« Head Into The Wind | Main | Ancient Text Reveals The Coming Of The “ANNTI-COULTER” »
Has the Bush Administration Crossed the Rubicon?
[Editors Note: Part of our ongoing Sunday series examining the intersection of religion and politics and its relationship to our present state of democracy, written exclusively for the DCP, by Matthew Carnicelli]
This week brought yet another example of the confusion that arises from any attempt by the Federal Government to become involved in the sanctioning or regulating of religious practice. As Linda Greenhouse reported in the April 19, 2005 edition of The New York Times, in an article entitled Supreme Court to Hear Case of Dispute Over Religious Group's Use of Banned Drug:
The Supreme Court added an important new religion case to its docket on Monday, agreeing to decide whether the government can ban the importation of a hallucinogenic tea that is central to the religious rituals of a small Brazil-based church.
The case raises the broader question of how the court will interpret, in the context of an illegal drug, a law that ordinarily requires the federal government to refrain to the maximum extent possible from interfering with religious practices.
In brief, the Bush Administration is attempting to block the importation of hoasca tea - which serves a similar function in Uniao Do Vegetal ceremonies as peyote in various Native American religious practices. A Federal District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico first issued an injunction against the government’s proposed ban, which was later confirmed by the 10th Circuit Court in Denver, Colorado.
Both of these Courts based their rulings on a 1993 federal law, the Religious Restoration Act, which requires that the Federal government not interfere with religious practice less unless this interference could be justified by a “compelling interest”. The Supreme Court later ruled, in 1997, that Congress lacked the authority to impose this requirement on the States. However, it is not the State of New Mexico that is attempting to block the importation of this tea, but rather the allegedly religion-friendly Bush Administration.
As Greenhouse later notes in her story:
In an opinion concurring in the 10th Circuit's decision to uphold the injunction, Judge Michael W. McConnell cited the peyote exemption as evidence that the government was free to exercise discretion in such matters.
Rejecting the argument that the district court should have deferred to the other two branches, Judge McConnell said: "If Congress or the executive branch had investigated the religious use of hoasca and had come to an informed conclusion that the health risks or possibility of diversion are sufficient to outweigh the free exercise concerns in this case, that conclusion would be entitled to great weight. But neither branch has done that."
Instead, he said, the government had simply invoked the general principle that controlled substances are dangerous. Judge McConnell, a leading scholar on questions concerning the free exercise of religion before he became a judge, is widely seen as a possible Bush administration choice for a future Supreme Court vacancy.
To summarize, we have a Conservative judge, thought to be a potential Supreme Court nominee, expressing the opinion that the Bush Administration’s ban on the hoasca tea was arbitrary. Keep that in mind.
A Religious Right to Discriminate?
The Bush Administration’s actions in the case take place at the same time that it is intervening, through the Justice Department’s religious-rights unit, as a friend of The Salvation Army in an American Civil Liberties Union suit charging religious discrimination against employees in its government-funded social services division in New York City, and on Long Island.
As presented in the ACLU’s press release, the details of this suit are the following:
The case arose after The Salvation Army began to require all employees in its Social Services for Children division to fill out a form on which they: a) identify their church affiliation and all other churches attended for the past decade, b) authorize their religious leaders to reveal private communications to the Salvation Army; and c) pledge to adhere to the religious mission of The Salvation Army which, according to The Salvation Army, is to "preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
Moreover, new job descriptions for every social services employee now require compliance with The Salvation Army’s religious mission statement. Previously, the social services unit had its own mission statement which was completely secular.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to order the 136-year-old charity to stop these practices and to rule that the government funding of the Salvation Army’s faith-based discrimination against its social services employees in foster care, adoption, HIV, juvenile detention and other social services is illegal. Agencies for New York State, New York City and Nassau County and Suffolk County are named also as co-defendants.
The NYCLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of 18 current and former Salvation Army employees of varying religious and non-religious backgrounds. They include many of the most respected senior managers in the agency.
The Bush Administration position in this case is that groups like The Salvation Army should be permitted to harass, and discriminate against, employees who will not, or can not by reason of religious conscience, submit to a theological litmus test. And they should even be able to do this in a state like New York - a state with a large population of atheists and agnostics paying the very taxes that fund these Government programs!
While the Courts will eventually rule on the merits of these two cases, it strikes me that, by virtue of their actions in these legal proceedings, the Bush Administration is in grave danger of running afoul of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Through its actions in these two challenges, the Bush Administration is sending an unmistakable message that it considers certain religious groups as somehow more deserving of the Federal Government’s respect than others.
A tiny hybrid Christian-Shamanistic sect that seeks to import the very same tea that it uses as part of its ceremonies in Brazil is vigorously opposed; while a mainstream Christian group that seeks to subject employees-taxpayers to both an undue invasion of their privacy, and ultimately, religious discrimination in employment is supported!
This is a very dangerous precedent to be setting - inasmuch as many mainstream religions are based on premises that at least a substantial percentage of reasonable men and women would consider highly subjective, if not akin to the stuff of mythology or science fiction.
As challenging as this characterization might appear, let me remind the reader of what Thomas Jefferson had to say with regard to the authenticity of the character of Jesus, as suggested by certain elements of the Gospels, in an August 1820 letter to William Short:
For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor.
For more of Jefferson’s thinking with regard to the premises of Christianity, I refer you to my earlier column, The Gospel According to Thomas.
Hence, at least in the mind of the author of The Declaration of Independence, even aspects of Christian religious dogma and practice, as specifically advocated by groups like The Salvation Army, cannot be treated as above scrutiny, or somehow factual – and hence deserving of any better treatment by Government than any other religious dogma or mode of spiritual practice.
Bankruptcy and Abortion
I further note that the Bankruptcy Bill that George Bush signed this week contains no provision that prevents anti-abortion activists from exploiting the Code in order to avoid responsibility for the damage they do. Such a provision was passed by the United States Senate in previous sessions, and again offered by New York's Charles Schumer - but rejected along party lines, for fear of alienating Tom Delay's House of Representatives, and thus jeopardizing the bill's passage.
