” by Andrew Peterson and not be caught right up into worship, then … well, … I’m sorry for you.

In church, we don’t necessarily do the same things I would play at home. I can respond to this in a few different ways — I could complain that I like other songs, I could go through the motions and go along with everyone else, or I could just let go and worship.

I choose the third option. Why? Because worship isn’t supposed to be about what I like, what I enjoy, or the music that I prefer. It’s supposed to be about me coming into God’s presence and saying, “God, thank You. I love You. You deserve my worship, and here’s the best I can give.”

Considering what God has done for me, I hardly think that it’s too much to ask that I take that step and let Him know that I appreciate it. Even if I can’t remember that last time we sang “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” or “Cross the Line” (an original song by our worship pastor).

Of course, worship isn’t just singing. That’s one of the great fallacies of Christian thought. The other is to go too far the other direction and say that everything a Christian does is worship. I’ve never met a Christian who actually does everything as worship. Ideally, yes, it should be. But I have to be honest and admit that I do a lot of things for reasons other than worship. I keep working on it and praying about it … maybe someday I’ll be brought closer to that kind of heart that actually does everything as worship.

We’re also hoping to work with the elders, and then the church, on the idea that the congregation should be growing as worshipers. We all agree that we need to grow in our knowledge of the Word, and I don’t know anyone who thinks that his/her prayer life is everything that it could be. But many of us figure that worship is fine. I remember thinking that … at a time that I didn’t even scratch the surface of the wonderful experience that worship can be.

As I said, I’m on our worship team. I’m one of the people who run the computer in the back that puts lyrics, readings, and such on the wall. There’s a reason, by the way, that we don’t have a microphone wired to the tech booth. I’m pretty sure that I am that reason. You don’t want to hear my singing voice … but knowing that, I more than make up for my lack of talent with volume and enthusiasm. I’m singing to a God who likes to hear me sing … not because of my ability to carry a tune, but because He wants to hear His children worship Him.

I expect to be writing much more about this … but let me leave you with this bit of encouragement — make the effort to come closer to living a life of worship. When you’re singing praises, go ahead and clap, lift your hands, or whatever helps to express more. In the rest of your life, find a way to keep your heart focused on the miracles around you and just be thankful … and tell Him so.

There’s no reason not to grow as worshipers, and no reason for us not to ask for everything the Holy Spirit has for us as we do. Just as we seek to grow continually in every other aspect of our Christian lives, we should seek to become the best worshipers that we can be.

I promised to comment on the Joe Schriner answers, and was hoping to put a few more posts between the original and this, but life is getting very busy, and I’m having a harder time getting things posted than I’d hoped. So, here we go.

The first thing I want to say is that I love his strong belief in a “Consistent Life Ethic.” Relatively early in my interest in politics, I came across certain articles that strongly affected me. One of them was an article in “Christianity Today” talking about the damage done by the “death movement” in the US, and cited the three main parts of that movement as abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. I spent a lot of time rethinking that. Being at the time a good Republican, I was all for condemning abortion and euthanasia, but I found it difficult to condemn capital punishment. I still, actually, struggle with that one.

What it did, though, is get me thinking about what it means to be “pro-life.” It’s a nice catchy label used by the anti-abortion movement, but how many of us are really pro-life? I’ve talked about the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion stances in a few different posts, and won’t recap that here. I think it’s obvious.

That brings me back to Joe Schriner and his candidacy, and why he’s very appealing to me. His belief in a Consistent Life Ethic tells me that he’s where I’d like to be in terms of being pro-life in everything. The fact that he applies being pro-life to environmental and economic concerns shows me that he actually means what he says … which is different from most politicians.

So, here I’m going to throw in my own comments about what Mr. Schriner had to say in the previous post.

I asked:

1) A lot of people, be they punditry or voters on the street, talk about “throwing their votes away” if they vote for so-called longshot candidates. Within the two major parties this worked against Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich; a lot of people don’t even think about the third-party candidates, much less an independent.

What would you like to say to those voters?

And he answered:

If that continues, we will continue to have political winners tied to the “dominant paradigm.” And then the salient question becomes: Is the dominant paradigm working? Some 4,400 babies killed in the womb every day in America, a nine trillion (and counting) dollar National Debt, 48 million Americans without health insurance, gang war zones increasing in the inner cities, global warming increasing exponentially…

I think that his is a very good answer. Is the dominant paradigm working? If you answered “yes” to that question, then I have serious doubts about your judgment. I don’t know that anyone thinks that the two-party system is really serving us well. To be sure, letting the two parties define our candidates hasn’t solved any of the major problems being faced by the country … and that applies almost regardless of what you think that those major problems are.

