The Attacks on Education by Desantis and Right Wing Extremists are Aimed at Intentional Destruction of Public Education

We learned a lot of lessons, as Americans, from the disastrous political mistakes we made that led to the Civil War.  One of those was that a democracy needs an educated electorate to survive.  The idea that education is a privilege for the elite finally gave way to a fully funded public education system and laws requiring children to attend up to a certain age and grade level in the years after the war, beginning somewhere in the early 1870's.  It took a while, but like most things that develop in this country, some visionary leadership articulated the rationale and got the support they needed to make it happen.  

Even with the educational foundation provided by public education, politics, because it controls the public funding that pays the bills for the schools, interferes with the curriculum and content.  It'a  great idea that some Americans, like Horace Mann and John Dewey came up with, to have a system of compulsory public education in order to have an educated electorate that will preserve the democracy.  But with individual states and smaller school districts having all kinds of operational and curriculum control, it has never achieved its ideological goal.  

The public school system, its curriculum and its approach to education has always been under attack because it is so influential and because it does provide a foundational education that informs the electorate in our representative democracy.  And it has always been subject to sabotage of the curriculum by anti-education conservatives.  Conservatives blame public education for what they call the "liberal drift" of this country, claiming that the ideology of the political left is exclusively promoted in public schools, "forced" on a captive audience.  That ideology is exactly what is behind Desantis and his attacks on education in Florida now.  He claims that younger voters are unfairly pushed to the left by tax supported schools, so he is setting out to change that in his state by using the power and influence of his elected office.  Fortunately, it looks like he's going to be exposed to a lot of kick back as a result.  

Elections do have consequences.  Democrats need to keep that thought at the very front and center of their party's campaign efforts.  

Private Education is an Escape from Politically-Dominated Public Schools 

In this, the most prosperous, and most powerful country in the world, we have a public education system that is moderately successful in its goal of providing for an informed and educated electorate, and we also have one that is a miserable failure and an embarrassment when compared to schools in the rest of the industrial world and the far east.  Some states do a great job making sure the curriculum is centered in academic achievement and that students are exposed to all of the facts and information and are trained to be critical thinkers.  I'd have no problem enrolling my child in the public schools of Massachusetts, for example, or New Hampshire or Vermont, or even Wisconsin or California.  

But there are other places where the curriculum is tampered with, altered, adjusted and so buried in a culture war social agenda that the students don't have a chance to achieve.  I wouldn't enroll my child in a public school in Texas, or Mississippi, or Arkansas, or Louisiana, and I wouldn't touch schools in Florida, Arizona or Oklahoma.  Texas, which keeps sliding toward the bottom of the pile, and where the motto of public education is "thank God for Mississippi," has so crowded out math and language arts skills in favor of kooky political garbage, that it has the highest percentage of private and charter school enrolled students in the country.  

And not all private schools are segregationist academies or religious indoctrination centers.  Some of those early pioneers in American education established schools, like John Dewey's University of Chicago Lab School, founded on progressive principles and with a curriculum that not only achieves academic excellence, but also shows students how to think for themselves, draw conclusions and make life choices based on real, live, down to earth facts.  They don't waste time on social agendas or culture war talking points.  And when their students graduate, they're prepared for the real world as it is. 

It takes money to run those schools, so while that may not be the most practical solution to prevent Florida from becoming just another banana republic, it is a way to get around the restrictions.  So is the ballot box.  

Federal Funding is the Key 

Public education probably wastes more taxpayer dollars than the military industrial complex does.  It's ridiculous, what school districts come up with to spend money.  It is likely an impossibility to ever get control of the school curriculums out of state legislature hands, with fingers gripped tightly around their throats.  As I said before, elections have consequences.  Should the Democrats get enough control of congress to have majorities in both houses, and get rid of the blockade against the senate filibuster, control of public education falls into their hands with federal support for education.  

Maybe I'm dreaming, but the first thing I would do in that case is stop sending federal dollars to Florida for their public schools and cut off all of the scholarships and grants going to Florida colleges.  Every penny of it.  Just stop payment on the check.  When they scream, tell them here's a list of things that must be taught in your schools before you get back a single cent.  If that doesn't happen, so be it.  Divide up their share with the other states that follow the drill. 

It took several generations for the compulsory public education system to get to the point where the majority of the electorate were educated enough to understand what they were doing every time they went to the ballot box.  The lack of real progress in American public education, state by state, is a sign that it would not take very long before the current crazy ignorance and fear would be able to invade and conquer.  That's exactly what Desantis is after.  That's why he's doing what he's doing.  And that has to stop.  

Elections have consequences, as Florida Democrats well know, and so do the rest of us.

Using the Bible to Bash the President is Anti-Christian

Several years ago, I picked up a business card at the cash register of a Christian bookstore in Gallatin, Tennessee that said "Pray for Clinton, Psalms 108:8-10".  My first thought was that this was an encouragement and a reminder to Christians to keep the President, regardless of who he was or what party with which he was affiliated, in our prayers.  So as I was shopping, I picked up one of the Bibles off the shelf and looked up the reference.  

May his days be few; may another take his office. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children wander about and beg, seeking food from the ruins they inhabit.  Psalm 108:8-10, ESV 

Wordlessly, I put the basket of items I had planned to purchase on the counter, laid the card down so the clerk could see, pointed to it, and walked out of the store.  First of all, whether that was some kind of inside joke or an intentional slam, for Christians who believe the Bible is a sacred text to take it completely out of its context and use it that way is sinful behavior.  There's also implied disobedience because Christians are called to pray for their leaders, regardless of their spiritual condition or their political affiliation.  Paul and Peter asked those to whom they wrote letters to pray for the Roman leadership.  It was inexcusable for a Christian book store to put something like that in front of their customers.  

These verses are not a model prayer to pray about anyone.  To do so would be to take this passage completely out of its context.  Psalm 108 is a psalm of David and it is a lament and a cry for God's help.  In these specific verses, David is articulating the thoughts of his enemies and their accusations against him.  He imagines them, in their criticism of his leadership, uttering these words about himself, and he includes them in this psalm as a cry for help from God to protect him from them.  

Taking it out of its context to apply it for use as a prayer against the sitting President of the United States is the kind of misuse of scripture that most Evangelicals consider to be blasphemy of the inerrant, infallible written word of God. So for a sitting  Republican member of Congress (whom I will not promote by mentioning her name as a representative from Colorado) to suggest its use it as a prayer against President Biden is blasphemy.  And the lack of respect it shows toward the elected President of the United States, regardless of political differences, is an indication of this representative's lack of fitness to serve.  That is misuse of scripture, and shame on the Evangelical Christians who have enjoyed it as some kind of joke, or took it seriously. It's characteristically and categorically anti-Christian.

