Pastors enact civil disobedience

This past Sunday, an Arizona-based conservative organization coordinated an act of civil disobedience by several pastors. Their action: preaching politics from the pulpit, endorsing or preaching against specific political candidates. Here's an AP news story about the event:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOglIxiBY7ZLeg1lwDIiP5kwkcuAD93FU7RG3

This is an interesting turn of events. These pastors are challenging the legal protections of our national heritage of the separation of church and state.

Feminism:Sarah Palin::

Here's an opinion piece from Forbes.com arguing that feminists should be happy with Sarah Palin's nomination for VP. Check it out at:

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/14/sarah-palin-feminism-oped-cx_hm_0915mansfield.html

As a feminist, I rejoice that a woman could realistically aspire to such a high political office, and have a decent shot at reaching her goal. The fact that a woman could be easily accepted by voters as a viable candidate for VP highlights the dedication, perseverance, and gumption of generations of feminists and women's rights activists. I've no doubt that Sarah Palin supports the right of women to have access to jobs, and that many women in this country see her as a role model of a professional woman who is also a mother, wife, friend, and community member.

HOWEVER, Harvey Mansfield (author of the Forbes article) is correct in saying that many feminists oppose Palin's bid for the VP position, although he completely misrepresents the reason for this opposition. His article is grossly reductive of the goals, strategies, and history of the feminist/women's movements in the U.S. He speaks in stereotypes about "radical feminism", revealing his own ignorance of the movement. He even has the guts to claim that Palin is a "better model for American women--for all women"; this statement basically revives the battle that many Second Wave feminists have fought for decades: We don't need a man to tell us how to be women. Furthermore, Mansfield conveniently leaves out all the reasons that many feminists won't vote for Palin. To name just a few of my own: 1) she promotes abstinence-only education, which leaves young people woefully ignorant about how to prevent an unwanted pregnance AND STDS, should they choose to have sex; 2) She opposes abortion rights for women; 3) She explored the possibility of banning a book written by a pastor about ministry to/for/with LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual and/or Transgender, and Queer) persons; 4) she supports oil drilling in Alaska and tried to keep polar bears off the Endangered Species list--now what kind of mother actively works to make the environment WORSE for her children and grandchildren?; 5) As Alaska governor, she reduced funding for special needs children, proving her solid "family values"; 6) She passed legislation required rape victims to pay (several hundred dollars or more) for their rape kits; 7) She has proven herself ignorant about such things as the Bush Doctrine, giant lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Iraq war, and foreign policy; 8) the McCain-Palin campaign machine tosses around the "gender card" with wild abandon now anytime someone challenges Palin to prove herself, whereas myriad other female politicians have withstood truly sexist obstacles time and again, proving their ability to do their jobs; Palin, in comparison, may be proving a negative stereotype that women are weaker, more fragile, less intelligent, and less capable of handling pressure than are men when it comes to politics. Oh, and I almost forgot: Mansfield compares the women's movement to the civil rights movement. How original of him, to pit these two liberation movements against each other. He clearly shows his white, male, privilege here--yes, there are many, many white men who have joined the struggles against sexism and racism in this country, but Mansfield is clearly not one of them. He misses the reality that sexism and racism are both STILL around. While it is no longer acceptable in most circles to "look a woman [or a person of color] in the eye and say 'you are not equal to me'", Mansfield seems to think that sexism and racism only occur in this direct manner; instead, racism and sexism today have morphed into much more subtle forms, making them harder to stamp out altogether.

Mansfield's "historical facts" are sketchy at best, undermining the validity of his argument. He is entitled to his opinion...as am I. In my opinion, this professor of history needs to go back to school.

take 2

Here's the link I was trying to post in my last entry, on pentecostalism:

http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/09/25/perplexed-by-pentecostalism/

Here's an interesting post from The Immanent Frame on the history of Pentecostalism in the U.S.--that is, Sarah Palin's religious heritage.

Carter, Obama, Messiah?

In the 1976 presidential campaign, Jimmy Carter appeared on the national scene as a fresh face, relatively new to politics. The American voters perceived in him an opportunity to break away from a heritage of war and corruption fostered by previous presidents. Lyndon Johnson, although fairly progressive in his domestic social programs, grew very unpopular as he persisted in his commitment of U.S. troops to the conflict in Vietnam. Nixon and his fellows brought upon America the taint of the Watergate scandal. Ford made the unpopular move of pardoning former president Nixon of his crimes before the trial process had really even begun. In the wake of these events, Carter's campaign gave U.S. voters a fresh hope that the country could shift toward a more positive direction. According to historian Randall Balmer, American voters in 1976 "were searching for a kind of savior, someone to lead them out of the wilderness of shame and corruption to the promised land of redemption and rehabilitation" (Balmer, "God in the White House", HarperOne 2008, p. 79). Jimmy Carter, a wet-behind-the-ears politician from a Southern evangelical Christian background, inspired people who didn't often engage in politics to cast a vote for his hopeful presidency.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to draw some parallels between Carter and our current presidential candidate Barack Obama. Although as individuals they may be quite different, there seems to be some similarities in how they are/were perceived by U.S. voters. Like Carter, Obama is seen as a fresh, relatively new--or "inexperienced" say his critics--politician. Obama's candidacy follows on the heels of an immensely unpopular, corrupt, and scandalous presidential regime. Obama's campaign highlights the shortcomings of President Bush and promises a positive alternative to the disastrous administration of the past eight years. He has become something of a messiah figure in the eyes of voters.

