MySpace


Young Christian Liberals

Liberals Christian


Last Updated: 6/1/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Female
Status: Single
Age: 30
Sign: Scorpio

City: COLUMBUS
State: OHIO
Country: US
Signup Date: 6/16/2006

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Monday, February 11, 2008 

Current mood:  hopeful
Category: News and Politics
..> ..>
Perhaps the most endearing thing about the Democratic Party is its unique ability to represent the beliefs of such a wide range of American citizens. Within our ranks, we have environmentalists and trade unionists, peace activists and feminists,  small business owners and trial lawyers and even our fair share of business executives. Though its a cliche in American politics, a cliche that often seems far from the truth in an era of increasing partisan polarization, the Democratic Party is truly a "big tent." It is because of this big tent philosophy that I've come out of blogosphere hiding to write to you today.

The Problem

I am, as are many of my fellow Democrats, a devout Christian. For years, in the eyes of many Democrats, the word "Christian" has been dragged through the mud by the growing volume of the Christian fundamentalist voice in this country. As a result, many in the left have come to distrust people of faith. As a result, Progressive Christians have very much been driven underground. To use another tired political cliche, Progressive Christians have become the "silent majority" in America. Within the Mainline Protestant denominations especially (Not to say there aren't Progressive Christians of all stripes. I only cite this as an example because of my own experience as a cradle Episcopalian.), there are Progressive Christians abound, but how are we supposed to communicate OUR faith and values to our fellow Democrats when they've become accustomed to a country where the newsmedia talks about Christians like we're some sort of reliable Republican voting bloc? Christian Democrats fear that by wearing their faith on their sleeves, they will be be painted by their fellow progressives with the same brush as the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons of the world. This is, I believe, the real shame of our "big tent" of a party.

Though this has changed for the better in the past couple of years, we, as a party, are a long way from truly bringing the voices of Progressive Christians into the fold. Here in Virginia, we are  fortunate to have a governor in Tim Kaine who proudly spoke of his Catholic faith during his campaign. As someone who's progressive beliefs are ENTIRELY guided by my faith, I was so proud to see Governor Kaine take a stand for Progressive Christians everywhere by reminding us that its perfectly acceptable to be a Christian Democrat.  

bpkybe :: The Progressive Christian Case for Obama

What We Should Do About It

As a party, we need to stand up and say, once and for all, that its not only acceptable, but ADMIRABLE for a politician to let his or her faith guide them in their ideology and decision making. When I go to church, when I read the Gospels, I don't see anything about tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I don't see anything about preemptive war. I don't see anything about discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation. What I see is an underlying message, the story of someone who I believe to be both God and man. Someone who set an example for us all to live by. Blessed are the poor and the meek and the peacemakers. Love your neighbor as yourself. These, as most moderate to progressive Christians would tell you, are the key values of Christianity. And they are the values of progressives everywhere. When will we move past divisive hot-button social issues, embrace our common ideals, and work together to eliminate the horrible violence of poverty and injustice in our country? I believe St. John Chrysostom, an early patriarch of Constantinople and a master of the art of homeletics, said it best:

"This is the rule of the most perfect Christianity, its most exact definition, its highest point, namely, the seeking of the common good. For nothing can so make a person an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors."

This ideal, CARING FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, is our common goal as Christians and Progressives. I await the day that we truly can work together for the common good of this nation.

 

That brings me to the purpose of this post. Until a couple days ago I was very much on board with John Edwards campaign for President. In Senator Edwards I saw someone whos ideology reflected the ideals of my faith. First and foremost Senator Edwards stood for fighting poverty and extending health coverage to all. Also, he was never afraid to discuss how his faith as a Christian inspired him, a multimillionaire lawyer, to take up the cause of the other America of those living in poverty. With Senator Edwards out of the race, it seems to me that only one of the remaining candidates in this Democratic primary is truly the kind of leader that embodies these ideals: Senator Barack Obama.

Policywise, there are a number of reasons for my support of Senator Obama. For example, a Clinton White House would likely continue to support NAFTA, a trade policy enacted during Bill Clinton's Presidency that has been disasterous to American working families. Also, while Senator Obama has remained consistant in his opposition to the unjust and immoral war in Iraq, Senator Clinton has continually refused to apologize for her vote to authorize President Bush to use force or adequately explain why she failed to vote for the Levin amendment which would have provided some valuable checks on President Bush's power to wage war.

In reality, my support of Senator Obama boils down to much more than policy distinctions which, admittedly, aren't by any means extreme. The real reason is this: After eight years of horrible division and partisan polarization in the United States under two Bush administrations, only Senator Obama offers the possibility of an America which can put aside ideological differences from time to time and work for the common good. Most importantly, as a Progressive Christian, I believe Senator Obama, who is a devout member of the United Church of Christ, will be a President who has the ability and inspirational leadership to create an America where people of all faiths will really and truly be welcomed with open arms into the Democratic Party. That is just something I don't see happening under the continued polarization of a Clinton White House. When we remain so divided, many Democrats misguided mistrust of Christians cannot and will not be fixed.

