When Faith and Politics Collide, Pt. II

This is a theme that keeps haunting me. How to integrate faith into the world of politics. I am not talking about the upfront, in some ways, easy stuff. I am talking about the nuanced things. The type of political behavior that often goes unchallenged by those of us who claim a position of faith. Yesterday I was driving home after taking out a loan to fill my up tank. Doing my best to stimulate the economy if you will. And listening to the radio. I happened on a radio show hosted by a guy named Mark Levin. If you have never heard this guy, he is certainly worth a listen, catch him here. Anyways, here is what struck me. Levin, a former Reagan Administration official, is so angry, I can't see how he keeps it together. He is mocking of others, belittling, harsh, and at times, just plain mean. And he offers the objects of his ridicule, the opportunity to come on his show so that he can "set them straight" and say it to their faces. So that is the politics side. Let's take a look at the faith side. At least from a Christian perspective and what Jesus had to say in the Sermon on the Mount. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven... ..."You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Now as I read this stuff, a few things jump out at me. Especially the "love your enemies" words. I grew up in a church where the minister (that's what we used to call them before we switched over to pastor) one day preached on this passage. And then he prayed. For the people and soldiers of North Vietnam. And that day, people left our church, never to return because they did not believe we should pray for those Communist heathens. Despite Jesus' words. The "do not murder" words present a different dilemma. Not those words per se, but the second part that equates our thoughts with deeds. As I read this, if I wish evil, bad, or misfortune on someone, I am as bad as a murderer. Because it is a heart issue. And for me, heart always precedes action. Mark Levin certainly did not have a Christlike attitude on his radio show. But that's okay, because as far as I know, he is not claiming Christ. And I know that there is difference between radio people like Mark Levin and Michael Savage, and the Rush Limbaughs of the world. But it is a difference of degrees. So here we go with the questions. Why is it that so many Christian conservatives like these guys? I don't think anyone can reasonably say that people like Savage and Rush do not mock those who have different views. A quick listen to any Paul Shanklin parody will prove that. Is God happy with the attitudes expressed by these people? I would say no. Because I believe you can hold to most of the political ideas of these hosts and share them in a way that pleases God. Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager are evidence enough of that. Now before you conservatives get all foamed up and ready to scream at me, I'd be remiss if I did not mention that yes, the other side is guilty of this too. And perhaps more so. The manner in which Revs. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pflegar have excoriated their political enemies is, in my opinion, inexcusable. Not only have their words been mocking and hurtful, they have been shared from the pulpit. By people that essentially have taken an oath to be witnesses of all that is good about God. We can agree to disagree about the substance of what they had to say, but the manner in which their messages were shared was filled with condescension, ridicule, vitriol, and evidence of a mean spirit. For people of faith, how does any of this show love for our enemies, or for those who disagree with us? How is God honored by these guys, and more importantly us, when we hold them up as beacons of what we believe?

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam

News is out today that Hormel Corporation profits are up about 14% over prior year. Their executives are attributing that to an economy that is driving people to buy more... Spam. Now I don't know about you, but I hate this stuff. I hate the texture of it, the smell, the taste, even the concept of it. Bits and pieces of pork, smashed into a small can held together by some kind of gelatin. I don't even want to think about what pieces of the pig they put in there. Or for that matter, the turkey Spam. Or the hickory Spam. Or the bacon Spam. Or the hot and spicy Spam. Or the dog Spam. Okay that one is a little over the line, but all the others are genuine. You can check it out here. My wife loves this stuff. Fried. I guess she grew up eating it. My son loves it too. So we have had to come to a sort of uneasy truce. No Spam when I am around the house. And since I travel and am out of the house often, the deal works. But I will say there is something Spamish about which I will be eternally grateful. The clip below. It is the classic Monty Python Spam Sketch. Enjoy.

The Power of God

A tip of the hat to Mike's America for finding this picture, the ash cloud from the recent eruption of Chile's Chaitén volcano against a massive electrical storm. A great example of God's power unleashed in nature. I'll be on the road the next couple of days. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend. As you go about your life, loaded with cookouts, family, and maybe the beach, take time to remember the men and women of our armed forces who died for our freedoms. Here's a good place to start.