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your father who is in heaven.  Jesus, the Christ, Matthew 5:44 ESV

President Biden would never say something like that about even his worst enemy in the Republican party.  And in that regard, his integrity and character stand out in sharp contrast to his shrill critics on the far right who don't know the difference between political debate and calculated insults.  

This misuse of the Bible occurred as the Representative was making a campaign speech in a church auditorium, which makes it even more of an affront to true Christian faith.  It characterizes the speaker's ideology as being something other than Christian.  Aside from all of that, churches are not political theaters or political action committees and if that's how they behave, then they're not churches.  

It would be just as wrong to insert a Republican politician's name in the blank, and call these same verses a prayer for them.  During the four years of the Trump administration, I frequently prayed that God would change his mind, protect us from his incompetence and ineptness, keep the country safe, give wisdom to those around him so that they would have the courage to keep him from ruining the country, minimize his extremism and prevent him from being elected again.  There were a lot of prayers being said during the insurrection, and I continue to pray for justice to be done.  But I would never pray that harm would come to anyone because I disagree with their politics.  

The public promotion of this use of Psalm 108, and the manner in which it was used against the President stands in contrast to his integrity and character, and demonstrates her clear lack of both.  It is, along with a whole resume of similar words and deeds, clear evidence that she is neither a spokesperson for Christian faith, nor qualified to serve in the Congress of the United States.  

Published previously by Signal Press on February 6, 2023

The Great Southern Baptist Foot-Shooting Contest

 Southern Baptists Kick Out Their Largest Church Because it has a Woman in a Pastor's Role

The largest church in the Southern Baptist Convention, Saddleback Valley Community Church, a sprawling, multi-campus congregation in Orange County, California where the founding pastor, Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, recently retired.  There are actually three women on the pastoral ministry staff of Saddleback Valley church, the one generating the controversy among Southern Baptists is Stacey Wood, wife of senior pastor Andy Wood, who was just recently installed in that role. 

Some Southern Baptists will argue into the ground that women cannot serve in leadership roles in the church and claim a few passages of scripture as authoritative on the subject.  Frankly, it is only a literal interpretation of the Bible that leads to this conclusion.  Even then, there is no actual "commandment" or statement that forbids or restricts women from church leadership, including serving as a pastor, or "episkopos," or bishop as the term is translated.  It takes applying ancient culture, and what was believed about the role of women in society in the first century to come up with a restriction against women serving as pastors in Christian churches.  

Of course, many Southern Baptists take a "we're right and everyone else is wrong" approach on what they consider to be their doctrinal distinctives, cleverly inventing what they refer to as a biblical "hermeneutic" which supports their interpretation.  Of the two passages they point to, one is not very conclusive on the matter.  The other is debatable regarding the scope of its meaning, and is not interpreted or applied literally in any Southern Baptist church, except when they want to restrict women from the office of pastor.  That, frankly, is just hypocrisy.  

I Timothy 3:1-11 is a list of requirements for bishops/overseers, which is equated with "pastor" in church jargon, and deacons.  The single statement that Southern Baptists fall on as proof of the legitimacy of their doctrine that women can't be pastors is in verse 2, where, among other things, a bishop, or pastor, must be above reproach, the husband of only one wife, along with a list of other virtues and qualities expected for a church leader.  Southern Baptists insist that "husband of one wife" can't be a woman, since she can't be a husband.  

The most likely meaning behind that phrase is either "married only once," given Jesus' views on divorce, or in a culture where plural marriages were still relatively common, an exclusion of polygamists from the leadership of a church.  It is not accompanied anywhere by a statement that suggests women are forever disqualified because they are women, something that Southern Baptist theologians universally require as a standard corroboration for any other doctrine they believe.  

Just prior to this passage, I Timothy 2:12 says, "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.  I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."  This is followed by a rationale referring to the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, though in that account, Adam is ultimately the one God holds accountable for their actions in the Garden of Eden, not Eve.  In the other restrictive passage about women keeping silence in the church, found in I Corinthians 14:34-35, most Bible scholars believe that the context of women keeping silent in the church and learning in full submission must be somewhat unique to the church in Corinth.  There is, again, no language indicating this is forever and all time and though he uses the phrase "As in all the churches of the saints," he does not point out in writing, to any other church, that this is the way things ought to be.  

In reality, if there is a Southern Baptist church that literally follows these verses in every aspect of their language, doesn't have women serving in its ministry in multiple capacities, and which requires that they sit in submission, not ask questions and not participate in discussions, but save all that for their husband, I'd like to see where it is and how well that works.  That would be consistent practice of a literal interpretation of theses verses.  And if churches aren't going to apply the literal interpretation exactly as it is written, then it is unreasonable and inconsistent to apply it only to women who serve in a role identified by a church as a pastor.  Baptists also loudly proclaim that the pastor role in a church is a model of servant-leadership, not authoritarian, rejecting the idea that a pastor is a "priest" with spiritual authority.  So if that's the case, then a woman serving as a pastor would neither be "usurping" the role of a male in the church, nor exercising authority over one.

The bottom line on interpreting this is that by the rules put forth in any Southern Baptist seminary class in biblical interpretation, three scattered references, all from the same author, do not a doctrine make.  Except in this case, and any other doctrine they conclude supports their social agenda.  Or I could just say that they're hypocritical and leave it at that. 

The Implications of Saddleback Valley's Exit from the SBC

In the Southern Baptist Convention, which lays claim to being the nation's largest Protestant denomination, there is no central hierarchy.  Churches affiliate voluntarily and keep their independence and autonomy, which includes the ability to interpret the Bible as they see fit.  There are some specific doctrinal requirements by which the denomination's credentials committee can exclude churches from participation, which amounts to nothing more than refusing to seat their messengers at the annual convention meeting.  

It is somewhat ironic that the denomination's largest church is in Southern California, and not somewhere in Dixieland.  Resulting from a couple of decades of church planting efforts outside the deep South in the 80's Saddleback Valley started as a small group in the home of its founding pastor, Rick Warren, who is now one of the most revered and visible figures in American Evangelicalism, author of one of the best selling books ever.  It has grown into the largest single church in the denomination, considerably larger than any two or three megachurches combined in any southern state. Unlike most SBC churches, it doesn't track church membership, but reports a weekly attendance average of almost 24,000, four times greater than the average attendance of the next largest Southern Baptist church.   

While the SBC has been leaking members like a sieve, including from most of its well-known megachurches, and in every state convention across the south and southwest, Saddleback Valley, in one of the most secular counties and states in the country, is expanding, has multiple campuses, and continues to look for space into which it can expand.  As the number of baptisms, representing new converts to Christianity, has reached its lowest level in five decades among the churches of the convention, Saddleback Valley baptizes more adults in a year than some entire state conventions of churches do.  

