We shall all be free...

It's not totally unheard of for my professors to be seen dancing in school, but Wednesday was a day of dancing like no other. I attend a seminary that is on the progressive end of the spectrum but boasts a student body that is diverse in terms of theology, social ideology, politics, class background, ethnicity, and national origin. Most of our professors and many students could be categorized as "liberal" (in a world where categories are constructed boundaries that don't really fit anyone exactly), but many other students would identify themselves as "conservative" or "moderate", or perhaps "traditional". These categories break down upon close analysis, but at a surface level they continue to organize how our society sees itself. One thing almost all of us have in common is a concern for social justice in some form. We gather together for (optional) chapel services three days/week, using a wide variety of styles, themes, and theological perspectives. This week one particular theme has permeated all of our services, seeping into the liturgy, the songs, the messages, the benedictions. We're celebrating the election of a new president, the successful process of democracy, and the end of a difficult, divisive campaign season. But most of all, we're rejoicing over the election of a person of color to the highest office in this nation. Finally, after years of striving for equal rights, equal access, equal respect, we see a giant leap forward for the black community. Of course, the mere fact of Barack Obama's election does not mean that white privilege and black oppression will end--that goal requires the continued efforts of all of us. However, the symbolic significance of his candidacy and election is reverberating throughout the entire country. We elected a black man. Halleluia. As we sing together in chapel the rallying song of the Civil Rights movement, "we shall overcome someday." We as a country can overcome our history and systems of racist oppression, even though they are still deeply entrenched in our culture, society, and government. Maybe soon we can elect a woman. Please, America, one more leap forward!

I'd like to point out what I see as a significant reason for hope: the face of religion in politics is shifting in the U.S. The Christian Right does not hold quite so firm a grasp on the politics of Christians as they once did. This semester I've been studying the historical rise of such organizations as The Christian Coalition, The Moral Majority, Concerned Women For America, Focus on the Family, and the politics of well-known evangelical religious leaders who have brilliantly managed to mobilize evangelical Christians as a powerful voting bloc since the 1970s. Their contribution to the political landscape of the U.S. has been controversial, especially because it has been so effective. The GOP has benefited more than the Democratic Party from the mobilization of conservative Christian voters, but at no small cost. When moderate republican candidates like John McCain have to alter their platforms and perform more conservative personas in order to mobilize the GOP's base, we can see the price of utilizing religion as a political organizing principle. However, as Domke and Coe assert in their book The God Strategy, religious politics have become firmly embedded in our election and governing processes in the last three decades. Even the Democrats are learning how to appeal to "religious voters". And this is my point: many voters who would identify themselves as "religious", or more specifically, as "Christian, and even as "evangelical Christian", voted Democratic in this election. Many of these have been voting Democratic all along, and others who typically vote Republican switched over in this election cycle. For information to back up this claim, check out the following blogs:

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/
a post on Nov 5th entitled Exit Poll Analysis Shows "Religious Rebalancing"

http://www.spiritual-politics.org/
a post on Nov 5th entitled Results! Evangelicals

My point here is not to belittle the efforts of the Christian Right to organize Christian voters, but rather to argue that Christian voters are motivated by a complex matrix of issues just like non-Christian or non-religious voters. Those on the left who are also "secular" sometimes have the bad habit of assuming all Christians have been brainwashed by Focus on the Family, and to view these voters as lemmings who can't think for themselves (because clearly if they could think, they'd vote Democratic). I certainly think this way sometimes, in moments of frustration. However, in this election year more and more members of the "Religious Left" came out of the closet, admitted the importance of their faith in shaping their liberal politics, and appealed to their moderate and conservative religious friends to vote their faith on issues of poverty, health care, war, violence, ecological sustainability, and social oppression.

Singing and dancing with my seminary community in chapel this week, I realized how long it's been since I've felt proud to be a Christian in this country. Even now, I'm uncomfortable with the label of "Christian" because of all the negative stereotypes associated with it, but I have a renewed sense of hope for Christians in the U.S. I rejoice in the openings created by this campaign and the election, for our citizens to engage in dialogue and thought about the influence of their religious views (or their views on religion) upon their politics. We still face an uphill road to changing our society, but this is a moment for celebration! We shall overcome someday.

Fear Tactics 101 (or is that 911...?)