I asked (actually, this was a question suggested by my older brother):

2) What are you trying to accomplish, given that it is very unlikely that you’ll have a major role in the final voting?

He (Mr. Schriner, not my brother) answered:

I’m actually trying with all I have to win. I have spent the past 15 years of my life traveling 200,000 miles through this country doing extensive research for each of my position papers. I told the Jamestown Sun newspaper that: “This is a serious attempt by an average citizen to run for president.” And it is… Concurrently, during a talk at Toledo University, I told the students that each time someone hears about something we’ve researched and try it in their own town — “…we get a policy enacted long before we ever get to D.C.” So we’re campaigning, we’re helping change the country now.

Again, a good answer. Some candidates do get involved in campaigns simply to drive certain issues or bring awareness to things. If he had wanted to say something of that kind, this was his opportunity to do so. I appreciate the fact that he is running, and I think that more people should take a good look at him and see if he is their kind of candidate.

I asked (really meant as a follow up to the previous question):

3) Have you considered, or will you consider, running for a different office?

He answered:

I’ve considered it. But our quite broad brush, multi-dimensional platform would be best for the whole country, now.

I think that the only real problem that this poses is a question of experience. We tend to like governors as Presidential candidates … sometimes Senators. Having said that, there are other ways to demonstrate the kind of experience that makes a good President — and being a community activist and problem-solver is one of those that I think speaks well of him.

I asked:

4) What do you think should be done to improve ballot and/or media access for less-known candidates?

He answered:

While there are some flaws, we’ve been treated relatively fairly by the media given we only have a modicum of support at this time. I mean, we’ve been in some 2,000 newspapers, 175 regional network news shows, hundreds of radio shows… As a former journalist, I know the media makes decisions about the amount of election coverage based on supporter bases, etc. And often independent and third party candidates don’t have much supporter base, so consequently they get less coverage.

He is vastly more gracious than I. I think that with so many 24-hour news networks, online resources, and such, the major media outlets could put a lot more time into reporting about the “minor” candidates, even if they don’t have a huge following. To a certain extent, they don’t have a huge following because no one’s heard of them. No one’s heard of them because they’re not getting coverage. There’s a pattern to this, if you look. The news outlets pre-screen Presidential candidates by deciding that only a few of them are worth discussing.

I asked:

5) What do you think is the biggest challenge that will be faced by the next President of the US?

He answered:

To move America, quickly, to much more of a Consistent Life Ethic. That is, we have to increase, exponentially, placing value on the sanctity of Life as it relates to: abortion, war, poverty, pollution, crime… and anything else that can end life prematurely.

Obviously, I think that this was the key answer in this whole exchange. For this alone, I am planning to give my support to Mr. Schriner and work for his campaign, to whatever extent I can. The sanctity of life is important, and no one else running seems to want to focus on that.

I asked:

6) What do you think qualifies you to deal with those?

He answered:

A Consistent Life Ethic is at the core of my personal/spiritual belief system. And as mentioned earlier, I have spent 15 years criss-crossing the country looking for people who have developed creative projects to impact each of the “Life” areas, for the good. I found them. And as president I would point Americans to them. (Just as I’m pointing Americans to them now as a presidential candidate.) In this, a Culture of Life would start to take place. Example: We researched the Marillac Clinic in Grand Junction, Colorado. It is staffed by volunteer doctors, volunteer nurses and other volunteers who do intake work, filing, janitorial… If you don’t have health care insurance in Grand Junction, Colorado, you can get major surgery at the Marillac Clinic for: $5. (We plant seeds about this all over the country.)

In other words, he’s actually doing something about problems, and trying to be involved in solving them as they exist. I appreciated this answer, too.

I asked:

7) Do you think that a person can run a viable campaign without fitting into one of the commonly-accepted choices?

He answered:

Yes.

Well, you know … I asked a closed-ended question. I should have known better.

Seriously, I think that he’s right — voters aren’t generally sold on someone who is dogmatically Right or Left. This might not go over well with the hard-core activists, but I think that most voters believe a combination of Right and Left orthodoxy, and I think that the Consistent Life Ethic would appeal to many people. Most people who vote for Republicans, for example, do think that we should be thinking about the future in terms of environmental concerns. That might not make the Rush Limbaugh crowd happy, but it’s reality.

I said, then asked:

You have called for amnesty for illegal immigrants working in the US.

8) How would you answer those who say that this represents a security risk to the US because terrorists could be sneaking across the border?