By contrast, with a membership that peaked at 16 million in 2005, but with an average attendance of right at 5 million, the SBC as a denomination has lost 3 million members in a decade and a half, and is approaching the 2 million mark in decline of attendance since then.  So tossing a church that bucks those trends surely makes a lot of sense, especially over a secondary doctrinal issue like having a woman serve, under male authority, in the role of a teaching pastor, which is why Saddleback Valley was booted.   

It's not like there will be a lot of weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth--a biblical expression--among Saddleback Valley's congregation over this news.  I doubt that one in ten people who attend the church are even vaguely aware that the church belongs to the SBC, and I'd bet there's not one in a thousand who cares.  Southern Baptists have, for decades, proclaimed that the numerical and financial growth of their denomination, which lasted all the way up to 2005, though it began slowing in the 80's, was a sign of God's blessings on them, as opposed to the "liberal, leftist, mainline" denominations which started seeing declining membership in the 70's.  

In an online discussion board when the recommendation was first brought to the convention that Saddleback Valley be "disfellowshipped" for this move, it was noted that Saddleback Valley shows signs of being blessed by God with numerical growth and the expansion of their ministry, while the SBC is staring at a massive decline that includes major budget cuts and slashes in its ministry support.  

A defender of the SBC said, flatly, "Growth isn't always a sign of God's blessing."  Except, of course, if it is happening to the SBC.  Then it is.  And that's the reasoning we're up against here.  

I won't comment on that bit of hypocrisy.  But I will note the realistic implications of the convention's executive board taking this action.  The convention itself, meeting in Anaheim last June, inside a circle of Saddleback Valley congregation sites, wouldn't do it.  So this backhanded, good-old-boy, action by an executive committee still stacked with fundamentalists, went around the credentials committee and took action on their own.  And that is very typical of the backward, provincial way the Southern Baptist Convention does business.  

This will most likely hasten the exit of many churches which have been riding the fence between remaining affiliated or severing ties with what they see as an increasingly irrelevant, cumbersome, bureaucratic religious organization.  Saddleback Valley Church and its leadership is far more familar to a large group of churches, including many Southern Baptist churches in the west, than anyone who is in leadership in the SBC.  With the drought in winning new converts deepening among Southern Baptists, many churches turn to Saddleback Valley for leadership in what really matters in a church, rather than to some entrenched bureaucrats from a failing bureaucracy.  

This move has the potential for generating a long-predicted denominational split. About a third of the churches in the SBC have women on staff with the title "pastor".  Most work with pre-schoolers, children, teenagers or family ministry, but this is one of those dividing lines between the autonomy of a local church and denominational enforcement of control.  In a denomination where the loss of an entire generation, and almost half of another, is catastrophic, I can see this setting the stage for a contentious convention in New Orleans this June, and messengers forcing yet another floor vote to overturn this executive committee ruling.  

There are already doctrinal and denominational political issues simmering in what has been a very hostile convention environment for a while now, as the old "conservative resurgence" leadership ages.  This was heated up by the abrupt dismissal of one of its "architects," Paige Patterson, as President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, for failures in handling sexual abuse reports at both of the seminaries where he served as president.  Patterson's allies have formed a group called the Conservative Baptist Network and are campaigning, political style, to get the appointive power of the SBC presidency back and to legislate their brand of conservative fundamentalism over the convention's institutions.  They've been spectacularly voted down by messengers in the convention meetings.  

If they don't get their way in New Orleans this June, many of them have threatened an exit or a cutback in financial support, though few of them are major financial givers at this point anyway.  I can see a floor vote overturning the executive committee ruling about Saddleback Valley as a line in the sand for both sides.  If churches see that their affiliation is threatened because they call the staff leader of their pre-school and children's ministries "pastor," or because there is a female church administrator who has that title, they'll just leave rather than put up with edicts coming from a denominational bureaucracy whose authority to do so is questionable at best.  

They Just Can't Resist the Temptation to Control Other People

Whether it's advancing white Christian nationalism or enforcing doctrinal parameters on independent, autonomous churches, there are some Southern Baptists who just can't get past their control issues.  They are compelled to make everyone line up behind them, no matter how erroneous their idea or how much it makes them look like hypocrites.  

When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set the churches of America free from state interference, building a wall of separation with the constitution and guaranteeing religious freedom, they opened the door to the biggest opportunity for ministry and evangelism that the Christian church had ever seen since the first century.  But the prejudices, bigotry and corruption built in to institutional religion soon set up a severely divided church, behind denominational walls held in place by obscure, off-beat, out of context interpretations of the Bible.  As the denominational walls went up between Christians and churches the opportunity slipped away.  

The increasing secularization of America in this age is the direct result of the failure of Christian churches to get out of their institutional prison and become the real church.  They have only themselves to blame for their decline and fall, and this is an egregious example of exactly that.  As a denomination, Southern Baptists have seen their best days.   This is another shot to the foot.  

 

 

On the Record, This Should be Enough to Remove MTG from Congress

 Two Words that Prove Marjorie Taylor Greene is Crazy

How is it possible for a member of Congress to advocate the dissolution of the American Republic, make a public statement that will inflame and incide nut jobs, misfits and insurrectionists, and keep her seat in Congress in defiance of the 14th amendment.  

She just sold out our patriotism, idealism and our national security.  

She should be removed from office.

History Supports Ukrainian Sovereignty; So Should Patriotic Americans

It is inconceivable that American politicians would put themselves in a position to support the autocratic, totalitarian dictatorship of Vladimir Putin in Russia, especially over a smaller nation that has a distinct cultural identity and history separate from Russia.  Ukraine has a long history tied to the whole system of autocratic monarchies who traded countries like baseball cards, emerging with somewhat of a national identity just prior to being over-run by Catherine the Great, incorporated into the Czar's domains and then, under communism, into the Soviet Union as one of the "socialist republics."  

How much it has in common with Russia is a question for a Ukrainian to answer.  Those who are my neighbors in the high rise where I live in Chicago will tell you, unanimously, that they are most certainly NOT Russians, and will distinguish for you in detail exactly what the differences are between the two countries.  I got the impression, from them, that there is quite a contrast in the cleanliness and appearance of the two countries and that this is visible when crossing the border into Russia, where buildings are run down and unkempt, streets are pitted and rough, weeds grow in vacant lots, paint is peeling and people have a similar, shabby appearance and attitude.  