Ironically, it is his critics who have plastered the label of "messiah" onto Obama, raucously shouting that this "loser" sees himself as a messiah and wants American voters to believe that he can save us all from our problems. Right-wing radio personality Michael Savage rants about "The Messiah" daily on his radio talk show. His audience includes a large number of conservative voters, many of whom expect another messiah to come and redeem the world someday. Despite this criticism, many of Obama's supporters are thrilled to have a candidate with his particular vision for the future of the U.S. and see him as untainted by corruption. He is a bit of a messiah, or perhaps a prophetic voice, even for voters who claim no religious affiliations.

Unfortunately for Jimmy Carter (and for the Democratic Party), many of Carter's supporters turned against him during his presidency, organizing themselves into a powerful political network known as the Religious Right, or the Christian Right. This voting bloc defeated Carter's second run for presidency and continues to stand as an obstacle to many a Democratic candidate at multiple levels of government. My hope is that Obama won't be defeated by the Christian Right, and that his strong supporters won't also turn against him. If elected, he has a huge task list of problems to fix before we can begin to see his vision for the U.S. actualized. I hope we will give him eight years to work for the changes he proclaims.

One Nation, Under God

Has the U.S. ever been a “Christian nation”? The debate about the religious status of our founders and their intentions for this nation has been ongoing throughout the entire history of the U.S. One side argues that our society is broken because we’ve strayed from our Christian roots as a nation, while the other side argues that we never had any homogenous religious roots and that to impose such religion onto our people is to do a great injustice to each other and to our history of religious tolerance. Nevertheless, growing up I have witnessed the ongoing debate over the inclusion of religion in politics, schools, and other public arenas. I learned the Lord’s Prayer in church and the Pledge of Allegiance in school. In high school, my friends claimed that it was better to elect George W. Bush than Al Gore because Bush was a “true Christian” and would guide our nation according to Christian principles.
This argument is recycled again for the 2008 presidential election. Many U.S. voters invest great concern in the religious principles of the candidates. Is McCain a true conservative Christian? Is Obama secretly a Muslim? Does his religious affiliation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright cause him to hate all white people in the U.S.? Will Sarah Palin try to institute the teaching of Creationism in our public schools? Abstinence-only sex education? How will our national security and our children’s futures be affected by the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the next President and VP?
In his book Religion in American Politics (Princeton University Press, 2008), Frank Lambert describes the myriad intersections of religion and politics in the U.S. throughout the history of the nation. He describes the discussion of religion that took place in the Constitutional Convention, sparse as it was, which focused on whether or not to institute a religious test for elected public officials. The delegates agreed that no elected official could be considered unqualified to serve in public office due to his/her religious beliefs (Lambert, 29). According to Lambert, the delegates wanted to protect the religious liberties of U.S. citizens and prevent any one religious group from becoming a tyrannical force in U.S. society, so they banned the creation of a federal religious test for public officials.
In electoral politics today, it seems that we have found ways to institute our own informal religious tests for candidates. Leaders in the Religious Right loudly proclaim their beliefs that Democratic candidates cannot be “true” Christians if they support a woman’s abortion rights, if they oppose the death penalty, if they want to promote social programs for poor classes and/or minorities, if they want to establish diplomatic relations with non-Christian leaders in other countries. The Religious Left tries to counter these attacks by claiming that their brand of Christianity is much, much closer to the teachings of Jesus, using the language of social justice, equality, and care for “the least of these”. Jim Wallis and Rick Warren, outspoken Christian leaders with widespread support, have both hosted forums during the campaign in which they’ve interviewed candidates about how their religious beliefs might affect their presidential decisions. Do we even have the right to ask candidates these religious questions? Are we “violat[ing] the constitutional principle of separation of church and state?” (Lambert, 36). Or are we exercising our right to free speech? Although I recognize that most voters take their religious principles into account when making electoral decisions, I think that we cannot use a candidate’s religious affiliation as a measure of her/his worthiness. That is both a violation of the Constitution and an inaccurate method of judgment—my understanding of Christianity is much different than that of some prominent politicians, for example. Rather, we should acknowledge the ways in which our religious or ethical convictions shape our opinions about specific political issues, and choose a candidate based on her/his support of those same issues regardless of his/her religious affiliations. As Thomas Jefferson once argued, religious affiliation is not a prerequisite for the formation of a moral code of conduct (Lambert, 25).

This is my first attempt as a blogger. My days of being simply a passive reader are through. However, this blog has a purpose other than to contain and broadcast my general musings. It is part of a tutorial I'm taking this semester on the subject of Politics and Religion. The tutorial, called "Is God on Our Side?", delves into the intersections between religious groups and political parties, groups, and candidates, between the rhetoric of politics and the rhetoric of religion, between the electorate's political choices and their religious beliefs. I will be writing here about a combination of things, including current news in the realm of U.S. politics and religion, the response of the blogging world to such news, and the readings my professor has assigned to me about the history of religion and politics in the U.S. I welcome any and all responses to my posts!