He answered:

We walked the dusty streets of a slum with 200,000 people living in abject poverty at the border town of Juarez, Mexico. Many cross over because their children are hungry. A priest who runs an orphanage for the homeless children there (and there are many) gave us the tour and, at one point, took us to a ridge 10 feet from the border fence. I asked him about immigration. He said that was easy. He pointed to El Paso to the north (which isn’t all that affluent, but looked like Oz in comparison to Juarez.) Then he pointed to Juarez. Then he pointed to the fence and asked. “What do you think Jesus would do with the fence?” That was an easy one. So… A ’security risk’ versus the ’spiritual risk’ of not doing something dramatic to help? Speaking of Jesus, didn’t He say the best thing we can do is lay down our lives (or ‘risk’ laying down our lives) for another?

I admit, this was a slow and easy pitch of a softball question, since it would be easy to answer, “There is no evidence that there has ever been one.”

His answer, though, was brilliant. To Christians, the spiritual risk should be deeply concerning. Mr. Schriner didn’t say anything about it, but I will — a lot of anti-(illegal or otherwise) immigrant sentiment is based on racism. I used to live near Lubbock, TX when my father was stationed at Reese Air Force Base (now closed). I heard people talk about “wetbacks” and “Spics,” among other terms. I think that it’s very important that we be aware of and avoid that trap.

I asked:

9) How would you answer those who say that this corrodes respect for the rule of law, since we reward people for coming illegally?

He answered:

Sometimes the ‘rule of law’ is wrong. Take for instance, slavery. Then later, Segregation Laws. I can’t imagine that God would have agreed with either of those. Just like I can’t imagine God would agree with the kind of American protectionism, slow bureaucracy getting into the U.S., etc.; while people in Mexico, Central America… go hungry, are in the midst of bloody political oppression, watch their children die because they have no medicine…

The previous question was meant to be a slow and easy pitch — this wasn’t so much. However, to continue with the image, he knocked it out of the park. A lot of people tell God to bless the country, and then want to horde what we have and make sure not to share it with anyone else. While we pretend that we have some kind of illegal immigration crisis in this country, there are other people facing real crises and coming here to try to escape them. I think that his answer is nothing less than brilliant.

I asked:

10) What role, if any, do you think that “school choice” should play in improving education?

He answered:

Our genral platform is about moving America back to a decentralized society where people, for the most part, again shop locally, go to school locally, etc. What should be ‘improving’ is education itself in each local school. That means more teachers and better salaries, more teachers’ aids across the board, more creative curriculum choices, more service learning projects, etc.

I don’t guess that I have a lot to add to that. It certainly seems reasonable to me.

I asked:

11) Specifically, what about homeschooling? Vouchers?

He answered:

We home school (or rather, motor home school) our chilldren, and obviously believe there should be a place for that in society. As far as vouchers, I interviewed a former high school principal in the state of Washington who said he was against vouchers because it takes some of the top students from city schools, which are already in trouble. Conversely, we’ve looked at the Urban Community School model in Cleveland, where top students from the suburbs come to school in Cleveland to sit side by side with the inner city kids. While the transport part of this is antithetical to the decentralism we believe in, we do ask some of these same suburban families to move back into the city to reverse white flight and improve not only the schools but the city in general. (Our family has done that by moving into a hardscrabble area of Cleveland to be with a group of Catholic Workers here trying to make a difference.)

Actually, there is a lot of resistance to vouchers from both public and private school administrators. Still, it’s a very good answer … and it goes further outside the box to talk about real ways that people can make such a difference now, talking about the group of Catholic workers.

I asked:

12) How do you answer critics who point out what Saddam Hussein was a thug and a tyrant who went so far as to kill his own citizens?

He answered:

Based on what I’ve read about Hussein, he was indeed oppressive. So were we. The sanctions against Iraq, which we helped enforce for almost a decade, accounted for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths in that country because of malnutrition, lack of medicine, etc… Using the strategy Ghandi did in India and Martin Luther King did in the South, I would have tried to inject operatives, if you will, into the Iraqi Society — that is, if they wanted them — to teach the people about strategies for non-violent protest.

It’s an interesting approach to foreign policy, and it reflects his real belief in the principles he’s professing. More than once, I’ve wondered whether it would be better to introduce activists than deal with open conflict. Especially in this case, when the stated premise for an invasion was, as any honest observer most agree, seriously flawed.

I asked:

13) What do you say to those who argue that apologizing for the war will weaken our standing in the world by making us appear to be weak?

He answered:

It’s never ‘weak’ to apologize for being wrong. The Bush administration said the primary purpose we went into Iraq, was not because Hussein was being oppressive with his people; but rather we went there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction — for our security. Question: What country has some 10,000 Weapons of Mass Destruction aimed all over the world? Answer: U.S. I said to an ABC News reporter from Toledo: “What if we let the weapons inspectors into Montana?” This is a tremendous duality that’s seldom talked about. What’s more, while we pump billions into these warheads for, again, our protection, some 30,000 children starve to death every day in the world. “But Lord, when did we see You hungry?”