But what generates the biggest expressions of pride is the freedom and democracy that Ukrainians now enjoy since becoming separate from the Soviet Union at its demise, and deliberately pushing for a democratic government, looking to the United States as a model and example.  And like most of the rest of Eastern Europe, after a struggle and learning from their own mistakes, they emerged as a sovereign, democratic republic, the largest country in Europe outside of Russia itself and with a strong, growing economy.  

Nothing provides more evidence of Ukraine's sovereignty and independence, and their will to remain free, than their fight against the Russian regime of Vladimir Putin to protect the territorial integrity of their country.  Of course, hundreds of years of living under the same political rule created a situation in which Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Moldovans and Georgians migrated into cities and territories where the majority of the population made them an ethnic and language minority, and Russians, in large numbers, moved into the Donbas region of Ukraine, because they were attracted there by jobs and opportunity.  

It's doubtful that very many of the Russian-speaking minority in the Donbas wants to live under Russian rule rather than under the freedom of Ukrainian democracy.  They're being used as an excuse and those who are in a position to say so will tell you that, as one of my neighbors, who is a Russian who lived in Donetsk for two decades, on purpose, before the Russian invasion, and left after they occupied the area, to get away from them, again.  He says he didn't want to live under Putin, and not very many of his neighbors in Donetsk want to, either.  

The Inexcusable Behavior of American Politicians

I hate to give any publicity to American politicians, extremist Republican Trumpies, who are using the U.S. aid to Ukraine as a political talking point to be against the President.  That behavior, for an American, is inexcusable ignorance and pathetic stupidity.  It is taking a stand against every ideal that identifies the United States of America as a sovereign nation, the leader of the free world, and our national identity.  I always knew the day would come when money interests would become so large, they would be able to pay for anything they wanted, including to buy the votes of politicians in order to get favorable legislation to expand their wealth.  It appears that this is now a common practice in this country, with greed and selfishness trumping priceless values. 

American foreign policy has never been perfect.  In seeking our own self-interest, especially when pushed by big money, we have taken sides with dictators and bullies, promoted poverty and corruption, and incited revolutions and wars.  There are countries on our own continent that have had to endure diplomatic disasters because of American interference in their politics for our own interests or in the name of "national security."  

We did the same thing to Ukraine, under the previous failed President 45.  The corrupt dealings with Ukraine during the Trump administration smelled an awful lot like the way the United States dealt with Nicaragua and Cuba.  That was incredible inept bungling and inexcusable behavior worthy of the impeachment it brought down on the ex-President.  If congressional Republicans had any integrity, in spite of the late hour, they'd have voted him out of office and made a statement about American patriotism and idealism instead of playing politics and refusing to help a nation preserve its freedom.  

Those Republicans who refused to vote for removal, and who have continued to turn their backs on Ukraine, muttering about American financial and equipment support are, frankly, traitors to America, too.  They are sending a very clear message that they are not interested in, and do not care about American idealism.  They need to be called out for their lack of patriotism and support for the values on which this country was built, and the seditious ideology that they support should be grounds for their removal from office, according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that they are trashing. 

The Biden Administration Will Go Down in History for its Courage of Conviction

Who else, among American politicians, had the standing, the experience, the relationships and the confidence of the democratic world to revitalize the NATO alliance and effectively stop what was considered the rapid, inevitable conquest of Ukraine by Russia?  Democrats have some rock stars, as far as I am concerned, and at some point, I'm going to write about those great women and men who are the foundation of a political party that is the hope of the future for American idealism.  But at this time, we needed a JFK or an FDR, or along the lines of a Madison or Monroe.  

And we have someone exactly like that.  I haven't heard anyone use a three-letter moniker, JRB, for President Biden, more familar as Joe Biden, but thankfully, he was in the White House when the Russians invaded Ukraine, he knew exactly what to do, he had already put together the staff and cabinet who could get it done and he was able to walk the streets of Kyiv with President Zelenskyy this past week, in part because of the work he had done to gather support for Ukraine. And for those who haven't noticed, or who are too caught up in their own self to notice, he has the upper hand over Vladimir Putin.  

The caterwauling and howling of certain extremist elements in the Republican party, the paper tigers, the conspiracy theorists and the bigots caught up in Christian nationalism, is perfect confirmation of the fact that President Biden is on the right track, leading America to do exactly as it should, leading NATO to bold resolve, and most importantly, preserving American idealism rooted in representative democracy and government of, by and for the people.  The Republican shriekers and whiners are selfish in their ambition, willing to sell all of us out so they can be in power and line their pockets.  

Personally, the goal here is to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy, which will only strengthen our own.  But if there are political consequences for the unpatriotic, anti-American seditionists, and some of them get booted out of Congress by the voters in their districts and states who see just how bad, and how un-American they are, then that's also a benefit.  Get ready for that, because I think the voters are going to send some of the extremists packing in the next round.  

From all of the noise and criticism coming out of the GOP following President Biden's historic and courageous trip to Kyiv, the impact of that act, and what it did for Ukrainian and NATO morale, as well as world support for Ukraine, was exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right time.  

Jimmy Carter Was My First and Second Presidential Vote

Unlike some of my fellow high school classmates, I did not turn 18 until after I had already started college.  My birthday fell six days before the registration deadline in Arizona for the November, 1976 election and six days after the Vietnam War draft registration requirement expired.  How lucky is that?  

The Nixon Watergate scandal was still fresh in the minds of voters, along with the pardon of Nixon by President Ford, whom he had appointed to the Vice Presidency after Agnew's resignation.  We had a long discussion in Civics class in high school about whether a deal had been struck that would elevate Ford to the Presidency if Nixon were impeached and removed, which looked very likely.  Nixon's resignation made it look even more like a deal, and the Civics class was, by a two to one margin, convinced of it.  

After my classes were over on my birthday, I headed to the nearest county clerk's office, which was just a few blocks off the campus of the small, Southern Baptist-related college I attended, and registered to vote as a Democrat.  Long before that day, I was determined to vote for whomever the Democrats nominated, not only because I thought Ford was bumbling and inept, and because he had obstructed justice by abusing the pardon power of the Presidency to get Nixon off the hook, but because by then, the study of American History, Government and Economics was still fresh in my mind and I had developed a sense of political identity that had very little in common with Republicans. 

And no, my high school history and government teachers were not responsible for that.  If I were to guess, I'd say that both my high school government/economics teacher and my American history teacher were Republicans.  But they taught us to use our critical thinking skills, be observant, read, watch the news and make up our own mind.  I grew up in a small town, in a working class home where hard work applied to both making a living and what happened in school.  My Dad was an air conditioning mechanic who, like most of the people in our town, worked for the Department of Defense on a military base, but when he worked in the private sector, he was a union member.  On my Mom's side of the family, there were steel mill workers and carbon plant employees.  So there was that  

But it was the way Jimmy Carter lived out his Christian faith that made the difference for me. Few of the men who have served as President of the United States have identified so closely with an Evangelical faith, and Carter was only the second who was a member of a Southern Baptist church.  He clarified and presented himself as a "born-again" Christian, and the values he preached were also the values reflected in his life.  His challenge to those who have attended his Sunday School class at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains over the years has always been to live in such a way that faith does something to benefit others, not that its some kind of pie in the sky by and by.  