However, this was an indispensable provision for someone like myself who both supports abortion rights and lives his life according to spiritual principles.
How can that be, you might ask? How can someone both support abortion rights and call himself "spiritual"?
I believe that a soul exists before conception, continues after death, and incarnates over time in different bodies – as espoused by over a billion Buddhists and Hindus around the world, Pythagoras and Plato in ancient Greece, and by adherents of a large number of other spiritual, metaphysical, and religious traditions.
Any birth involves a specific agreement between two souls - the souls of the mother and the would-be child. Unless both are willing, there is no agreement. When there is no agreement, the child soul finds another vehicle for incarnation.
Even within this multi-life context, however, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is necessarily a serious one – and one that is ideally both rare and legal. I also believe that the best way to make abortion ultimately unnecessary is through responsible sexual behavior, including the extensive use of contraceptive aids.
I strongly object to the Bush Administration's notion that while taxpayer funds can be used by "favored" religious groups to discriminate against non-believers, they must not be used to fund the only credible and proven method for reducing unwanted pregnancies - contraception.
I strongly object to the notion that "faith-based" activists, be they animal rights or anti-abortion activists, should be protected from facing the full weight of the law when they violate others' rights, or destroy their property.
I see an Administration that does not respect my spiritual beliefs as one that has crossed the Rubicon, and violated the Separation of Church and State.
I have no idea if Jefferson and James Madison, were they alive today, would view my spiritual convictions as persuasive. However, I am confident that they would not hold them, or the beliefs of atheists and agnostics, as less worthy of the protection of the Federal Government than those of the conservative Christians who are dictating Bush Administration policy in these areas.
Furthermore, I believe the Framers knew exactly what they were doing when they created the First Amendment. As I’ve argued in previous columns, I think that the Founding Generation were likely guided by the unseen hand of Nature’s God in the construction of the United States Constitution.
I believe that the consciousness that gave birth to all understood that our Separation of Church and State - and the revolutionary model that it represented for the world - was the best way to end the murder and mayhem that had taken place for thousands of years in Its name, at least within the borders a single nation.
Of course, I can’t prove any of this – any more than orthodox Catholics and Christians can prove the existence of heaven and hell, or that life "begins" at conception.
Does that make my spiritual beliefs any less worthy of protection by the Bush Administration?
Isn't that obviously what the Founders and Framers intended the Separation of Church and State to do?
Hmmm, what's next on the docket to be outlawed... drumming?
http://blog.au.org/2005/04/tea_parley_supr.html
This drawing was part of Frank Rich's op-ed piece in the NYT. I think it speaks volumes about how the majority of Americans view what is happening to their country.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/04/23/opinion/20050424_richart.html
Interesting site, kj. Here's another article from the site about the Air Force Academy's alledged religious bias towards fundamentalism.
http://blog.au.org/2005/04/is_the_air_forc.html
--snip--
Recent media accounts have highlighted instances of religious bias and promotion of conservative Christianity at the Academy. Academy officials, who in 2003 were accused of moving too slowly after some female cadets said they were sexually assaulted, insist they are working to correct this new problem.
-snip--
ABC reported that during a class on the Holocaust, one cadet told a Jewish student that the mass murder occurred because the Jews killed Christ.
Non-believers have also had problems. One former cadet, an atheist who has since graduated, said he posted a poem about atheists in the military on his door but it was constantly torn off. He asserted that cadets were pressured to attend Christian services and that the academy promoted the film "The Passion of the Christ."
When he complained, the former cadet said, an officer told him he was Christian and considered it his duty to "bring him back" to Christianity.
--snip--
How did the Academy take on such a religious cast? Apparently, the institution has been heavily influenced by Focus on the Family and other high-profile Religious Right groups that proliferate in the Pike's Peak area. Also, fundamentalist groups have for years targeted the military for aggressive proselytism efforts.
--snip--
Last year, a team from Yale Divinity School observed the religious atmosphere at the Academy. The team was alarmed that an Academy chaplain gave a speech to cadets urging them to warn fellow cadets that those not "born again will burn in the fires of hell." The Yale report also notes that the chaplain told cadets Jesus had "called" them to the academy as part of God's plan for their lives.
--snip--
The bottom line here is simple: Young men and women who want to wear their nation's uniform in any branch of the military services should be made welcome no matter what they believe or don't believe about God.
The Air Force Academy belongs to all Americans. It is not the exclusive property of fundamentalist Christians. Academy officials have a legal obligation under the Constitution as well as a moral duty to end the harassment and cease proselytizing through official channels. The Academy's job is to train Air Force officers, not create spiritual warriors.
oncall, saw the drawing earlier this morning, and I agree, it does, in spades.
It is my completely unsubtantiated opinion that the BushInc Family Cabal is more than happy to continue using religion as a driving wedge issue, not only in America, but throughout the world.
What easier way to fool the masses? Either start, or promote, a holy war. Which, in my opinion, Bush did the Sunday after 9/11 when he used the word "crusade." He was roundly critized for using that word at the time, but I think he knew exactly what he was doing. (Or, if he didn't know, he was coached to use the word.)
So of course, the military needs to be indoctrinated as well. The send off ceremonies for Guard troops not only linked 9/11 and Saddam, they linked God with the USA. (No need for Mom and Apple Pie, the other worked quite well.)
That this wedge could be so effective, in what I like to think of as an enlightened, civilized world, is worth every effort I can think of to oppose it.
Matt, great work, as always.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai speaking now on CSPAN 2. Dr. Maathai was the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for her Greenbelt Movement relating the environment to sound economic policy.
She is speaking on this subject on CSPAN-2's program booknotes.