The man has a point. I’m still not sold on the certainty that removing our troops from Iraq now is the best thing for that country, but certainly if we could undo the invasion, that would be best. I also agree that apologies aren’t a sign of weakness.

His greater point, though, that we are spending vast amounts of money to make sure that we can kill everyone, while people are dying every day. Pro-lifers? Christians? Where are we on this?

Do you really think that God is going to be pleased with us saying, “But we needed more nukes”?

When did we see Him hungry? That is the kind of question that we are going to have to ask ourselves if we’re really trying to apply Christian principles to politics.

In the parable of the servants with talents, each servant was expected to use what he was given and make gains for his master … how do you suppose that we’re doing in that regard? Bear in mind that this is the wealthiest nation in human history.

Mr. Schriner is, without a doubt, a true believer. He has aligned his political positions and his faith, and lives out what he believes. I admire that tremendously.

In case you don’t know, I am not Catholic. I am, in fact, a Baptist. My church belongs to the Conservative Baptist Convention, which is more or less to say that we’re independent of any other congregation. The reason I’m saying this up front is because I want to drive home my point about what the Pope says, and make it clear that I’m not just backing the Pope because he’s the Pope. Depending on whose Christian history you believe, you might well find that Baptists have been defying Papal authority since well before the Reformation.

But that’s a different story for a different day.

Two anti-immigration stalwarts have decided to take on the Pope himself, and have made themselves look like complete fools in so doing.

So, let’s look at the three players. First, there’s the Pope. Pope Benedict is an intellectual theologian, and a strong advocate of right doctrine. He’s also the head of the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. I’m not sure how many people, therefore, follow him, but it’s certainly quite a good number.

Lou Dobbs is a TV anchorman who has made a bigger name for himself lately by crusading against illegal immigration.

Tom Tancredo is a Colorado Congressman who ran for President until he endorse Mitt Romney, and really ran so that he could drive immigration as an issue (which must have worked really well, since John McCain wound up with the nomination). He’s not merely anti-illegal immigration, he’s been known to wear T-shirts with the slogan “America is Full.” Tancredo, of course, was also the genius who suggested that we should bomb Mecca in the event of another terrorist attack.

Pope Benedict issued a call for the humane treatment of immigrants in the US, and encouraged his bishops to continue offering hospitality.

“I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home.”

Tom Tancredo doesn’t like the sound of that, apparently, and accuses the Pope of just trying to recruit new Catholics –

“I suspect the pope’s immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church,” Tancredo said. “This isn’t preaching; it is faith-based marketing.”

Lou Dobbs manages to take this even farther –

“I don’t care if he listens or not, but I’m going to send him the message because I really don’t appreciate the bad manners of a guest telling me in this country and my fellow citizens what to do.”

There are several other Dobbs comments at the linked article. If you want to make sure that you lose all respect for Dobbs, check them out.

As I said, I don’t feel the need to obey the Pope, necessarily, but there are a few things about the Papacy in general and this Pope in particular that are worth mentioning — first of all, he leads the single largest Christian denomination in the world. That alone entitles him to a measure of respect. Moreover, it makes him more than “a guest,” as Dobbs derisively called him.

Dobbs also remarked:

“Here he is, I guess, in many ways insulting our country, talking about the need to be welcoming, taking up the issue of illegal immigration without any comparison to the rest of the world.”

Yeah … the Pope is talking about Christian love and charity. Who does he think he is?

Beyond that, though, let’s unpack a bit. Dobbs is accusing the Pope of insulting our country? How so? By saying that we should be welcoming? Frankly, it sounds like having a conversation. He’s stating a principle.

Dobbs, though, is resorting to the same kind of weak-kneed attempts to cut off debate that I accused the Chinese of using last week — claiming that someone is insulting the entire population. If Dobbs wants to take on the Pope, he can do so. But it’s simply dishonest for him to claim that he’s doing it on my behalf. Dobbs knows it, too. He wants to excite nationalistic fears and sentiments so that we unite against the outsider — in this case, the Pope — because he’s one of THEM, telling US what to do. The fact that he’s a man of faith who speaks on the global stage apparently doesn’t register with Lou Dobbs. The Pope is expected to express his views on spiritual and moral matters around the world. It’s his job. If Lou Dobbs doesn’t like what Pope Benedict is saying, that’s one thing … to object to him saying it is more than a little peculiar. I also have to wonder … just what kind of weaklings does Lou Dobbs think that Americans are, that we can’t take a comment from the Pope feeling so deeply and pitifully insulted?

Moving on to Rep. Tancredo, I have to look at his challenge to the Pope’s sincerity. He’s accusing the Pope of caring not for the Gospel, but just for bringing more people in to fill seats in churches.