That was his Presidency in a nutshell, finding ways to benefit the people he believed he was elected to serve.  His faith motivated his actions, but he respected the conscience and religious liberty of others.  The Camp David Accords, which I consider to be his greatest achievement as President, a historic achievement, came about because those involved sensed the respect he had for their perspective and even though there were Arab and Israeli leaders who were skeptical, were willing to sit down with Carter and talk, and eventually come to an agreement that both sides signed, and which is still holding today, in spite of constant tensions in the region.  

It was the extremist Islamic regime in Iran's capture and holding of Americans as hostages that cost Carter the support he needed for re-election.  But what does it say about the strength and integrity of Carter's convictions and his Presidency that an extremist, radicalized Islamic dictatorship chose to make Carter the symbol of their hatred for America, and waited until Reagan was in office to release the hostages?  When did we ever evaluate a Presidency as 'failed' when it was opposed by a radical, extremist Islamic regime?  That is, as far as I am concerned, a sign of the effectiveness of the Carter Administration's foreign policy, and a sign that the radical Islamic regime in Iran saw Reagan as a pushover. 

Politics are a matter of opinion.  No President is perfect.  As I look back at Carter's administration, I don't see anything there that warrants calling him anything less than a good presidency, and considering its accomplishments and achievements, a great President.  After leaving office, he dedicated his life to helping others.  His work and contributions to Habitat for Humanity characterizes his challenge to his Sunday school class attendees to make their life count by giving someone else a hand up.  The work that has been done around the world through the Carter Center, which he established, and which he has financially supported, characterizes the man well beyond his political roles as Governor of Georgia and President of the United States.  

Thank you, President Carter for all you have done, and for the example you have set.  We love you.

 

President Joe Biden: Standing With Freedom and Democracy on Presidents' Day

After hearing the news that President Biden was planning another trip to Poland this week to mark the anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine, I thought to myself, "Wouldn't it be a great if he would go to Kyiv?"  

What a surprise, to find out that he left Washington in the early morning hours yesterday, flew to  Rzeszow, Poland, where he spoke last year at the start of the war, then boarded a train and rode for 10 hours across Ukraine, to Kyiv.  He had last been seen in public on Saturday night.  Then, the next time he was seen in public, he was leaving St. Michael's Cathedral with President Zelenskyy as air raid sirens wailed in Kyiv.  

This is a historic visit, the President of the United States visiting a country at war, meeting in the heart of a capital city that Russia tried, and failed to capture a year ago, with its President as a demonstration of American solidarity with Ukraine, a nation inspired by American freedom, democracy and idealism against a totalitarian oligarchy showing its total disregard for basic human rights.  That is exactly the symbolism behind President Biden's appearance in the Ukrainian capital, along with a huge morale boost for the Ukrainian people, its military forces and President Zelenskyy.  

The Historical Significance of President Biden's Visit to Kyiv

The importance of this visit cannot be overstated.  Other heads of state have visited Ukraine, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Kyiv shortly after the Ukrainians had pushed the Russian attempt to capture the city back.  First Lady Jill Biden met with Ukraine's first lady Olena Zelenskyy on Mother's Day, 2022 in Uzhhorod, just across the border from Hungary.  But the President's trip to Kyiv was a stunning, remarkable, inspirational and strategically important visit that will go down in history.  

The morale boost to Ukrainians, seeing the American President walking around central Kyiv, which is a target of Russian missiles, must be huge.  It should also be a huge encouragement to the Ukrainian soldiers who have kept a full scale invasion of their country from happening, which has not only surprised the Russians, but the whole world.  It is a testimony to their resolve and their ability that the President of the United States could ride a train ten hours across half the country, and visit their capital city, still in their hands a year after the Russian invasion.  

The Russians must also be quite shocked, and there must be quite an effort going on there now to keep this news from somehow reaching their people.  The President of the United States can travel halfway around the world and make it into Kyiv.  Vladimir Putin's military has been unable get him into a city less than a hundred miles from the Russian border.  

In the United States, the Visit is Separating "The Sheep from the Goats"  

The Ukrainians are fighting to hang on to their democracy, which has brought to their people the kind of freedom and protection of individual rights that they have only been able to enjoy for the short period of time that Ukraine has existed as an independent country in the modern age.  We take so much for granted, but they are a developing democracy, admiring and now experiencing freedom that we often take for granted.  This visit was a symbol of our solidarity, based on core American idealism, with Ukraine's fight to preserve their democracy and freedom. 

We are seeing, in the United States, individuals whose words and deeds are revealing their lack of American patriotism, and their opposition to American idealism as expressed in the representative, constitutional democracy established by our founding fathers in 1789.  Predictably, it did not take long for the anti-American voices to come out and show themselves for exactly who they are.  It should not be surprising that the same traitors who have expressed support for the insurrectionists of January 6th are the disgruntled complainers about the President's visit to Ukraine, and about American help to the Ukrainians to defend their country. 

They've made themselves known, I won't waste space or give them publicity by naming them.  But I will say this.  Any American who wants to see Ukraine fall, and who wants Russia to win this war is unpatriotic and un-American, and stands against everything this country stands for.  Any member of Congress opposed to helping Ukraine is also opposed to American idealism. That's how we will identify those who are against our freedom.  We need to acknowledge that, continue to support Ukraine, and do all we can to make these anti-American anti-patriots pay a huge political price for their opposition to democracy and American idealism.  

  

Boebert and Greene Again, Anti-Patriots Objecting to Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience

What's Driving Objections to "Lift Every Voice and Sing" 

It will never be a waste of my money to make political contributions to whomever is running against Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene.  These two freedom-hating, anti-Americans just can't stand for people to enjoy their American, constitutional freedom of conscience and expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Super Bowl being the latest target of their anti-American, magpie-imitating jabbering, they are complaining about the pre-Super Bowl rendition by Sheryl Lee Ralph of "Lift Every Voice and Sing". 

The reaction from Boebert and Greene is predictable, given their politics and the way they promote themselves to their base, which they perceive as being uneducated, ignorant and bigoted.  They are promoting their own image which they hope appeals to enough voters in their district to keep them elected to office.  For Greene, who is a self-proclaimed white supremacist Christian nationalist, her district is fairly safe.  From what transpired in the last mid-term election, Boebert, from the results of the last mid-term election, is likely in her last term, so she's either going to be as shrill as she can be on the way out, or it hasn't dawned on her yet that this is what is turning voters off, even in the very conservative, rural half of Colorado she represents.  