Proud mother Off-T:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7606614
American Bakers Flex Their Flour Power
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=696165
My son's boss took the World Baking Championship in Paris. This is what diplomacy looks like.
See the video of them winning, with "Star Spangled Banner" playing
http://www.bbga.org/coupemovie2.html
French website for the competition & a conference: http://www.boulangerie.org/concours/concours.php?index=3 http://www.europain.com/fr/conferences_animations/autres.html
http://www.bbga.org/teamusa.html (includes team mission statement
& I'm serious about diplomacy)
& now I'm headed off to the bakery to sample some of their wares!
I also want to recommend Antony & the Johnsons - I saw them last night. The name The Johnsons comes from the last name of the drag queen who threw the first rock at Stonewall.
Md,
I read that article earlier this week and meant to save it for Matt's Sunday post, but fortunately you had it. Our current adminstration is fostering a religious war machine. You know, my father would to tell my brothers and I that if we weren't careful and mindful of what was happening around us, the same thing that happened in Germany could happen here. My brothers and I dismissed this as paranoid and laughed it off. I am not laughing anymore. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not believe that this country would go so far as to murder its own citizens for their religious beliefs. However, I do fear that not pledging belief for a certain theology could result in loss of business and severe public humiliation and descrimination.
One has to wonder where the "righteous voices" of tolerance are hidden? There is a "moral majority" in this country, but it has not yet been stirred enough to fight this battle. It has been forced to believe the propaganda apparatus that it is pointless to vocally protest what has happened to our country. In my little corner of the country, people are afraid to talk about how concerned they are with what is happening for fear of offending those who agree with the path that Bu$cho has taken us. As Toolmaker advised yesterday, we have to shed our inhibitions and make a vocal protest and not step away from the fight. It is time to wake up those who don't know what is happening around them. It is time to BE THE MEDIA.
OnCall
I already lost a job once for not having the right religious beliefs. & right now I have to be immersed in belief systems that have nothing to do with me or my job.
High Tech Lynching in Prime Time
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042405Y.shtml
As Bill Maher summed it up for Jay Leno on the "Tonight" show last week: " 'Activist judges' is a code word for gay." The judges being verbally tarred and feathered are those who have decriminalized gay sex (in a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Kennedy) as they once did abortion and who countenance marriage rights for same-sex couples. This is the animus that dares not speak its name tonight. To paraphrase the "Justice Sunday" flier, now it's the anti-filibuster campaign that is being abused to protect bias, this time against gay people.
Anyone who doesn't get with this program, starting with all Democrats, is damned as a bigoted enemy of "people of faith." But "people of faith," as used by the event's organizers, is another duplicitous locution; it's a code word for only one specific and exclusionary brand of Christianity. The trade organization representing tonight's presenters, National Religious Broadcasters, requires its members to "sign a distinctly evangelical statement of faith that would probably exclude most Catholics and certainly all Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist programmers," according to the magazine Broadcasting & Cable. The only major religious leader involved with "Justice Sunday," R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a "false and unbiblical office" but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that "any belief system" leading "away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil."
Posted by: DiAnne at April 24, 2005 11:58 AM
DiAnne,
Your post about the baking competition was wonderful. I wrote to them, extending my congratulatons, told them that I read about them on this web site, and asked them to post their impressions of being Americans in France.
On Call
That's great! Maybe I'll print out a copy of this page & take it to the bakery. There are alot of people there who might be interested in this website & that just didn't occur to me! I'm known as "Gabe's Mom," so always get a nice discount (so that & disappointment about the election explain the extra pounds!) It's like a bakery Democracy Cell anyway, judging by the bumper stickers in the parking lot, & a good employer.
Posted by: DiAnne at April 24, 2005 12:32 PM
DiAnne,
I know that you have sworn off T.V. but I will watch certain interviews. I do this not only to hear the content, but also to hear how the message is delivered. I listened to Sleezeball the other night when one of the guests was Mohler. He came off as self assured with a quiet confidence, but not necessarily smug. I was disheartened to hear the softball questions that Spit Matthews lobbed to him. So I sent Matthews the following e-mail:
Chris Matthews talks tough but has no guts.
It's not just about politics anymore. Now, the whole world is fair game. (That is the show's slogan)
Sound familiar? If it does, I would like to know why you didn't asked Dr. Mohler, as you so reverentially referred to him, about the following quotes the other night?
The only major religious leader involved with "Justice Sunday," R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has not only called the papacy a "false and unbiblical office" but also told Terry Gross on NPR two years ago that "any belief system" leading "away from the cross of Christ and toward another way of ultimate meaning, is, indeed, wicked and evil."
If anybody knows what is happening with "justice and hatefilled Sunday" (Frist) and the progressive's Responce, please post it here. I don't know if my local stations carried it.
oncall,
You have a valid point. Sure we've sworn off the GOP propaganda media, but we have to hold them accountable. How can we do that if we aren't paying attention? It's the same way with our elected officials. It's not just good enough to go vote once every two years; it's even more important to find out WHO you're voting for and why and it's EQUALLY to hold any elected official ACCOUNTABLE each day in office. This is our job. Make it easy for the general population to hear who is corrupt and who is voting against the general good of society.
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't
Frist Initiative Creates Rift in GOP Base
But even as the Tennessee Republican addresses "Justice Sunday" a 90-minute simulcast to conservative churches that enthusiastically backs a Senate rule change to speed judicial confirmations the leader faces apprehension from another key GOP constituency.
The country's leading business lobbying associations, close GOP allies in recent legislative efforts and political campaigns, have told senior Republicans that they would not back the Frist initiative to force votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.
Business leaders say they fear the move would lead to a shutdown of Senate action on long-awaited priorities as Democrats have threatened if Frist moves ahead with a rule change that they say would drastically alter the traditions of a body designed to respect the rights of the minority party.