In an America with a President Obama, I see the possibility that we can all, Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian, pro-choice or pro-life, gay or straight, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or atheist, finally set aside our relatively small differences and work together to, as St. Chrysostom said so many years ago, put our emphasis first and foremost on caring for our neighbors.

Monday, October 02, 2006 

Current mood:  tired
Shaun Casey
Oct. 01, 06 11:49

The House recently voted along partisan lines for a bill that would cut down on First Amendment establishment cases so that Americans (including Christians!) who want to go to court to challenge episodes of government sponsored acts of religious establishment will have a harder time of it. 

That headline seems a little weird, doesn't it?  But you read it correctly.  Recently the House voted along partisan lines to pass H.R. 2679 or "The Public Expression of Religion Act" which would prevent citizens who file successful lawsuits under the Establishment clause of the First Amendment from recovering legal fees from the government.  Current law allows plaintiffs to recover some costs from a wide range of successful constitutional and civil rights cases under the theory that these types of cases are expensive to file and that successful cases in these areas are good for the whole country.

The proponents of the bill want to cut down on First Amendment establishment cases so that Americans (including Christians!) who want to go to court to challenge episodes of government sponsored acts of religious establishment will have a harder time of it.  Some of the proponents mistakenly think that there is a secular conspiracy afoot that is trying to denude the public square of all expressions of religion and sees the establishment clause of the First Amendment as the primary tool to make this happen.  What this partisan view misses is the great blessing the establishment clause has been to religious freedom in American, including Christianity!  The amazing religious pluralism in America is due in part to the disestablishment of religion in our country.  What the sponsors are doing is carrying water for a handful of right-wing Christian groups who are intent on empowering government to endorse and sponsor their particular form of belief over other forms of belief, including the larger forms of Christianity in the country. 

This strategy may appear good to right wing Christian partisans.  And in the short run it allows Republicans to crow to fundamentalists that they are fighting for their values.  In the long run, if these Christians become dependent on state dollars and sponsorship for their success, the failure of their churches are pretty well assured.  Christians should reject this form of state sponsorship and pray that cooler heads in the Senate prevail and reject this dangerous legislation.  Let's work to keep the Church free of government establishment impulses and celebrate our freedom.

Thursday, September 07, 2006 

Current mood:  annoyed
Category: News and Politics

An article by Patrick Hornbeck for www.faithfuldemocrats.com

Last weeks edition of Florida Baptist Witness, the newspaper of the Florida Baptist State Convention, carried an interview with Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris. Now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, the former Florida Secretary of State (and major player in the 2000 presidential recount) shared some of her views on faith and politics:

"we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

"If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if youre not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin." 

Apart from the fact that Congresswoman Harris seems to have been taking lessons in grammar from the president she helped elect, her comments might explain why, in a recent poll in my home state of Arizona, 85% of respondents said they dont want "religious and political zealots telling them how to live."

I read Harris comments on the same day that I was teaching my students at Santa Clara University about Father Charles Curran, a Catholic priest censured by the Vatican in 1986 for progressive views on abortion and homosexuality. At first, the two cases seem to have little in common. But in both instances, we find authority figures arguing that there is only one right way to articulate Christian faith in the context of public life. For Harris, to be a Christian is to be pro-life and anti-gay rights, to believe that Terri Schiavo should have been kept in a permanent vegetative state. Disagree on any of those issues, Harris seems implicitly to be arguing, and you no longer deserve the title Christian.

And here, I think, Democrats have a rhetorical "in." We can be the party that makes it clear that Christianity and Christian faith cannot be made the exclusive property of particular ideological positions, no matter how often our opponents attempt to make that link. We can be the party where people can come as they are in their relationships with God, come as they are without the risk of being judged for their ways of being religious.

If Katherine Harris Republican Party is the party of only those Christians who successfully pass litmus test after litmus test, cant we be the party of all those other Christians who struggle with their faith, who sometimes may even doubt their faith, and who express that faith in a host of different ways?

Thats not relativism; its acknowledging that Christ speaks more languages than the sometimes wooden English of the King James Bible.

p.s. And about the "lie" of the separation of church and state? The readers of the Florida Baptist Witness might well consider a passage in their own churchs statement of belief, The Baptist Faith and Message: "Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends."

.. type=text/javascript> function submitReview() { xajax.$('submitButton').disabled=true; xajax.$('submitButton').value="please wait..."; xajax_JRprocessReview(xajax.getFormValues('reviewForm')); return false; } function cancelReview() { Effect.Fade('newreview'); document.getElementById('newreview').display = 'none'; return false; } function submitReply(revid) { xajax.$('submitButton_'+revid).disabled=true; xajax.$('submitButton_'+revid).value="please wait..."; xajax_JRprocessReply(xajax.getFormValues('replyForm_'+revid)); return false; } function cancelReply(revid) { Effect.Fade('newreply_'+revid); document.getElementById('newreply_'+revid).display = 'none'; return false; } function submitReport() { xajax.$('submitButton').disabled=true; xajax.$('submitButton').value="please wait..."; xajax_JRprocessReport(xajax.getFormValues('reportForm')); return false; } function cancelReport(id) { var divname = 'report-'+id; Effect.Fade(divname); document.getElementById(divname).display = 'none'; return false; } ..>