What's the Problem with "Lift Every Voice and Sing"? 

Though Boebert and Greene characterize the singing of what is considered by many to be a sort of "national anthem" for African Americans as a demonstration of "wokeness" by the NFL--and let me make it abundantly and succinctly clear that there is absolutely nothing at all wrong or anti-American about any kind of "wokeness"--that's really a pretty ridiculous charge.  I didn't check the rosters of each of the competing teams, but odds are that somewhere around 75% of the players who took the field and actually played the game around which all of the ceremony was built are African American.  And since they are the ones providing the entertainment off which multiple millions of dollars are made, whatever happens at the Super Bowl can be as "woke" as they want it.  

The Civil Rights movement, through which this particular song became an anthem, is more uniquely American than either Boebert or Greene.  Given their position and attitude toward January 6th, those two chattering magpies, of which they remind me, aren't patriots at all, so their criticism of this, frankly, flowing from their own ignorance, is worthless. There's no lack of loyalty or patriotism expressed by including the singing of this song as an official part of the pre-game program, along with the national anthem.  It doesn't take anything away from that at all, on the contrary, it adds a rich expression of real Americanism, if you will, a recognition of hope that the equality so many people have struggled for over decades and centuries can be achieved.  The song was performed along side the national anthem, not as a replacement for it.  

The song's lyrics are an acknowledgement of what is a dark past that included the sin of slavery.  As the opinion piece in Baptist News Global by Robert P. Jones of Public Religion Research Institute notes, 81% of America's African American citizens were enslaved when the lyrics to the "Star Spangled Banner," proclaiming that the United States was the "land of the free and home of the brave" were written.  In contrast, "Lift Every Voice and Sing" is an honest expression of reality, along with the hope for a better future possible in America.  

Unless deliberate steps like this are taken to combat ignorance which produces racist attitudes, we will make little progress toward the American ideal of equality of all people.  This country belongs to all of us, and I'm glad to see the NFL recognize it's own influence in demonstrating the true essence of American idealism.  

A Solution to Cochise County, Arizona's Election Issues: Recall Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd

More Election Shenanigans from Cochise County, Arizona

Cochise County, Arizona Supervisors Ignore the Voters, Do Their Own Thing in Election Manipulation

Two of the three county supervisors in Cochise County, Arizona are far right extremist election deniers and in spite of overwhelming opposition from voters, are doing their dead level best to make it as confusing and obscure as possible to count and certify ballots in their county.  Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, whose antics cost the county almost $100,000 in legal fees defending their illegal attempt to force a hand-count of ballots from the mid-term election because they didn't trust the results of ballot counting machines.  Their stubborn insistence on believing completely unsubstantiated claims about election fraud, leading to their refusal to certify some 55,000 ballots cast by county voters, almost cost a Congressman and two state legislators the election and would have disenfranchised every voter in the county.  

But, as you can see from the articles above, which I hope the link gets you past the paywall, they are bent on ignoring the protests of their constituents over merging the job of the county election supervisor with that of the county recorder, putting ballot counting in the hands of a partisan political official.  The most recent election supervisor, Lisa Marra, who served for 30 years, was not only popular with the voters, but had a reputation for running clean and accurate elections.  

The latest move by the supervisors is drawing a very critical response, including lawsuits and vocal protests by crowds turning up at meetings.  The shenanigans pulled by the two Republican supervisors surrounding the mid-term elections has prompted at least one recall petition getting started against Tom Crosby. 

Are you Cochise County residents fed up yet?  You should be.  It sounds like it.  Let me offer a suggestion.  Follow through with the petition against Crosby and get one going to send Peggy Judd packing, too.  Take your county elections back and away from nut case conspiracy theorists and election deniers.  They have no place in a county government, and their stupidity and ignorance is embarrassing your county with the entire nation.  

It's more than just making the county look like a bunch of rubes.  These two supervisors, Republicans, are fighting against ballot counts that are majority Republican.  Their ignorance and stupidity doesn't really make any sense, and they have no evidence to back up their claim.  They are in some other politician's back pocket and we all know that. But the vote counts they want to challenge are majority Republican. What they are now trying to do, with this latest move which was opposed by virtually everyone in the room except the two supervisors, is consolidate the counting of ballots into the political office of someone who is elected, the County Recorder.  And as the Republican majority shrinks in Cochise County, and there are enough Democratic votes there to be decisive in statewide races, a Republican County Recorder following orders of the state's extremists in county government, would not be a fair or neutral observer.   

Look, I get the frustration of many Republicans who have been waiting in their party's line to run for higher office for a long time, and seeing their hopes fade as the state transitions from a red state to a purple one, with Democrats controlling all but one of the executive offices, winning the governor's office and taking and holding senate seats, and with President Biden carrying its electoral votes.  Looks like it will buck a real trend in 2024, unseating a former Democratic-now Independent Senator and replacing her with a Latino Democrat.  But the big lie is a bad campaign strategy, it doesn't work and it makes those who pick it up and use it losers.  Kari Lake and Blake Masters are prime examples of that. 

Why does Cochise County matter?  Because every vote in every county in America matters, that's why.  I suspect that the Republican supervisors have noticed that there's been a slight shift to the left in the county's predominantly Republican electorate in recent years.  Hobbs bested the last Democratic candidate's vote total by almost 5%, and Democrats have been creeping slowly upward, while Republican votes in the county are slowly declining.  To far right extremists who are election deniers, that doesn't represent change, it represents fraud in spite of evidence to the contrary. 

So, Cochise County, get those petitions signed by registered voters and then get to the polls and make sure this insanity doesn't repeat itself.  

 

I Share the Nostalgia of "Old Time Religion," but "Study to Show Thyself Approved" Requires Context and Language Skill

An Urban Pastor Comes to Grips WIth His Backwoods Roots 

Among the more conservative, fundamentalist and less educated segments of Christian faith, it is a commonly held belief that "illumination," or the ability to discern and understand the meaning of scripture, is a strictly spiritual experience in which God's Holy Spirit "illumines" the mind of the reader, if that reader is a born-again Christian and allows them to correctly interpret and understand what was written.  That's not something outside the realm of understanding for anyone familiar with the contents of the Bible.  But there's a legitimate question about whether simply reading and committing to memory verses of scripture translated into English is actually what the Apostle Paul meant when describing this experience, mostly in I Corinthians 2, or whether it includes understanding the original languages in which the Bible was written, along with the cultural context that its writers addressed.  