So, getting past Tancredo’s little catchy attack, let’s look at the substance of his attack. Which sounds more like it’s based on the Gospel: A t-shirt reading “America is full” and a policy of refusing any immigration, or welcoming newcomers and inviting them to join in the national bounty?

I’m going to have to side with the Pope on this one. And I’m going to have to reverse the charge — Tom Tancredo names himself an evangelical Christian, yet he can speak with such profound ignorance of what love and grace mean that I question whether his life has anything to do with sharing the Gospel, or rather he simply uses the label “evangelical” for the purposes of faith-based marketing.

Rep. Tancredo also challenged the Pope to identify what kind of violence was being committed against immigrants. I was planning to write more about that, but Andres Oppenheimer already did it so much better than I would have.

More and more, I’m watching the Right attack faith in the US. I wrote about Tony Perkins of the Family Research Center and his derision of the Compassion Forum for asking about AIDS and global poverty. Four Republican Presidential candidates — Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani — refused to attend a Values Voter Debate last year that would have allowed Christian and Jewish leaders to ask them questions. The label “Religious Left” is being thrown around at anyone who dares mention that there is more to a Christian’s life than opposing certain moral offenses and voting Republican.

I would rather be called part of the Religious Left than be part of the Secular Right.

This kind of attack on Christian values is being permitted by a Christian church that has become complacent about partisan politics and weak on its own values. The Pope is reminding people that we are called to love the stranger among us. If you want to challenge him on this point, I think that the only legitimate way to do it is going to be to pull out a Bible and attack him in his battleground, in the language in which he was speaking.

Fair warning: You’ll lose.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Before I go too far, I need to apologize. I actually got this via e-mail two days ago, planned to hold off until Thursday to post it, and then had computer problems and am just now posting it.

I have written before, very briefly, about “Average Joe” Schriner, now on his third Presidential run as an independent. If you’ve seen my comments on other people’s blogs, then you might have seen his name come up as someone that I’m considering supporting actively.

What I hadn’t told a lot of people was that I e-mailed Mr. Schriner and asked him if I could interview him by e-mail. He agreed. While he’s not yet had time to answer every question that I asked, he did give some great answers to the most important ones. I’m about to post those, without comment.

Before this, though, he asked me to add a note … he is looking for a running mate. He said that at this point, the running mate doesn’t have to do too much, but he’s looking for someone who fits the legal requirements (35 or older, born US citizen, etc.), who isn’t from Ohio (Mr. Schriner’s home state), and who shares with Mr. Schriner a Consistent Life Ethic. That will be defined pretty well through his answers, I believe.

I will comment on these answers some other time … for now, I want to present what he had to say in his own words.

1) A lot of people, be they punditry or voters on the street, talk about “throwing their votes away” if they vote for so-called longshot candidates. Within the two major parties this worked against Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich; a lot of people don’t even think about the third-party candidates, much less an independent.

What would you like to say to those voters?

If that continues, we will continue to have political winners tied to the “dominant paradigm.”  And then the salient question becomes:  Is the dominant paradigm working?  Some 4,400 babies killed in the womb every day in America, a nine trillion (and counting) dollar National Debt, 48 million Americans without health insurance, gang war zones increasing in the inner cities, global warming increasing exponentially…

2) What are you trying to accomplish, given that it is very unlikely that you’ll have a major role in the final voting?

I’m actually trying with all I have to win.  I have spent the past 15 years of my life traveling 200,000 miles through this country doing extensive research for each of my position papers.  I told the Jamestown Sun newspaper that: “This is a serious attempt by an average citizen to run for president.”  And it is… Concurrently, during a talk at Toledo University, I told the students that each time someone hears about something we’ve researched and try it in their own town — “…we get a policy enacted long before we ever get to D.C.”  So we’re campaigning, we’re helping change the country now.

3) Have you considered, or will you consider, running for a different office?

I’ve considered it.  But our quite broad brush, multi-dimensional platform would be best for the whole country, now.

4) What do you think should be done to improve ballot and/or media access for less-known candidates?

While there are some flaws, we’ve been treated relatively fairly by the media given we only have a modicum of support at this time.  I mean, we’ve been in some 2,000 newspapers, 175 regional network news shows, hundreds of radio shows…  As a former journalist, I know the media makes decisions about the amount of election coverage based on supporter bases, etc.  And often independent and third party candidates don’t have much supporter base, so consequently they get less coverage.

5) What do you think is the biggest challenge that will be faced by the next President of the US?

To move America, quickly, to much more of a Consistent Life Ethic.  That is, we have to increase, exponentially, placing value on the sanctity of Life as it relates to: abortion, war, poverty, pollution, crime… and anything else that can end life prematurely.

