Natalie Burris

Yes we did!

photo © 2008 Anna | more info (via: Wylio)

 

Emily Hunter McGowin has an excellent post regarding evangelicals' respose to Obama's victory.  She does a great job of pointing out how the negative, fearful reaction betrays a trust placed more in our government than in God.  Jesus makes it clear that our kingdom is not of this world.  (I wish I would have had a copy of Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President after the 2004 election, but I digress).  

Emily also points out how uncharitable evangelicals' responses are in light of such an historic election.  I unfortunately saw a lot of this when I logged on to my Facebook account today.  Emily writes:

Finally, I was deeply disturbed by evangelicals' overall uncharitable response to what is an historic moment in American history, no matter your political affiliation or religious convictions. One of our country's "original sins" was the mass enslavement of an entire race of human beings, for no other reason than their skin color and physical features. The text of the Constitution itself considers black African slaves only three-fifths of a person. This infamous blot on an otherwise ingenious founding document (called the “constitutional compromise”) is an embarrassment to all Americans, let alone Christian Americans who proclaim the equal worth of all before God. 

But now, US citizens have elected the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya to be their President. Regardless of one's political leanings, this is an amazing thing and a reason to celebrate. No, the plague of racism in America is not defeated in this historic event. And, yes, there are plenty of reasons for evangelicals to be concerned about the possible future decisions of our new President and his counselors. But, for now, at this moment, evangelicals should be able to celebrate a great step forward in the cause of justice.

Anyway, I should have remained blissfully ignorant and avoided Facebook, because the tone here in the Chicago area is so fun!  I was in the Loop Tuesday night for class, and it was awesome to see such enthusiasm for our political process.  I know I complained earlier about McCain/Palin supporters not knowing anything about their actual policies, but I think people have overall become more involved and informed, which is encouraging.  We need to keep this up so as to not have a repeat of the past few years!!  

Spread the wealth

photo © 2009 Gage Skidmore | more info (via: Wylio)

 

I try to catch whatever snippets of presidential campaign coverage that I can, and I've noticed that John McCain has derisively referred to Barack Obama's policies as "spreading the wealth" several times.  Over the past few years after delving more into Scripture and reading books by Shane Claiborne, I've realized that the Bible--and the Christian faith--is all about wealth redistribution.  So I found it a little odd that McCain was so critical of the idea.  I wondered if he worried about alienating his Christian voters.  Then I realized that perhaps the Christians who support McCain probably think that the phrase "God helps those who help themselves" is found in the Bible.

Anyway, I can't bring myself to vote for someone so critical of Leviticus 25, of jubilee, of 2 Corinthians 8:14-15 and Acts 4:34.  When God provided manna in the wilderness, those who accumulated too much found their hoarded manna spoiled.  After we've just vividly seen the results of the wealthy and powerful in our society making decisions with no government oversight, which has essentially been the logical end result of unrestrained capitalism, I find it hard that a candidate so critical of sharing wealth could win this election.  

Even Alan Greenspan has realized, after this current crisis, that his free-market philosophy is not the answer.  Even just a regular capitalist country has some measure of wealth redistribution, such as pooling money (taxes) to build roads, schools, and provide fire protection, among other things.  

I don't understand what's so awful about spreading the wealth, unless of course you ARE one of the wealthy.  Of course the interests of the wealthy are the ones that the Republicans are so intent on protecting, so why am I so surprised about McCain's comments?

Okay, back to my contracts reading...

Paying taxes and patriotism

Thomas Friedman had a good op-ed piece in yesterday's NY Times:  Palin's Kind of Patriotism.  Sarah Palin commented during the vice presidential debate that having the middle class pay higher taxes is unpatriotic.  However, she supports the $700 billion bailout and the costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If she supports such expensive measures, yet opposes Americans' sharing the burden of those costs, where will the money come from?  China.  China holds about $490 billion in U.S. Treasury securities, with foreign exchanges reserves of more than $1.5 trillion.

Friedman writes:

"[M]y parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: 'I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.'"

Which is more patriotic, depending on a foreign country (one with policies that directly contradict our own) to further our nation's interests, or allowing Americans to contribute and invest instead?

I obviously oppose the wars and am still unsure about the bailout, but I see where Friedman is coming from.  As a Christian, I also have a different take on relying solely on the government to care for our most vulnerable.  Either way, Palin's view makes no sense and only serves to further bankrupt our country.  

To gain a better view of Americans' responsibility to pay taxes, check out Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope.  He articulates a selfless, overall society-focused philosophy of paying taxes.  And if we would quit cutting taxes for the ultra-rich, the middle class wouldn't have that heavy of a burden after all.  Let's hope we can put people in leadership that understand such things!

Thought provoking...

photo © 2007 Tony Unruh | more info (via: Wylio)

 

It gave me pause tonight when I saw that someone reached this weblog by googling "Who does God like in the '08 presidential election."  It was pretty thought-provoking, not only to think about the actual answer to the question (if there is one), but also to think that someone would be googling such a thing.  Interesting.  For what it's worth, I've found Shane Claiborne's Jesus for President very helpful in terms of reaching somewhat of an answer to a question like that...

Voters (a soapbox moment!)