The fact that there is major disagreement on doctrinal minutia, the kind that leads to conclusions on either side of the debate that the other side is operating from outside a genuine Christian experience, is the result of interpretations based on "illumination" of those who are otherwise uneducated about the historical and cultural contexts that informed the Bible's writers, assumptions that every verse is of equal inspiration, and the use of the King James text, rather than the original languages of scripture, of which those who are uneducated have no familiarity.  The wide variance of interpretation on virtually every doctrinal and theological point, from the nature of conversion to speaking in tongues, is not the kind of unity of spirit that would be supporting evidence for the truth of these claims.  

The Apostle Paul was an Old Testament and Torah scholar, with an education in the detailed and finer points of the Jewish scripture and practice of faith and worship.  In I Corinthians 2, he is introducing the depth and scope of the same kind of study, applied to the Christian gospel, for which the scripture was still in the process of being written, to the Corinthian church which was using, in this particular example, the "backwoods, old time religion" way of figuring things out, and which was proving as divisive and inaccurate in the Corinthian church as that same approach does now among those "backwoods fundies". 

God's "Final Say" on Christian Faith and Practice

My family ancestry is found, on my mother's side of the family, in rural West Virginia, in one of the most sparsely populated counties in the state.  I remember the church experience at the Brushy Fork United Pentecostal Church, well off the paved road, twenty miles or more out in the hills from the county seat, where my great aunt was the "preacher."  The first line of contention between different groups believing they were particularly gifted with the truth was whether a woman could preach.  The Pentecostals said yes, and pointed to scripture to support their perspective.  The Old Regular and Primitive Baptists said no, and pointed to scripture to support their perspective.  

My mother had family members who attended churches in all of those traditions, who would not speak to each other because one side didn't believe the other side was Christian.  Church was an endurance contest.  At the Pentecostal church, it began with a shared breakfast at 8:00 a.m. on the one Sunday of the month that they held services, a practice that dated back to the good old days when churches shared circuit riding preachers.  That was the way they'd always done it.  Then, while the women cleaned up, the men had prayer meeting.  Worship started at 9:30, consisting of "sangin'" during which several members, who wailed in an Appalachian folk style, led various hymns and songs, with no instrumental accompaniment, because that's not the way they did it in the old days.  

"Sangin'" was followed by "preachin'" during which my great aunt, with her long, floor-length hair wrapped up in a beehive on top of her head, would start out in a sing-songy voice, working up to a climax during which she would burst into "tongues" as people in the church clapped, stood up, blurted out in similar babble, some passing out or falling to the floor in the aisles.  This "altar call" would last as long as people kept it going.  It would be as late as 1:00 p.m. when the service would end, and there would be "dinner on the grounds" in the spring and summer under a "brush arbor" next to the church building, in the winter, in the basement.  After that, while the women cleaned up, the men went in for prayer meeting, and then another session of "sangin'" and "preachin'" before dismissing around 5:00 p.m.  

Most sermons included several references, based on their interpretation of the Bible, as to why the people in other churches were wrong, and they had a corner on the truth.  One of my great aunt's favorites was to say that it didn't matter if "them other churches cite the Bible back'ard or forwards," they got it wrong, and they would fail to see heaven when they died.  Any inkling of confidence I ever had in anything she said was erased when I heard her in the barn below her house "practicing" her speaking in tongues.  I though that was supposed to be a spontaneous, spiritual experience.  As it turned out, her explanation to me--I must have been about 12 years old--when I asked, was to say, "Well, honey, sometimes you have to prime the pump."

They were convinced that the spiritual word they had, right there, in the remotest part of West Virginia, in the 1970's, was the highest point for all of Christianity.  In their minds, Satan ran the rest of the world, even the larger churches in the state, in the larger towns.  All that prosperity was a sign of satanic influence, deception and wickedness and they wrote it off just as easily as that. They cannot see their own sharp divisiveness as evidence of the lack of spiritual unity in their faith practice, since they only consider their own beliefs as the truth, and all of those around them as false.   

That's not something to mock, or make fun of.  It's a reality, created by the circumstances of cultural isolation, fear of the unknown, fear of a rapidly modernizing "outside world," economic depravity and uncertainty and a measure of pride and dignity.  None of the Pentecostal, Old Regular or Primitive Baptist churches that were fairly numerous in that county in the 1970's are there any more, all gone.  In fact, on a trip there in 2016, to visit my Mom's family's cemetery, we passed only one church on the way, a "half-time" (two Sundays a month) Baptist church affiliated with the most liberal Baptist denomination, ABC-USA.  

There is Not Much in Common Between the "Old Time Religion" and Christian Orthodoxy

The lack of unity among the more conservative, fundamentalist branches of the American church does present a dilemma for all of it, since many of the doctrinal differences are irreconcilable and dive deep into areas where most Christians claim some common ground, specifically soteriology.  It is deliberately deceitful not to acknowledge soteriological disagreements that present completely different views of Christian conversion, or salvation.  Though you will not find it written in a statement of faith, Fundamentalist Christians, especially those of the "King James Only" brand, have a two step conversion process which requires acceptance of their unique set of "fundamentals of the faith" before a genuine salvation or conversion experience can occur.  This contradicts the Apostle Paul's statement that salvation is a matter of God's grace alone, responding to faith alone, which generates the spiritual act of sanctification of the soul and justifying it before a Holy God.  

Fundamentalism teaches that unless one  understands, and assents, to their list of correct doctrine, they can't genuinely experience conviction from sin, which is the act that starts the process of salvation or conversion.  So someone can only be "saved", in their vernacular, in the context of what they define as a "Bible-believing church" which they define by their literal interpretation of a few passages of the King James version of the Bible.  "Sin" can only be defined in fundamentalist terms, by them, and their approach to conversion is faulty.  That is a "salvation by works," which the Apostle Paul says is not the way conversion occurs.  

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity," is a commonly used phrase, believed to have originated with Augustine, that many Christians use to describe what they perceive to be remarkable unity in doctrine, theology and practice among Christians of all persuasions.  By observation, study that includes a graduate degree from a theological seminary, and a lifetime of experience, I would say that unity doesn't even exist in the very core essential beliefs of the gospel, with Fundamentalism at odds with every essential doctrine except, perhaps, the nature of God as a trinity. 

Even drawing this conclusion, however, I will not criticize or ridicule the adherents of fundamentalist "old time religion," as they often call it.  There's way too much of that kind of thing going on all across the Christian spectrum.  I no longer consider it either my personal mission or a personal accomplishment to deliver the better argument for Biblical soundness of doctrine, or convince another Christian that their perception of their faith is wrong.  Though the fundamentalists may think I'm headed straight for hell, I don't believe their deviations from orthodox Christian truth disqualifies them from faith in Christ, which comes by God's grace, not by adherence to their interpretation of doctrine and theology.  I believe that the Christian tent is much broader than any single denomination or faith expression.  