SNIP
The business leaders' consternation stands in contrast with the fervor among evangelicals, who are pressuring Frist and the Republicans to move swiftly on judges no matter what the consequences.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, the group sponsoring "Justice Sunday," drew applause during a recent private meeting of activists by mentioning the potential for a Senate shutdown.
"That might be the best thing," said Perkins, according to an audio recording of the March meeting provided by the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-judges24apr24,0,5582429.story?coll=la-home-headlines
On Call
I'll watch something like that if I hear about it & can pick it up, but don't have cable & just have gotten out of the habit since 11/3/04. I have occasionally watched FrontLine, 60 Minutes or something like that. I have gotten alot of Jon Stewart clips via email link & do watch archived C-span on computer.
Thanks for the report! I originally couldn't stomach tv news anymore & felt it was possible to get enough elsewhere. Then I decided I had alot more time & quiet (for reading, drawing etc) & also it's interesting to swear off whole activities - like tv watching or large grocery store use - & see if life goes on! It's kind of experimental.
I'm watching "FDR: A Presidency Revealed" on the history channel. Great job. FDR was given a great start in life - born to wealth. But the huge challenge of polio shaped him in mid-life. He wasn't perfect, but it seems that greatness does not reside in perfection, but in something else - some ability to triumph over diversity, to perceive with more than just the eyes, to continue to work toward a goal in spite of great setbacks and little hope of success. Without the experience of polio, Roosevelt would not have become the great leader he was.
We have such a sortage of great leaders today, and perhaps that is why. We are a society of people who have had too few real challenges in our lives. To defeat the neocons, we must look long and hard - and perhaps in unexpected places - for the right person to run in 08. We need someone who has suffered, not just on paper, not just from the regular challenges of the life they've chosen, not just from societal inequalities. We need someone who has overcome great personal challenges. That is what gives a person REAL empathy. That is what gives a person the ability to say "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and have people believe it.
oncall,
Two issues,
ONE--The evangelicals expect PAYBACK for their November vote. Dobson states how the majority party didn't talk about their issues for the last four years and now they expect to see their PAYBACK for their November votes.
TWO--A former Frist aide, Manuel Miranda, was less sympathetic, arguing that CONGRESS HAS ALREADY REWARDED BUSINESS FOR ITS SUPPORT BY PASSING THE CLASS ACTIONA DN BANKRUPCY MEASURES.
"You already got your PAYBACK," he said, framing the argument he and others will make to business leaders. Besides, he said, business ultimately "won't be affected much at all" by Democratic threats to shut down Senate actions.
The connection between the two is the idea that political support, money, and votes will give them a payback. Under the rules of our government, a person, corporation, or entity is not allowed to BUY legislation--in other words--NO BRIBES ALLOWED.
This is the abuse of power, the corruption, and the pro-business-and anti-helping the citizens (helping the common good of all Americans instead of just helping businesses) which is rampant in the majority party. We MUST hold these officials accountable and STAND UP against these abuses of power. As our constitution says, "Nobody is above the law." It's time for us to make sure these illegal acts will not go unpunished.
I think it's good if people try to be as objective as possible & study the media & message & then hold them accountable. For me, there is only so much time & I've wanted to broaden my perspective & knowledge of economics, foreign policy - since 9/11/01. Alot of that involves reading so less time for tv. & it's still mind-boggling. I appreciate those who monitor the content of what the public is getting over the airwaves.
We have our hands full with tracking and putting pressure on re. domestic issues - the Frists & Santorums are all about eroding gay, women's & civil rights & cutting social programs and even health care & education, about serving the interests of big business.
But also, these appointments like Rice, Negroponte, Bolton (if it happens) - could lead us to further wars and crises. & our consumption patterns in our daily lifestyle affect whether we go to war & whether we degrade our environment (but so do the growth patterns of say, the Chinese economy!) It's hard to stay abreast of it and it's disheartening sometimes but we must try.
If we can connect-the-dots and see patterns and find out what is really happening, then it will be easier for us to see the lies & propaganda.
Also, it's valuable that people are becoming so aware of message "framing." I'm glad Maher was pointing out the "code words" in the message of Frist & his ilk, for example.
Yesterday when I went to the Buddhist retreat, it really hit me about how the "culture of life" is not really anything like that, as it doesn't really mean what it says at all & is disconnected from the body & from the environment - the socalled "culture of life" is disconnected from life. Likewise, "Justice Sunday" is about getting rid of judges who promote justice - how Orwellian.
Funny story (at least to me )
My wife went to one of the large local supermarkets the other day looking for some matzoh. When she asked the young clerk where the Matzoh was. The clerk didn't know. The clerk then asked my wife what Matzoh was for, and my wife told her...Passover. The clerks reply, "Oh, the Greek Easter is so late this year."
Guess who wrote this - the most conservative Senator from my childhood:
guess who wrote this...
However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'
-- Sen. Barry Goldwater (R)
--
Oncall,
Very funny!
Dianne,
Let the cheers be heard!!!
Sparrow
When John Kerry says almost the same thing today, he's called "Partisan".
I think Barry Goldwater would roll over in his grave is he could see what's going on now.
I was at a party last night. There were many young people, working people - many never attended university, or who were taking night courses and working full time during the day. There were about 30 people there, I'd say half under 30. Why is this important? Because 7 of these young people were not registered to vote, and were potentially progressives. None knew anything about the nuclear option or the looming False Christian takeover of our country.
We need to start now to register working youth, and we need to find ways to inform them. They're social. They don't spend much time researching political issues on the internet. Their lives consist mostly of work, family and fun. They only pick up snippets of news from the radios in their cars - mostly set on pop music stations. They are fun-loving; the world of politics holds little interest for them. We need to find ways to inform these young people and win their votes.
Dianne,
True. The word "partison" has been overused and people throw it out like the daily trash. Personally, I think most people recognise what is truly partison and what is not.