6) What do you think qualifies you to deal with those?

A Consistent Life Ethic is at the core of my personal/spiritual belief system.  And as mentioned earlier, I have spent 15 years criss-crossing the country looking for people who have developed creative projects to impact each of the “Life” areas, for the good.  I found them.  And as president I would point Americans to them.  (Just as I’m pointing Americans to them now as a presidential candidate.)  In this, a Culture of Life would start to take place.  Example:  We researched the Marillac Clinic in Grand Junction, Colorado.  It is staffed by volunteer doctors, volunteer nurses and other volunteers who do intake work, filing, janitorial…  If you don’t have health care insurance in Grand Junction, Colorado, you can get major surgery at the Marillac Clinic for: $5.  (We plant seeds about this all over the country.)

For my own part, I am pro-life, and I identify “pro-life” as meaning more than just anti-abortion. Looking at your positions, I think that you’re the same kind of person. Your site says that you’re against abortion and euthanasia, but also against the use of capital punishment and depleted uranium, in favor of health care for everyone, and living wages. This is going to put you on both the right and left, following the commonly-accepted parlance.

7) Do you think that a person can run a viable campaign without fitting into one of the commonly-accepted choices?

Yes.

You have called for amnesty for illegal immigrants working in the US.

8) How would you answer those who say that this represents a security risk to the US because terrorists could be sneaking across the border?

We walked the dusty streets of a slum with 200,000 people living in abject poverty at the border town of Juarez, Mexico.  Many cross over because their children are hungry.  A priest who runs an orphanage for the homeless children there (and there are many) gave us the tour and, at one point, took us to a ridge 10 feet from the border fence.  I asked him about immigration.  He said that was easy.  He pointed to El Paso to the north (which isn’t all that affluent, but looked like Oz in comparison to Juarez.)  Then he pointed to Juarez.  Then he pointed to the fence and asked.  “What do you think Jesus would do with the fence?”  That was an easy one.  So…  A ’security risk’ versus the ’spiritual risk’ of not doing something dramatic to help?  Speaking of Jesus, didn’t He say the best thing we can do is lay down our lives (or ‘risk’ laying down our lives) for another? 

9) How would you answer those who say that this corrodes respect for the rule of law, since we reward people for coming illegally?

Sometimes the ‘rule of law’ is wrong.  Take for instance, slavery.  Then later, Segregation Laws.  I can’t imagine that God would have agreed with either of those.  Just like I can’t imagine God would agree with the kind of American protectionism, slow bureaucracy getting into the U.S., etc.; while people in Mexico, Central America… go hungry, are in the midst of bloody political oppression, watch their children die because they have no medicine…

On your education page, you encourage giving that control back to states, and offering classes on race and culture, and about relationship building.

10) What role, if any, do you think that “school choice” should play in improving education?

Our genral platform is about moving America back to a decentralized society where people, for the most part, again shop locally, go to school locally, etc.  What should be ‘improving’ is education itself in each local school.  That means more teachers and better salaries, more teachers’ aids across the board, more creative curriculum choices, more service learning projects, etc.

11) Specifically, what about homeschooling? Vouchers?

We home school (or rather, motor home school) our chilldren, and obviously believe there should be a place for that in society.  As far as vouchers, I interviewed a former high school principal in the state of Washington who said he was against vouchers because it takes some of the top students from city schools, which are already in trouble.  Conversely, we’ve looked at the Urban Community School model in Cleveland, where top students from the suburbs come to school in Cleveland to sit side by side with the inner city kids.  While the transport part of this is antithetical to the decentralism we believe in, we do ask some of these same suburban families to move back into the city to reverse white flight and improve not only the schools but the city in general.  (Our family has done that by moving into a hardscrabble area of Cleveland to be with a group of Catholic Workers here trying to make a difference.)

In terms of Iraq policy, you said that you would not have gone into the war in Iraq.

12) How do you answer critics who point out what Saddam Hussein was a thug and a tyrant who went so far as to kill his own citizens?

Based on what I’ve read about Hussein, he was indeed oppressive.  So were we.  The sanctions against Iraq, which we helped enforce for almost a decade, accounted for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths in that country because of malnutrition, lack of medicine, etc…  Using the strategy Ghandi did in India and Martin Luther King did in the South, I would have tried to inject operatives, if you will, into the Iraqi Society — that is, if they wanted them — to teach the people about strategies for non-violent protest.

13) What do you say to those who argue that apologizing for the war will weaken our standing in the world by making us appear to be weak?