Activism Smacktivism!

Some people call it judicial activism. The interpretation of the US Constitution by the judicial branch of our government. The theory here is that our constitution is a static document and that no interpretation was, or is necessary. In the minds of many, we are not to interpret the constitution. Just follow it. And if you don't like what it says, you can pass a constitutional amendment. Well sometimes that just doesn't work. Sometimes the tyranny of the majority can prevail and prevent good sensible laws and changes from being passed. Last week a little known woman, very important to American history died. Most of you will not even know her name. I know I didn't. But I, for one, will be forever thankful for her sacrifice. Her name was Mildred Loving. Why is she a hero? Because in 1958, at the age of 19, Mildred Loving, nee Jeter, like millions before her, said I do. The only difference for her was that as a young African American woman, it was illegal to marry someone of another race. Less than five weeks after her marriage to Richard Loving, a white bricklayer, Virginia State police burst into their bedroom and arrested them. They were jailed on felony charges of breaking the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed by the Virginia Legislature. In 1979, I married Regina Michele Johnson, a beautiful 18 year old African American woman I met at church. It was only 12 years earlier that what has been called the most liberal activist Supreme Court we have ever had, headed by Earl Warren, effectively ruled laws barring interracial marriages unconstitutional. The case was Loving vs. Virginia, decided by the US Supreme Court in July of 1967. Can activism go too far? Perhaps. But not in this case. Thank you Mildred and Richard Love. If not for you, I might not now be married to the true love of life, Regina Michele Johnson ... Miller. Read more about it. The LA Times Obit. From the Chicago Tribune, Clarence Page's thoughts. **Update. A short article from former GOP Senator and Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.**

Barack or Hillary?

Let's take a few moments and consider the argument Hillary Clinton is making in her run for the Presidency. Based on how she interprets the results thus far, her claim to the nomination rests on two premises. First, after the entire election season, she believes she will have more popular votes than Barack Obama. Her math only works if you include Florida and Michigan, which before the elections she agreed should not count because they broke the rules. In his book, Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chairman, recounts a conversation with Senator Carl Levin where McAuliffe stated that the rules are the rules and that breaking them would bring penalties and lost delegates. It is clear that the Clinton campaign understood the rules and had one idea before the race began, and another once she found she would need these results to win. Her second premise is the belief that she will be a better candidate against John McCain in the bellwether states. Those are the states a candidate must win to grab the brass ring in November. Her belief is that since she has won a majority of the large states, and some other key states, she will stronger in November. Analysis. All in my humble opinion. There is no way Hillary ends up with more delegates, even if you count Florida and Michigan. In the remaining primaries, Hillary will win big in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. Obama will squeak out wins in Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. It is possible, if you count Michigan and Florida, that she could win the popular vote. It is a remote chance, but it is possible. More likely, she will get within 100,000 votes. But again, for her to claim a victory here rests solely on a result that will be seen as breaking the previously agreed upon rules. Typically a behavior that brings a needs to improve result on your grade school report card. Now she may be correct in her electability argument. It is a fact Obama did poorly in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. And he will be getting crushed this week in Appalachia. He lost Florida. Missouri was very very close. Those are all states that a democrat must win to get into the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But let's say all of this true and we leave Michigan and Florida out. Here is what we will have. Obama will have more popular votes, more regular delegates, and more primary wins. Hillary is asking the super delegates to ignore the results and award her the nomination, not based on the vote, delegates, or how one played the game. But on a future claim, that may indeed be valid. If you are a super delegate, do you really want to be part of a gang of people who tells the African American community that even when they play by the rules and win the race, that they still can't come to the dance?

A Little Sunday Fun

I came across these at a site I sometimes visit.  Both of them are pretty representative of my warped sense of humor around churchy stuff.  Believe me, it can get a missionary guy like myself into trouble sometimes.

Dinner is Served

When I returned from Oregon, I was going to post something really serious and thoughtful on the elections. Sometimes though, you just have to be a little silly. In that vein, this came across my desk today. I think it was called a Redneck Seafood Platter. Bon Appetite!