Amy,
Last summer, you could barely walk the streets without somebody trying to register you. And I agree with you 100%. I'd like the DCP to sponsor a National Registration Day and get these voters NOW. Think of all the "misplaced" voter registrations in Ohio. Think of all the democrat's applications shredded in Nevada last year. An ongoing and longterm effort would make it much more difficult for any party to abuse their power over the voters.
Amy
I'm starting to work with this group, which now has chapters all over the US, many in college towns.
http://drinkingliberally.org/locations.html
Am also trying to think of more ways for outreach for busy working young adults, like you described. My son & his friends certainly fit the bill! He is studying political science, but many in his crowd went straight to work after high school & politics is a tangent for them most of the time. One thing he does is sends out a group email each election, major or minor, with his recommendations of who to vote for. It's hilarious, & gets their interest. I was thrilled when one of his female friends sent me an email about choice. & we did get them all registered & sporting their Kerry stickers.
The WaPo Goldwater obit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm
"During his 1964 presidential campaign, Mr. Goldwater was attacked by Democrats and opponents within his own party as a demagogue and a leader of right-wing extremists and racists who was likely to lead the United States into nuclear war, eliminate civil rights progress and destroy such social welfare programs as Social Security.
But that perception mellowed with time. Mr. Goldwater returned to the Senate in 1969 and went on to serve three more terms. Long before his retirement, he had come to be regarded as the Grand Old Man of the Republican Party and one of the nation's most respected exponents of conservatism, which he sometimes defined as holding on to that which was tested and true and opposing change simply for the sake of change."
Posted by: Amy at April 24, 2005 01:13 PM
Amy, I watched that too. Really moving- especially his personal struggels with polio.
Posted by: DiAnne at April 24, 2005 01:45 PM
I keep meaning to get to Drinking Liberally in Portland, but haven't yet. But Thursday night drinking isn't an option for these young people I met - they work and have young families.
What we need is to find an institution - the way the Republicans have taken over churches and turned them into political entities rather than spiritual ones. We need to find some institutional structure already in place to use to tell these people what is happening in their country.
DiAnne,
You are right. There are only so many hours in a day, and we have to choose how we will use our time. Each of us has tried to balance our daily responsibilities with our passion for social justice and electing a government that serves all Americans. I hope you don't misconstrue my comments above as a veiled criticism, as they certainly were not meant that way. For me, I come to this site to read all the excellent links that you and others have found. I just don't have the time to find the information that is posted on this site. All participants have equally valuable commentary on this site. However, I firmly believe that we have to broaden our membership and thereby contributors (not necessarily financial) to the site. When we do that our community will be so much stronger that we will be an unstoppable force.
What we need is to find an institution - the way the Republicans have taken over churches and turned them into political entities rather than spiritual ones. We need to find some institutional structure already in place to use to tell these people what is happening in their country.
Posted by: Amy at April 24, 2005 01:58 PM
Amy,
Ok, well currently the Republicans have some people in the churches and as their institutions. However, if we read the "polls" 1/2 the church members are progressives. If we read the Wallis book God's Politics, we can see how we can approach the church's life values and morals values and stake just as legitimate claim in having EQUAL importance if not MORE. Perhaps, we all need to stop accepting the "moral values pushed on us by church leadership" and instead push the church leadership to recognise ALL the values the bible discusses--poverty, taking care of life, valuing the relationship of parents/children and not sending a 19 year old to die in a war, PEACE, etc...The fact is, the bible DOES support our values and MORE, but we need to learn to SPEAK UP and to make our clergy and rabbi's speak up too.
It's no longer acceptable for them to pick out the few verses against gays and abortion. (I don't think it addressed abortion per se--but if "thou shalt not kill" refers to abortion, then it must also refer to war, death penalty, and death by torture.)
Oh, and lets add death by homelessness and LONG term starvation as in POVERTY too.
Posted by: Amy at April 24, 2005 01:34 PM
Amy,
I think that local coffee houses such as Starbucks and Caribou Coffee are an excellent location to try to make our presence felt. When I go into those establisments (or any local coffee house for that matter), I am struck by the number of people who are usiing the WiFi network while studying, reading or conversing. Also, I believe that local Christian colleges should not be ignored. Similarly the "institution" that is changing most rapidly in this country is the internet itself. However, it is so huge and murky it is difficult to get a handle on where to start. We have to show others at the types of places that I mentioned that the DCP is here to enable, empower and inform. If we are successful in doing that, our message will "sell itself". Just as union organizers did their recruiting on the factory floor, we have to get out to the people. Other places that come to mind are state and federal services locations such as passport centers, drivers license facilities and the V.A. People are constantly waiting in line at those locations and information can be handed to them even before they walk in the door. I don't know if that is legal. But I think you get my point. Does anybody know if what I am talking about is legal?
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Any guesses as to who said this and when?
It was that wellknown liberal radical--
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952.
Amazing.
Another phrase that I want to shoot and put out of its misery? Playing politics. Arggghhh.
Amy,
I have been thinking about the same thing. One thing I am working on right now is going out to the religious leaders in my community. It's not that a number of religious leaders aren't with us, it's that they aren't organized.
Aomething that occured to me this week in talking to the religious leaders in my area whas this: that Frist and the Republicans didn't take over the churches. They just got one wing of the churches organized and activated, so when people hear about them talking about themselves and referring in generalizations to "people of faith", the American public, who are people of faith, think that they are referring to them and their interests, when what they are really referring to is a relatively small number of Protestant Evangelical Christians. Does that make sense?
The other thing I am doing is going to public school board meetings. I am on the board of my son's pre-school. He goes to a cooperative school, which is so great for meeting other parents, especially since I live in a rural part of a bedroom community. I was thinking that some of the people I am serving on the board with would make GREAT council members and school board members and I am trying to nudge them in that direction to run in a year or two, in order to keep their hands in the process when thier kids go to public school, the way they do now in cooperative schools.