It’s never ‘weak’ to apologize for being wrong.  The Bush administration said the primary purpose we went into Iraq, was not because Hussein was being oppressive with his people; but rather we went there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction — for our security.  Question:  What country has some 10,000 Weapons of Mass Destruction aimed all over the world?  Answer: U.S.  I said to an ABC News reporter from Toledo:  “What if we let the weapons inspectors into Montana?”  This is a tremendous duality that’s seldom talked about.  What’s more, while we pump billions into these warheads for, again, our protection, some 30,000 children starve to death every day in the world.  “But Lord, when did we see You hungry?”

… As I said, there were several more questions that hit on economic/tax policy, and looking for more insight to the man himself and his family. I hope to get those answers soon.

In the meantime, I hope that you check out his web site at http://voteforjoe.com/ and see what he has to say. I also repeat my oft-stated principle that you should vote for a candidate whom you believe is the best for the office, and whom you want to win … not just one served up by the party machines, and not one that you think enough other people will vote for so that he’ll win.

I hope to have more information about other “minor” candidates in the near future.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The 220th Christian Carnival went up yesterday at Imago Dei, and looks great. I probably won’t get to perusing it fully until tomorrow night, but I’m excited by what I see there and hope you all check it out!

I know that I should have posted this yesterday … frankly, my life is going through a lot of changes now that I’m back in the workforce. I’ll bore you with those details some other time.

Rather, here’s the exciting thing — Mike Huckabee’s new political action committee!

This is the mission statement listed on the website:

I have been receiving the notices from the Family Resource Council for some time, and I’ve generally enjoyed the information and had mixed feelings about the opinions.

The other day I received one, though, that bothered me tremendously. To be fair, I have not yet watched the forum about which he’s complaining. It’s possible that the thing is terrible. However, his complaint certainly doesn’t convince me, and it does show me something that deeply troubles me.

Under the heading “Faithfully Liberal?” it reads:

It was meant to be a dialogue about faith in the public square, but last night’s “Compassion Forum,” broadcast by CNN and hosted by Messiah College, may have revealed more about the agenda of those within the ranks of religious liberals than it did about this year’s presidential candidates. While the event was endorsed by pro-family champions like former Senator Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, organizations like FRC, which have historically addressed faith issues, were not invited to participate or even submit questions to the candidates. Instead, the event’s radical board, which included pro-abortion and homosexual advocates, used the forum as an opportunity to chip away at the traditional agenda of the faith-based community. The bulk of last night’s program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians’ hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty. Although I have argued that those are important issues that demand the church’s attention (in fact, in concert with Bishop Harry Jackson I’ve written an entire book on the subject), our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty. Unfortunately, with the help of some of our friends, the Religious Left is trying to realign, and thereby dilute, the values voter message. Have the concerns of our day changed? Yes, of course. But the prioritization of those issues must not. As our own Declaration of Independence states, it is for “life” and “liberty” not “global warming” that government was instituted among men. As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church.

I’m not sure where to begin. I suppose that working through it from start to finish is the best way to go.

He objects to the FRC being left out of the forum, which could be a cause for concern. Then again, the FRC has not generally demonstrated a great record of wanting to talk to anyone who isn’t already on board with itself. The fact that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have endorsed the forum counts for something. (Note, by the way, that Mr. Perkins identifies Rick Santorum as “former Senator” and he doesn’t grant Mike Huckabee a title of any kind … Perkins has been rather outspoken in his criticism of Gov. Huckabee over the past year, and I would interpret this as a snub.)

Since I don’t yet know who was on the board, I don’t know if Mr. Perkins is right to call it “radical.” I do know, though, that when Mr. Perkins uses the term “radical,” he sometimes means radical. Other times, he means, “not Republican enough.” But I’ll get back to that.

This sentence got my attention, and I had to do a double-take to see whether he actually wrote it. Yes, it seems that he did:

The bulk of last night’s program was taken directly from the playbook of the Religious Left, focusing not on the issues closest to Christians’ hearts but on climate change, AIDS, and global poverty.

It has been said that in the 1980’s Jerry Falwell presided over the marriage of the Religious Right and the Republican Party. I have pointed out that this is exactly the kind of adultery that prophets throughout the Old Testament derided … the Church is already married. We are the Bride of Christ. We don’t have room for another husband — and that includes the Republican Party.

This sentence from Mr. Perkins demonstrates exactly why I think that the Church needs to put some distance from politics and do some critique of where we stand. I know what he means about issues dear to our hearts.

But, let’s be honest about it … Which issue do you think is dearer to God’s heart? Making sure that gay men can’t legally marry each other, or keeping children from starving to death in the Sudan? Making sure that every child in public school has to pledge to “one nation, under God,” or preventing the catastrophic death toll that AIDS in bringing to Africa?

American Christians have issues which are close to our hearts. But we need to look at what is close to God’s heart, and prioritize better than we have been doing. Yes, this forum clearly was held to try to refocus Christians’ efforts. I knew that as soon as I heard anything about it. And, yes, that is the point.

