The Chicken or The Egg?

In what has got to be the most insane strategy in the history of politics, the two Democratic frontrunners are debating race in an election that features a woman and a black male. While both campaigns are responding to these non-issues, the real issues facing the country are being ignored. The choice of who best represents the future direction of the country should be front and center of the debate, not the race or gender of the candidates. Both campaigns are guilty of fueling the flames and highlighting differences that don’t exist. Does anyone doubt that Hillary Clinton is committed to civil rights? Does anyone doubt that she has a healthy understanding of the civil rights movement and its leaders?

The thing that has always bothered me about politics and politicians in particular is their enormous egos and ambition. Here we have two extremely ambitious people who are driven by their chances to make history and in their efforts to separate themselves and win the nomination they have allowed their egos to trump their intellect. No one wins by them cutting each other up over race, gender, or past indiscretions. We must not allow these two to provide any chance of a Republican victory in November by taking a win at all costs philosophy. What is at stake here is greater than either one of these two even if their egos won’t allow them to see it. Our country and our futures are at stake.

There has been a lot of fall-out concerning remarks made by Hillary Clinton concerning the role of President Johnson in the civil rights movement. In her comments Ms. Clinton spoke of how it was the then President Johnson whose signing of legislation ushered in the civil rights victories being pushed by Dr. King and other civil rights leaders. According to Ms. Clinton without the legislation the marches and the speeches would have been for naught, it took a President to bring about real action. This is such a non-issue, anyone familiar with the times understood that Dr. King needed President Johnson and President Johnson needed Dr. King.

In order to understand this relationship, we must look at the motivations of both men. What did Dr. King want? He wanted equal rights for blacks. Where do rights proceed from? There are many sources of rights. There are the rights endowed by one’s Creator, which should transcend any rights bestowed by man. The problem is that when the founders of this nation started endowing rights on folks they forgot a few.

Certain rights/authority are ours having been given/delegated to us as a result of our position or office: legislators, judges, elders; some because of the responsibility laid on us by God: fathers, mothers, neighbors; and some are ours because they came with us at birth as our Declaration of Independence states: "all men are created equal, ...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."[1]

So even though we have been granted certain rights by our Creator, here in America those rights have to also be given by the government. Dr. King knew that in order to affect the changes that he sought he would need to involve the head of the government; at that time it was LBJ. The main reason for the marches and protests was to bring political and public pressure on the government to pass legislation to make the changes. Dr. King knew that the shortest way to bring about racial change was to first enact it legally and then he hoped that as the legal barriers had been overcome that at some point the social and the personal would catch up. One has to remember that there were legal barriers that condoned and enforced segregation and Jim Crow and until those barriers were removed there could be no social change. Just like in South Africa the legal mechanisms of apartheid had to be dismantled before any real change could take place. This would involve bringing political pressure against the Congress and the President.

LBJ needed the outrage of the country as it witnessed the horrors of the “legal” responses to the protestors to galvanize support for the civil rights legislation. As the country watched in horror at the high pressure fire hoses, the attack dogs, and the police brutality against non-violent protestors the outcry became too great for the politicians to ignore. The question now becomes could LBJ or any President have enacted legislation without protests? It happens every day; Iraq, No Child Left Behind, etc. Could Dr. King have accomplished his goals without LBJ? Absolutely, the winds of change were blowing. It just would have taken a lot longer if the President had been resistant to the changes. So, like most moments in history both men needed each other to usher in the changes that were bound to happen.

So which came first the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? What should really matter is what are the differences in the two candidates and which one embodies the changes that we all are seeking. If you don’t want to vote for Hillary that’s fine, but don’t do it because she is a racist or insensitive to black people. If you don’t want to vote for Barack that’s fine, but don’t do it because he is a black drug addict. Dr. King’s dream was that someday we would be all judged on our character; maybe we should start doing that today.

[1] http://www.americanchristianhistory.com/constitution02.html

Read more!

The Stop Abortion, Allow War And Torture Party

I recently read an op-ed piece in the NY Times from James Dobson, a conservative Christian Televangelists. While I have grave issues with televangelists period, the statements made in his piece further reinforces my already low opinion. Being a Christian, it is always hard for me to criticize another, but in the case of these guys something must be done about the hypocrisy that they exhibit.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.[1]

The piece was entitled, “The Value Test”. Well, Mr. Dobson you and your cohorts have failed the values test. In my humble opinion no group has done more to divide the Church as these evangelicals. Rather than rely on centuries of Church writing and doctrine, these yahoos have decided that God in His infinite wisdom has given them some new revelations for the Western Church and for His favorite country America. They have misinterpreted Scripture to justify everything from nuclear war to raping the environment, but the one thing they agree on is abortion.

Remember these are the same guys who framed the Iraq war in terms of good vs. evil and turned it into a crusade. While I am personally against abortion, I understand that it is a personal decision that some of us have to make. If it were up to me I would choose not to do it, but I am a man so what does that mean? These same people who want to reaffirm the sanctity of life have no trouble dropping nuclear bombs on Muslims or any other group that does not accept their religious teachings. They have no trouble with the lost to sanctity of life for people in other countries from other cultures. These are the same religious leaders who would have had no trouble justifying the genocide of Native Americans so we could accomplish our “Manifest Destiny”.

I will state this once more for those who were not paying attention; GOD DOES NOT HAVE A COUNTRY! He has people and these people live all over the world and God loves them just as much as He loves you even if they look and act differently than you. So I find it interesting that these “religious leaders” have not taken a stand against torture or war. I find it interesting that these same “religious leaders” have not spoken out against greed and gluttony of our corporations and the rich. So some sin is ok, while others are not ok. My understanding of the Bible states that when all is said and done we will stand before our Creator alone to answer for our deeds; there will be no witnesses Mr. Dobson so we will be responsible for our own sins.

As far as the institution of marriage is concerned the biggest threat to it appears to be from heterosexuals. Without help from gays they have managed to raise the divorce rate to about 50%, very good guys keep up the good work, this includes evangelicals by the way. These guys claim to worship God, but the only god they serve is themselves. Where is the unity that the Bible espouses? You shall be of one accord.[2] Their unity is in dividing the people, not in uniting them. They speak of compromise as though it were against the Laws of God, but in fact the opposite is true. We are to bear the weaknesses of one another and lift up those who have fallen, not condemn them and throw stones.

Where were these guys when the country confronted the overt racism of Jena? They were probably in Salt Lake City protecting the civil rights of rich white men. Mr. Dobson there are many other issues confronting this nation and to ignore all the others for the one is failing the stewardship that you were granted. We live in a secular nation, it was designed that way by the framers and no matter what our personal likes or dislikes we must allow for others to express their beliefs, the final arbitrator will not be you and your “pro family” leaders it will be God. I pray that He will have mercy upon you.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/opinion/04dobson.html
[2] Philippians 2:2

Read more!