I also, and I know this is going a bit too far maybe, but I got in the habit during the campaign, I keep voter registration forms in my car, and I keep a few copies of whatever is the thing I am working on, a fact sheet or an interesting article.
I think sometimes the key is to get something into someone's hands, and that is the first step of their becoming aware.
It's pretty easy to find an article and then print out a few copies on my copier.
I have yet to finish out the week with anything of the articles left in my car. I give them out at grocery stores usually with people I strike up conversations with. Hey, when opportunity knocks...I'm gonna be putting some information in his hand!
Posted by: oncall at April 24, 2005 01:09 PM
This has to be a first; referring to one's own post on this blog.
I wanted to say in that post that if big business felt that it was to their advantage to support Frist and the fundies, we would be hearing a lot more support for this ridiculous stunt. But now we hear that the traditions of the Senate should not be tampered with. I guess one could say that "morality" and money don't mix. Big business is happy to use the fundies when it suits big business' needs, but "forget about 'em" when they get in the way of profits. Similarly when there is an outcry over a production about Ronald Regan, the fundies are leading the charge against the big boys. Yet when Bu$hco needs to support big business who does Bu$hco rely on? Right, the fundies. They each are parasites on the other. What a fickle group they all are.
"Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires"
Posted by: Casey Morris at April 24, 2005 02:35 PM
hmmm... lol
Oncall, I hear you. We need to get out there among the people.
We tend to think that the internet will solve all our problems; alas, it's still a small percentage of people who use the internet the way we do. What I am really wondering about is how we can use the same strategy that the Neocons used - infiltrate a whole series of connected institutions, in their case, churches, and have our message sound like it is coming from them, and not from politicians. Having your priest say "vote for Bush or you're not a Christian" is very different from being handed a political flyer on a streetcorner or in a coffee shop. The authority of the institution used becomes a powerful weapon.
More info about the sleeze ball:
In the letter, Finney said she was an attorney-adviser in the General Counsel's Office working on policies involving the UN Development Program when Bolton called her into his office in late 1982 or early 1983. She wrote that Bolton asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the United States to weaken World Health Organization restrictions on marketing of infant formula in the developing world.
Finney said she refused because improper use of the formula can be deadly. For example, mothers in the developing world sometimes mix it with contaminated water or dilute it to make it last longer, humanitarian groups say.
Finney said that Bolton ''shouted that Nestle was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan." The Swiss company is among the top makers of formula.
''He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me," she wrote. ''I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did. . . . He screamed that I was fired."
Bolton has declined to comment on allegations during the confirmation process.
The State Department would not comment last night. But Friday, spokesman Adam Ereli said once the allegations are explored, it will lead to the ''inescapable conclusion that Mr. Bolton would be an excellent ambassador."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/24/ex_employee_alleges_mistreatment_by_bolton/
Posted by: Amy at April 24, 2005 02:57 PM
Your point is well taken.
"Something that occured to me this week in talking to the religious leaders in my area whas this: that Frist and the Republicans didn't take over the churches. They just got one wing of the churches organized and activated, so when people hear about them talking about themselves and referring in generalizations to "people of faith", the American public, who are people of faith, think that they are referring to them and their interests, when what they are really referring to is a relatively small number of Protestant Evangelical Christians."
posted above by Casey
I'm of two minds about this. Given that the new leader of the global Catholic Church essentially told Americans how they should vote in the 2004 elections, I'd say that it's snowballed beyond a fringe group of evangelical false christians. I'd say these few "Texas oil millionaires" that Eisenhower referred to have managed to do a tremendous amount of damage to both out country and our spiritual institutions.
I love the word, "Fristian". This is the first time I have seen it. Maybe some of you have already seen it, but I still love it.
Fortunately, Senator McCain and other Republicans and numbers of responsible and civil evangelicals are speaking up, trying to cool the fury and quench the fires. They worry about the increasing triumphalist and theocratic expressions from the Fristian and DeLayan right. They point out that one can disagree with many court decisions, even on some basic issues, without relegating all political opponents to the "against-faith" camp.
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2005/0418.shtml
"I love the word, "Fristian". This is the first time I have seen it. Maybe some of you have already seen it, but I still love it."
But Faust, at least in my preferred version of the legend, from Goethe, found the true way.
Frist, I doubt, will ever find the true way.
In case the allusion was missed: Fristian/Faustian.
The authority of the institution used becomes a powerful weapon.
Posted by: Amy at April 24, 2005 02:57 PM
Amy,
That's exactly the point in doing two things. ONE reminding the preachers of the WHOLE Bible not just the anti-gay anti-abortion, but the bible is all about helping others, giving to others, getting rid of poverty, respecting others, telling the truth, respecting life through eliminating wars, etc. These arguments should be often made to the ministers in showing them the path of the Lord.
Next, it's important to talk in common institutions too. Block meetings (parties), girl or boys scouts, and even just talking to people. Little by little what is said will begin to click in their mind.
We have to repeat, repeat, repeat and then it will begin to sink in.
http://www.americansforsocialsecurity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=125&Itemid=62
Posted by: Amy at April 24, 2005 02:57 PM
Amy, I'm out there "among the people" (almost all of them who vote Republican) every day, spending much more time talking to the average Jane and Joe than I do on the internet. I also attend two rural school board meetings a month.
I can tell you this, the rhetoric of the internet doesn't make it "out there," at least in Rural Red. The fastest way to turn off a potential convert is to blast them with anger over BushInc's policies. One-on-one, that produces an immediate defensive reaction and the conversation is over before it began.
One way that I've found that does work is to listen, hard, to whatever issue the person is upset about. (And everyone has something they're upset about!) Talk about bipartianship, mention what Kerry has done in the Senate lately, express positive opinions about whatever Republican Pol you can think of that's done something lately on a bi-partisan basis.
As far as infiltrating a whole series of connected institutions... again, I think the answer is "one voter at a time." We do have messages and frames. Our pols are out there doing their jobs. All we have to do is ours. And one way, at least for those of us stuck behind "enemy" lines, is to make it okay to be a liberal, because...