Focus on the Family recently put out a letter from an imaginary Christian in the year 2012, describing what they claim could happen if Obama wins the presidential election. The letter expresses (and fosters) fears about "the protection of human life" (abortion), sexual morality, and the protection of freedom--of religion, speech, and parenting choices. Although the introduction to the letter proclaims that Christians may differ on political issues and that they should respect each other's opinions, the content of the letter is undeniably an attempt to undermine Obama's candidacy. Find the letter here, in pdf format:

http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf

In a similar vein, a video recently appeared on youtube.com predicting a similarly fearful outcome of an Obama presidency. The video makes claims even more ridiculous than the above-mentioned letter, but is also powerful because it uses image and sound to drive home its claims. Watch the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bVTE0qEf0o

This strategy implemented by McCain-Palin supporters of resorting to fear tactics seems desperate, but will it be effective? According to recent polls, blogs, and news interviews, many moderate and Republican voters are tired of fear tactics and want to hear specific policy plans from presidential candidates, and thus many are leaning toward Obama. However, it remains to be seen if the fears stoked by the campaign and its supporters will control the day-of, voting-booth decisions of these voters.

Colin Powell speaks out for Muslims

Finally someone is publicly asking the question "Why is it considered bad to be a Muslim in this country?" Of course, you could ask any practicing Muslim in the U.S. and she could probably tell you exactly why and how it is difficult to be a Muslim in the U.S. The same goes for people of Arabic ethnicity, or those who look remotely like they could be from the Middle East. The prejudice that has continued to simmer in this country against Muslims and those assumed to be Muslims has resurfaced on a national level in the past several weeks due to the whisper campaigns attempting to discredit Sen. Barack Obama. By accusing him of being a closet Muslim, they appeal to voters who firmly believe that the U.S. is a Christian nation and therefore its leaders must represent the Christian faith and principles on which this nation was founded. Rather than discuss the historical inaccuracy of this claim about our founders, I'd like to focus on two points. First, Sen. Obama identifies as a Christian. That is the faith that he claims, and as a country that legally stands upon the separation of church and state, we do not have the right to delve deeper into his spiritual life as a judge of his political worthiness. However, we do have a responsibility to ask the question "what defines a 'true' Christian?" The answer is complex, and reveals the difficulty of judging a person based upon his/her religious affiliations. My understanding of Christianity is radically different than that of some of my close friends. Who determines the "correct" way to practice the teachings of Jesus? Second, we should be discussing this conflation of all Muslims with terrorism and anti-Americanism. When JFK ran for president in 1960, his opponents accused him of being a "papist", indicating that he would take his orders from the Pope rather than concerning himself with the well-being of the U.S. Now in retrospect we can see that his religious affiliations did not aid or inhibit his presidential abilities. So why do we assume that a Muslim could not likewise be a capable leader of our nation?

For more on Colin Powell's statement about religious tolerance and his endorsement of Barack Obama for president, see:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/10/powells_words_a_lesson_for_mcc.html

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/10/colin_powell_and_the_american.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/09/29/slideshow_080929_platon?slide=16#showHeader

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2008/10/colin_powell_stands_up_for_mus.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/21/EDT113L27Q.DTL&type=politics

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/george-will-rush-limbaugh-powells-end

Concealing deep faith, shallow politics

Here's an interesting blog from the Immanent Frame, comparing and contrasting Sarah Palin with Aimee Semple McPherson, a pentecostal evangelist in the first half of the 20th century.

http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/10/16/a-tale-of-two-mavericks/

In this post, blogger Matthew Avery Sutton gives support to the argument that Gov. Palin was chosen by Senator McCain as a sort of token for her religious affiliations. He claims that Palin has demonstrated very little ability to engage with political issues outside of a very small selection, citing interviews with reporters and her "straight talk" performance in the VP debate.

She can lead the country, but she still can't lead a church?

According to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the Bible does not prohibit the political leadership of women, even if those women will have some kind of authority over men. However, this does not mean that a woman could become a spiritual leader for a congregation; after all, "the Bible reserves for men the final teaching and ruling authority in the church." The Council argues that a church leader must be held to higher moral standards than a political leader. Check it out here:

http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/A-Welcome-Dialogue-on-the-Sarah-Palin-Predicament

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.