I've made it a habit lately to ask specifically what McCain and Palin supporters like about these candidates' policies, because it's hard for me to put myself in their place.  I would do the same for Obama supporters, but it's easier for me to understand why they're supporting Obama.  Not once has anyone been able to specify a particular vote cast, bill written, or policy detalied by McCain or Palin.  I usually get, "I just think Palin's awesome," or something vague about abortion.  Perhaps with Obama supporters I would get a similar reaction.  

This scares me, and I think the situation was the same in 2004.  Why else was Bush able to win?  The facts were out there for anyone to access, yet he was re-elected.  Sometimes the ignorance of American voters makes me shudder.  Seriously, I work full time and go to school, and I barely have time to do laundry.  Yet, as a voter about to participate in electing the most powerful person in the world, I feel a duty to at least listen to the radio or visit a couple of websites a day.

I'm not so much annoyed at the fact that a particular candidate is being supported, it's just the complete lack of educating oneself.  Instead of figuring out a candidate's actual voting history or policies, many people vote based on whether they would enjoy having a beer with the candidate, or simply because "Palin rocks.  I just can't explain it."  Lord help us :)

Questions for complementarians

David Gushee, in an editorial in USA Today, poses some great questions for conservative evangelicals who cheer Sarah Palin's role as vice presidential candidate.  They include:

If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president? 

Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

I too wondered about this when I heard the news that Sen. McCain had chosen a female running mate, especially the second question:  If Palin's husband is to have authority over her, does that extend to her role as vice president--or even president??

It seems like hypocrisy and dualistic thinking to separate the church sphere from the secular, political one, as I believe Al Mohler has recently done.  So, how would a conservative Christian answer these?  All I know is that it would require a lot of gymnastics!

Idolatrous politics

photo © 2010 ctj70181 | more info (via: Wylio)

 

I just read a great post by Dr. Bruce Prescott, regarding the slogan of the Republican candidates' presidential campaign, "Country First:"

One American political party has adopted "country first" as a campaign slogan. That same party is the party of political preference for the bulk of the evangelical community in our nation. I have been waiting for the significance of that statement to dawn on someone in the conservative evangelical community, but to date they seem to be blissfully unaware of the idolatrous overtones of their politics.

In fact, followers of Jesus wouldn't even be able to put our country third!  The post is can be found here: Country First?

 

I love the weekend!

Weekends for me are all about (besides insane amounts of reading) catching up on these: The Daily Show episodes.  They're nice after another harrowing week of the Socratic method!

Also, I'm spending a lot more time in my car (unfortunately), so I get to listen to more NPR.  Did anyone catch this?  Diversity at GOP, Democratic Conventions Examined. 

At the Democatic National Convention, 44% of the delegates were non-white.  African-Americans composed 24%, and Hispanics 12%.  Females delegates slightly outnumbered male delegates.

The Republican National Convention had a very different composition of delegates.  One-and-a-half percent were African-American, and 5% were Hispanic.  Sixty-eight percent of all delegates were male.

I wonder what this will mean in the a few decades, when our projected demographics will see a shift.  White Americans will no longer be a majority by 2042, according to government projections.  By 2050, Hispanics will account for 30% of the US populution, and African-Americans will comprise 15%.  The only positive change for Republicans I can see--unless the Republicans make efforts to increase their diversity--is that the senior population will nearly double by the year 2050.  At least, with this current election, the GOP has that demographic covered!

Seriously,

photo © 2010 David Shankbone | more info (via: Wylio)

 

it was SO hard to start my first week of law school with everything that happened politically this week! I'm supposed to be non-stop studying all this weekend, but I've already given in and watched a few speeches and interviews online that I missed this past week. Why oh why did my first semester of school fall on an election year??? I should've thought that one out a little more ;)

Speaking of, I just have to put my two cents in: it is insulting to me as a woman to think that I would vote for McCain/Palin based on the fact the Palin is a woman! You can replace Palin's name with Hillary Clinton and I would still say the same thing. Looks like it's going to be an interesting election...

Michelle Obama and successful women...

While I was babysitting earlier this week, I decided to take advantage of having satellite TV and watch some CNN. They were covering the new, “softer” image that Michelle Obama has started to portray. Some of the underlying assumptions with her change in image from a strong career woman to a “more relatable” wife and mother are disturbing to me as a woman…

CNN showed snippets of her recent appearance on The View, where the women discussed whether Barack takes out the trash. The CNN panelists agreed that Michelle’s projecting a wifely, maternal image will be more appealing to voters, since it’s not as intimidating. They thought it best that she play down her own views and successes during the campaign.

It’s saddening when someone with degrees from Princeton and Harvard has to play down who she is in order to gain favor with Americans. (Also, straight out of law school, Michelle landed a job as an attorney for a prestigious Chicago firm.) I know both race and gender are intersecting here, but when will we see the day when it’s not intimidating, masculine, or out-of-the-ordinary to be a successful woman? Why are we still falling prey to the false dichotomy that women are either good wives/mothers or successful in their careers?

I mean, there’s nothing wrong with a discussion about taking out the trash, but the fact that analysts and strategists recommend that Michelle downplay her intelligence, her own opinions, and her career is crazy. I believe it sends the wrong message to women. Granted, we did just witness Hillary Clinton make a run for the candidacy, so we’re making progress, right?!