We are the face of the party now.
I really, really *really* am advocate for being the change we want to see in the world. We live what we say we believe, people notice. They begin to associate tolerance and intelligence and bipartianship (ie, openmindnessness) with faces, those faces with the word "liberal" and policies that benefit their lives with names like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.
It's so much easier now than during the campaign. The rhetoric has toned down, the air of "this is the Superbowl" has gone. People are more open. I really believe now is the time we're going to help many voters come over to the side where rational behavior is the order of the day.
I actually had someone tell me on Friday afternoon that she was upset about how she voted in the last election; that she felt responsible for putting Bush into office again.
Believe it or not, I shugged her guilt off and told her it was okay, there'd be another election soon. Then I told her a few more things that Kerry had done recently.
I felt SO GOOD when I left there. The conversation began with her telling me, defensively, that she was "a conservative." For such a beginning, it had a nice end.
I swear to heaven, NOW IS THE TIME to make (hopefully lasting) inroads.
This coming Tuesday your time is urgently needed to stop President Bush and his Republican allies from dismantling Social Security.
Please join ACTivists in your area on Tuesday, April 26 for one of the many rallies around the country scheduled to coincide with the Senate Finance Committee's first official hearings on Social Security privatization. Tuesday is also the last day of President Bush's unprecedented, 60-day, multi-million dollar taxpayer-financed tour to sell his privatization plan.
Find an event near you here:
http://www.americansforsocialsecurity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=125&Itemid=62
By taking action on Tuesday you could help save Social Security.
The ACT Team
KJ,
Small things go a long way. I was once a staunch conservative, and was turned from the dark side by a brilliant democrat that did little more than listen and politely disagree. Then she asked for facts to support my position. During the course of research to prove my point, i supported her position. It was a great lesson and the begining of this fantastic Journey.
Listening is the best tool we have. The world is changing, and it frightens people. People dont want it, and the conservative party becomes an old Blanket to keep change at bay. Listening to someone express their concern and fears is the first step to their outreach, and ours.
There is a groundswell building, i talk to people in the midwest several times a month, they are not happy with what they see. And, it is difficult for people to admit that. We must build a bridge with anyone that opens to us, and admit our faults as well.
This will make us a Nation with Purpose again.
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
I just saw an elderly man standing on a street corner all by himself, in the suburbs. He was holding a sign that said, "No Iraq War. Bring the Troops Home."
Batswala Dala, France Amoore and Tom Shane all have published letters to the editor in Bay Area newspapers. Trouble is, none of the men exist.
Under dozens of pseudonyms, Kyle Vallone has orchestrated the publication of scores of letters to the Times, San Francisco Chronicle and the Tri-Valley Herald during the last decade. A Times investigation found that the San Ramon man submitted more than 100 letters under fictitious identities to the three newspapers. Vallone estimated that he has had a hand in 200 bogus letters published in Northern California newspapers.
Vallone said the idea occurred to him while he was working on a Republican campaign in 1994. He and other workers would write letters on behalf of a candidate and send them to a "tree" of supporters who would sign their names and send them to newspapers. It occurred to him that he could skip a step, make up fictitious identities and send the letters via e-mail. He used free e-mail accounts and various voice-mail systems, his cell phone and home phone numbers to pull off his hoax.
"That probably wasn't the correct thing to do, but we were just having fun. It wasn't like something that we really took seriously," Vallone said.
The funniest part of the story, however, are the newspaper editors acting shocked, shocked! that anything like this was happening.
Oh no - here is a kind of a debunking about the Congress/crimes post. It's not that some of it isn't factual, but here is more detail.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm
Holy War Sunday
The Louisville Courier-Journal | Editorial
At the rate things are going in American politics, next week will bring ads by the Noah's Ark Veterans for Truth claiming that the two Democrats on board were actually stowaways, whom God had intended for drowning but who snuck on cross-dressed as gayals.
That wouldn't be much more bizarre than what's planned for today: Bill Frist, the majority leader of the United States Senate, is going to Sunday meeting to preach that some deeply flawed and highly ideological judicial nominees are actually bloodied victims of religious persecution.
"Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.
It should be called, "Injustice Sunday: Demean the holy and foment schism for partisan gain."
Whatever you think of these nominees and the Democrats' filibuster of them, it is not the religious faith they possess, but the judicial qualities they lack -- restraint, balance, experience, respect for law -- that have brought the nation to this sorry point
Otherwise, they would have fared just as well as the more than 200 other conservative nominees that President Bush has successfully appointed to the bench.
As you hear the Christian soldiers' trumpets of holy war and hymns of righteous rage today, keep in mind exactly who some of these nominees are.
There's Priscilla Owen, the token white woman and Texas judge whose eagerness to substitute her own values for the rule of law was too much for even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who rebuked her for it when both served on the same court.
There's Janice Rogers Brown, the token black woman and California judge who believes that our vibrant nation of free-market capitalism -- this economy of Wal-Marts, Pfizers and Enrons and of Googles, Yahoos and Apples; this home of a pitiful $5.15 minimum wage and of a staggering 44 million people without health insurance; this land of soaring CEO pay and declining real wages for workers -- has actually been crushed by the boot of collectivism ever since what she calls the 1937 "triumph of our own socialist revolution."
There's Brett Kavanaugh, who has never tried a case, but rose from Ken Starr's impeachment crusade to become a White House operative.
There's William G. Meyers III, who also lacks trial experience but who has put in plenty of time rabidly fighting against environmental laws and in favor of mining interests.
And there's William Haynes II, whose meager courtroom work is offset by his considerable contribution, as the Defense Department's counsel, to the shameful abandonment of America's deepest legal principles regarding the treatment and rights of prisoners of war and detainees.
It's no wonder their advocates are so intent on diverting attention from their legal limitations, ideological excesses and partisan activism with claims of anti-Christian discrimination.
