Politics

From a post by Tony Campolo on the God's Politics blog on beliefnet:

Do those on the Religious Right understand their duplicity? For years they have argued against situational ethics. They have stood for absolutes and contended that those absolutes should never be compromised. With conviction they have declared, loud and clear, that the end never justifies the means. Now, with the war on terrorism on our hands, they support torture when interrogating suspects. A prominent scholar recently polled a dozen top leaders of America's Religious Right, who were unanimously in favor of using torture "given the situation at hand." When it suits them, it turns out, the end does indeed justify the means. If they have changed their minds and are ready to refute the golden rule, then it is time for them to say plainly, "For the most part we agree with Jesus, but there are special circumstances when we must ignore His teachings."

From an AP article of the same title on beliefnet:

A liberal church that has been threatened with the loss of its tax-exempt status over an anti-war sermon delivered just days before the 2004 presidential election said Thursday it will fight an IRS order to turn over documents on the matter... The church's action sets up a high-profile confrontation between the church and the IRS, which now must decide whether to ask for a hearing before a judge, who would then decide on the validity of the agency's demands. IRS spokesman Terry Lemons would not comment specifically on the dispute but noted in a statement that the agency could take a church to court. "We recognize the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion," Lemons said. "But there is no constitutional right to be exempt from federal taxation." Religious leaders on the right and left have expressed fear that the dispute could make it more difficult for them to speak out on moral issues such as gay marriage and abortion during the midterm election campaign... Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but to retain tax-exempt status, they cannot endorse candidates or parties. The dispute at the 3,500-member Episcopal church centers on a sermon titled "If Jesus Debated Senator Kerry and President Bush," delivered by a guest pastor. Though he did not endorse a candidate, he said Jesus would condemn the Iraq war and Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war. According to the IRS, the only church ever to be stripped of its tax-exempt status for partisan politicking was a church near Binghamton, N.Y., that ran full-page newspaper ads against President Clinton during the 1992 election season.

From an article of the same title in The Week, August 25, 2006, p 10:

Billy Graham no longer has any use for politics, says Jon Meacham in Newsweek. For more than 50 years, America's most famous evangelical preacher has been spreading the Gospel to millions of people on six continents; along the way, he's ensnared himself in a series of polit­ical controversies. "Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children," he said after the March on Washington in 1963. During the war in Vietnam, Graham lent his support to President Richard Nixon, only to get caught on White House tapes exchanging anti-Semitic remarks with the president. But now that he's 87, Graham is distancing himself from those who mix Christianity with conservative politics. He's come to believe, for example, that the Bible is open to honest interpreta­tion. "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. Sincere Christians can disagree about the details of Scripture and theology-absolutely." Though his own son has called Muslims "wicked" and "evil," Graham disagrees. "I would not say Islam is wicked and evil. I have a lot of friends who are Islamic. I have a great love for them." Graham's fiery certainty has given way to humility; when asked if he believes heaven is closed to non-Christians, he demurs. "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have."

In an article of the same title in the Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Parker says some nice things about Rick Santorum, Republican U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania who is in danger of losing his seat in the upcoming elections. I don't pay all that much attention to politics, but I have heard of Santorum and didn't realize that he had such a good and reasonable record (I had forgotten that he had "...been pushing Congress to donate ever larger sums to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria", see previous blog post:

Rick Santorum can't seem to win for losing, no matter what he does. The U.S. senator from Pennsylvania could save AIDS babies in Africa, end genocide in Darfur and put welfare mothers to work in his own office -- and he'd still be despised by a sizable number of those who hope Democrat Robert Casey Jr. will defeat him come November. Come to think of it, Santorum has tried all those things mentioned above, with some success, but often at great political cost. He has worked for global AIDS relief with Bono, the U2 rock star and one of Santorum's more unlikely fans. For his AIDS efforts, Santorum earned the contempt (and veiled threats) of some in the abstinence-only, family-values crowd. Santorum has been a leader in trying to stop genocide in Sudan, which he views as a front in the war against ideological Islam -- and has sponsored every major piece of legislation created toward that end. At home in Pennsylvania, he put five welfare mothers to work in his own offices while leading the movement that resulted in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton. Santorum, in other words, is one of those rare politicians who puts his money where his mouth is -- even though his usual supporters turn on him as a result. And yet his staunch Roman Catholicism has earned him a reputation in some quarters as a weirdo. If Santorum is "too Catholic," he has company in his opponent, who is also a Catholic and a near-mirror image of Santorum on most of the hot-button issues... The latest Pennsylvania poll, conducted Sept. 22-24 by Strategic Vision Political, shows Casey leading Santorum 50 percent to 40 percent, with 10 percent undecided. It's not clear what voters will gain by electing Casey given that the two candidates are seemingly indistinguishable, but there's no guessing what they'll lose in Santorum. Love him or hate him, for the past decade, Santorum has been the conservatives' point man for the world's disenfranchised -- the poor, the sick and the meek. If he loses, the face of compassionate conservatism will be gone.

From an article of the same title by Stephanie Simon in the LA Times:

With a pivotal election five weeks away, leaders on the religious right have launched an all-out drive to get Christians from pew to voting booth. Their target: the nearly 30 million Americans who attend church at least once a week but did not vote in 2004. Their efforts at times push legal limits on church involvement in partisan campaigns. That is by design. With control of Congress at stake Nov. 7, those guiding the movement say they owe it to God and to their own moral principles to do everything they can to keep social conservatives in power... The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical in Texas, has recruited 5,000 "patriot pastors" nationwide to promote an agenda that aligns neatly with Republican platforms. "We urge them to avoid legal entanglement, but there are times in a pastor's life when he needs to take a biblical stand," Scarborough said. "Our higher calling is to Christ." The campaign encourages individual pastors to use sermons, Bible studies and rallies to drive Christians to the polls - and, by implication or outright endorsement, to Republican candidates. One online guide to discussing the election in church, produced by the Focus on the Family ministry, offers this tip: If a congregant says her top concerns are healthcare and national security, suggest that Jesus would make abortion and gay marriage priorities. At a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson told a crowd of 3,000 that it would be "downright frightening" if Republicans lost control of Congress. If there's a good Christian on the ballot, he said, failing to vote "would be a sin." The law restricting political activity of churches and charities dates to 1954, when then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson pushed it through in a pique of anger over a nonprofit's effort to derail his reelection. Tax-exempt organizations, including churches, may not participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of any candidate. Intervention is broadly defined as "any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidate for public office," according to the Internal Revenue Service. That sounds straightforward. In practice, though, there are many ways around the restriction, as the faithful recognize.

Did Dobson really say that? Failing to vote for a Christian "would be a sin"? It wouldn't be the first time (see the profile by Michael Crowley titled "James Dobson. The religious right's new kingmaker" on Slate.com from a couple years ago). Dobson has probably done a ton of good in his career, but at the moment he seems to have lost it...calling it a sin to not vote for a Christian...erecting road blocks in the way of AIDS funding.