The fact that he derides this as being the playbook of the Religious Left, but fails to explain why any of this is bad, gets back to my point … too many Christians have sold out to the Republican Party. Too many of us have forgotten our first love and chased after another.

Any time you find yourself questioning whether global poverty is really that big a deal, then you’ve got a problem.

Of course, then he goes on to explain why he has concerns greater than the lives of millions of people:

our priority as Christians should be as those of the Founding Fathers; protect the sanctity of human life, preserve marriage, and defend religious liberty.

First, let’s decode his euphemisms. By “protect the sanctity of human life,” he means “end abortion.” I say this because AIDS and poverty threaten lives, and he states that those should be subordinate priorities. So, let’s not pretend that he’s taking so much a pro-life position as an anti-abortion one. For my own part, as I’ve said before, “pro-life” should mean more than just anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia.

I agree that preserving marriage is important. Again, though, if I had the power to alter reality and had to make some choices, I would permit gay marriage in the US if by doing so I would abolish AIDS in Africa.

Defending religious liberty is all well and good. I won’t even try to unpack the phrase to see what he really means, because that isn’t really what I had in mind.

Of course, his reference to the Founding Fathers is more than a little misguided. Most importantly, he refers to following their agenda rather than that of caring about poverty and AIDS. I might remind Tony Perkins that the Founding Fathers did not write a single religious document. Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence is actually a religious document per se. They’re religiously inspired, but treating them as sacred would be akin to revering the words of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The Founders themselves were of varying levels of religious sentiment. To be honest, I think that Mr. Perkins would have called Thomas Jefferson a radical had they been contemporaries.

He went on.

But the prioritization of those issues must not. As our own Declaration of Independence states, it is for “life” and “liberty” not “global warming” that government was instituted among men.

I agree that life is important. We just went through that. I think it’s pretty clear, though, that the Founders weren’t talking about abortion.

Mr. Perkins ended with one more point, and I find it more than a little ironic what he had to say:

As Democrats vie for the Christian vote, we must remember that it is not the church that should be affected by their message. Rather, their message should be affected by a faithful church.

I agree that the Church should not be altered by political parties. That applies, whether that party is the Democratic or Republican Party. Other updates from Mr. Perkins have told about the evils of tax increases and social spending, which works on a very thinly-veiled Republican slant.

The more-liberal Christian group Sojourners has long promoted the statement (and bumper sticker) “God is not a Republican … or a Democrat.” This is a very good point. I think often that Mr. Perkins has forgotten that God doesn’t need to learn from the Reagan agenda. Rather, where God’s heart conflicts with the goals of the Republican Party, we as Christians must side with God.

I’m not sure that Mr. Perkins remembers that.

There are changes happening to the political lives of evangelical Christians. More and more of us are looking critically at the whole package of issues, and thus taking positions that might be considered liberal or non-traditional. That doesn’t make them wrong.

What more does God ask than that we do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God? Does God want our ritual and sacrifice, or that we care for the widow among us?

As I said, I haven’t seen the Compassion forum yet. I probably won’t until Friday morning, by which time I know that it’s ancient history by blogosphere standards. However, Mr. Perkins’ criticism does nothing to convince me that it was wrong. He has shown me a problem in his own politics, though … which reflects a problem in his own heart.

I’m following up on comments from my previous Chinese Olympics post, and I need to thank In2theFray for making reference to “sitting at the big kids’ table.” I’d read this article earlier, and it didn’t really fit with my previous post. However, I think it might well deserve its own.

China’s top legislature condemns European Parliament for Tibet resolution

I’m not going to copy the whole article here, although I thought about it. There are some great quotes in it:

It urged the EP to respect the truth on the Tibet riots and never again do things that will hurt the emotions of the Chinese people and go against the spirit of the Olympics.

Hurting the emotions of the Chinese people? Oh, boo-hoo! If the Chinese people were really so delicate that they would be badly hurt by the emotional scars of having the European Parliament condemn the actions of their government, then they would have some serious problems. But let’s be honest about it — it isn’t the Chinese people’s feelings being hurt. This is propagandist malarkey being handed down from a totalitarian regime. It isn’t poor little Chinese hearts being broken by the European Parliament’s actions … the National People’s Congress just doesn’t like being challenged.

This particular press release looks a lot more like a temper tantrum than anything else. They’re complaining that the European Parliament “rudely” got involved, and whining about hurting people’s feelings.

It reiterated Tibet was an inseparable part of the Chinese territory, the Tibet affairs were a sheer internal affair of Chinaand no foreign government or organization had the right to interfere.

In other words, China is basically saying, “You’re not the boss of me!”