But religious martyrs, they're not -- nor jurists worthy of the damage their nominations are doing to both politics and religion.
-------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042405X.shtml
Posted by: DiAnne at April 24, 2005 04:41 PM
DiAnne,
I'm not so sure about thoses statistics. I think that may be urban legend. That was up at Kos the other day and no one seemed to be able to verify it.
Of course, the interesting part is that I have no trouble whatsoever believing that it is entirely likely to be true.
I'm of two minds about this. Given that the new leader of the global Catholic Church essentially told Americans how they should vote in the 2004 elections, I'd say that it's snowballed beyond a fringe group of evangelical false christians. I'd say these few "Texas oil millionaires" that Eisenhower referred to have managed to do a tremendous amount of damage to both out country and our spiritual institutions.
----
Yes, no question that it's snowballed beyond that, but I was thinking of people that I know and that I've talked to in the last week about Justice Sunday who are Bush supporters who have said specific things about feeling like the administration represent their values on "faith". So I asked them what their values on faith were, or more specifically to ask them more about what the mean when they say values.
What they mean is the values that they talk about in church each week. Family, compassion, humanity...
I began to see a picture emerging of the Bush administration and the congressional majority leaders using the term "faith" to represent something entirely different that what the people I talked to thought they meant. One of the other things I talked to them about was the idea of what if the rules of congress were based, not on YOUR religion, but on someone else's? That got alot of conversation going, because they had no idea how close that was to happening. They just assumed that when the Fristians are talking about "values" they had the same thing in mind, like "faith".
I'm going to try to keep talking to the religious leaders in my neighborhood and see if maybe we can't help them to a clearer understanding that when Bill Frist says people of Faith, and they think of themselves as people of Faith, there are two very different ideas going on here?
I know this is rambling. I hope I am making some kind of sense here.
It was interesting to listen to people talk about what they THINK that Frist et al are doing, versus what they are REALLY doing.
Also, Amy, your point "The authority of the institution used becomes a powerful weapon." is so true. Now even moreso, as you added above, that we have a Pope who is so dedicated to seeing the social and spiritual fabric of the world return to the Dark Ages.
It's no wonder their advocates are so intent on diverting attention from their legal limitations, ideological excesses and partisan activism with claims of anti-Christian discrimination.
But religious martyrs, they're not -- nor jurists worthy of the damage their nominations are doing to both politics and religion.
-------
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042405X.shtml
Posted by: DiAnne at April 24, 2005 04:58 PM
read the other day, priceless arnt they, thats the new pope for you.
WHAT A BLOODY JOKE THESE TWO HYPOCRITS ARE :
THE POPE
SAVE THE FETUS KILL THE CHILD
NEVER ABORTION BUT WAR IS OKAY DONT MIND HOW MANY WOMEN AND BABIES YOU KILL THERE
HE APPROVES AN EXECUTIONER
MR BUSH
152 EXECUTIONS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
I WONDER HOW MANY COULD HAVE BEEN INNOCENT: TO BAD TO LATE NOW
AND DISSAPPROVES OF A WAR HERO, WHO BOUGHT THE AMERICAN VETERANS HOME FROM VIETNAM MUCH EARLIER WITH HIS 1971 WINTER SPEECH TO THE SENATE
Flashback: A Rare Broadcast of John Kerry's 1971 Speech Against the Vietnam War Before the Senate:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/1510259&mode=thread&tid=25
This is the reason the Church lost this Catholic: "HYPOCRACY"
SHEAR UNADULTERATED HYPOCRACY\
THE WORLD GONE MAD
Any Kerry Supporters On The Line?
The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers
By VIVECA NOVAK AND JOHN DICKERSON
Sunday, Apr. 24, 2005The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations.
But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants.
Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
The White House admits as much:
"We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy.
Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md.
One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party.
Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter.
We would welcome clarification from the White House.
"http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1053595,00.html?cnn=yes
----Yeah, Clarification....yeah..FROM THIS WHITE HOUSE?...Good Luck.---
Casey Morris
That's why I posted the Snopes right after it - you must have missed it (about Congress).
Oh no - here is a kind of a debunking about the Congress/crimes post. It's not that some of it isn't factual, but here is more detail.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm
Fillibusted
The Associated Press reported Thursday on some private, internal polling done by the GOP on this matter. According to the scant information released by an anonymous party official, only 37% of Republicans polled support getting rid of the filibuster. Only 20% of Republicans polled believed the statement by party officials that Bush is the only President who has had his nominees filibustered. The secrecy of the overall poll numbers is telling; when the GOP has numbers that help their arguments, they break their legs rushing it out to the airwaves.
William Rivers Pitt editorial
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/042405A.shtml
"We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy.
Posted by: rossiann at April 24, 2005 05:50 PM
There are some things I would call Bu$hco, but nutty is not one of them.
Posted by: Casey Morris at April 24, 2005 05:43 PM
Casey,
I know what you mean. That's also what I was trying to say too. There is two different opposing forces going on within the political realm of Frist, Bush, et al and what the church heirarchy wants to have--families with faith and people following the biblical values.
That's why I love the Wallis book God's Politics. He says it so much better than I ever could.
Posted by: Toolmaker at April 24, 2005 04:37 PM
Listening IS the best tool we have. It's a gift we can give to red voters, who may (and many are) feeling red in the face right now over BushInc's actions, and their own, for voting for him and/or Republicans at every level of government.
There is a groundswell, I'm glad to know you're seeing (or hearing) it too. I feel like this a really open moment and am doing what I can to stay available to anyone who wants to talk about their disgust and dismay. I know I haven't changed anyone's mind, I'm not that powerful. People are changing their own minds, from the inside.
Which is the strongest place we can be with them, right at the core and root. With tolerance and without judgment.
As for acknowledging and embracing our own shadows, yes. It's required. ;-)