They get most of this wrong, and it makes it difficult to see the truth through their error.  But the Christian gospel is a message of grace, the nature of God is love, and forgiveness and restoration between humanity and God is its theme.  These are the folks who, as the joke goes, will have to be placed in a separate room in heaven until they eventually come to grips with the fact that they aren't the only ones there. 

Why This Matters

From a position that once shunned political involvement as "worldly," this branch of Christianity has some characteristics, based on their emphasis on Bible culture and lack of it on Bible principle, that it is introducing into far right wing politics.  Most notably, Christian Nationalism, with white supremacy thrown in, has some proponents who have made their way into Congress and this philosophy, which is based on the Old Testament, is attractive because of its racism.  But the kind of misogyny exhibited in some aspects of right wing politics, including the disgusting, crude manner in which many right wing politicians, including Trump, treat women is also straight out of the fundamentalist book.  

One of the reasons the Southern Baptists, along with many other right wing Evangelicals, are having fits with sexual abuse scandals involving clergy is their complementarian manner in which they view the role of women in the church.  Their position justifies lower pay for women, exclusion from certain occupations, lack of recognition of their leadership capability and seeing them as fit for having kids and keeping house, and not much else.  They teach that women getting out of traditional cultural roles from the 50's is the reason there is so much disorder and chaos in society, another false assumption. 

If people choose to stifle their own freedom, which, for those who believe in the Christian gospel is that part of who they are in the image of God, that's one thing.  But belonging to a group which feels a compulsion to control its members through misogyny and legalism disguised as religion, and which seeks to expand its control and enforcement of its morality on the culture at large through government is quite another.  That's why we have religious liberty.  

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.  The Apostle Paul, Galatians 5:1

 

 

  

Reputation Earned by "Preacher's Kids" Fits Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Arkansas Baptist pastor Wendell Griffin, who serves the New Millenium Baptist Church in Little Rock, and who recently retired as a circuit court judge, gets the credit for one of the best critiques of what has to pass as the "Republican response to the State of the Union" given by Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.  I say, what must pass as the response, because it wasn't really as much of a response to anything, and I mean anything that President Biden said, but more a revisiting of old conspiracy theories and problematic political themes that caused the GOP's "red tsunami" to come up virtually empty after the mid-term elections.  

Note that this response comes from a Baptist pastor, and appears in a Baptist publication. 

Arkansas Baptist Pastor Points Out the Lies in Sarah Huckabee Sanders' "Response to the State of the Union"  

Sanders is the daughter of Mike Huckabee, whose record as governor of Arkansas is equivocal at best, and lacking any significant political success except playing to the biases of conservatives, including some in the Democratic party whose campaign help he borrowed to win both the Lieutenant Governor position and also serve as governor.  Sanders' childhood was spent as a Baptist preacher's kid, as her father worked for the fundamentalist firebrand evangelist and fundamentalist James Robison, and then served as pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Pine Bluff, and Beech Street First Baptist Church, the largest Baptist congregation on the Arkansas side of the city of Texarkana.  

Among those of us raised in Baptist churches, the behavior of preacher's kids was always a topic of discussion.  Some of them had earned for the whole group the reputation of being the worst behaved kids in the church, leaving members endless opportunity for gossip and speculation, along with an avenue available for direct criticism of the pastor, as church members are prone to do. In the church in which I grew up, there were some prime examples of this stereotype.  Two of my best friends growing up were the children of pastors of other churches in town, one a Church of Christ, which was a group even more conservative than the Baptists, and the other from an Assembly of God, whom my mother approved of heartily, because her assumption was that he would be a good influence.  

Of course, as a Southern Baptist, I knew about all of the denominational politics in the 80's and 90's, and about Mike Huckabee as a "rising star" among megachurch pastors, serving a term as President of the state convention of Southern Baptists in Arkansas, more of a peer recognition than a position of real power.  The Baptist Press featured his transition to politics in Arkansas prominently, and when he stepped into the governor's office after a scandal, they crowed.  

So when Sanders, raised as a Baptist preacher's daughter, with a political science and mass communications degree from Ouachita Baptist University, stepped into national prominence as the Trump administration's press secretary, following the Sean Spicer disaster, with the responsibility of repeating his outrageous lies and trying to justify them, my thoughts instantly turned to the stereotype about preacher's kids. That's exactly what we got.  Her appointment was obviously a political favor to his Evangelical constituency.  She's not articulate, has an annoying habit of attempting to over-ride an accent, is a dull, expressionless public speaker and was repeatedly backed into corners or verbally flattened by reporters.  She earned, and solidified a public reputation as a denier of facts and a purveyor of outrageous lies.  She was nicknamed, appropriately, "Sarah Pinocchio."  

Sanders, as a newly elected governor of a deep red state, with a degree in political science that should have helped her discern the kind of opportunity she was being given, not only to reset a narrative that cost her party dearly in the midterm elections and raised optimism of a sweep election for the Democrats in 2024, but which also had the potential, God forbid, of launching her own possible bid for higher office.  She chose neither of those possibilities, opting instead to simply repeat tired culture war themes that were at the top of reasons which moved independents and some moderate Republicans to the left, allowing everything the President said to stand unchallenged, including calling out GOP attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare, which he has raised to the level of a sonic boom across the country.  

Thank you, Pastor Griffin, for your editorial, which is right on target.

 

The Far Right's Culture War is Failing Badly

Poll Shows Parents Don't Want Schools to Focus on Culture Wars  +Thank you to Lunabell for the post on DU.

It's getting more difficult to trust polling data, since the midterm election pollsters had to deal with multiple skewed polls infiltrating into the data, showing a much more Republican-favoring outcome to the election.  Even a few of the reliable composite pollsters had to work hard to filter out the unreliable information that had some Republicans touting a 60 seat turnaround in the house and complete control of the Senate.  

Since the State of the Union address last Tuesday, the news media has done its usual, remarkable, unbelievable focus on the unimportant and irrelevant by trying to create their own narrative of interpretation of what is going on.  They've jumped on anything that they think will bring them ratings, including Biden's age and talk of who's running in 2024, all kinds of speculation and bug-a-boos galore, and the continued emphasis on his job approval ratings, also noting that only 32 million Americans, down from 38 million a year ago, watched the address.  You'd think they'd be thrilled at the jobs numbers, the economic news that seems to indicate we're avoiding recession and moving along nicely, the achievements of the infrastructure bill. 

The job approval rating may move off the table pretty soon.  Today, 538 posted a Rasmussen-yes, a Rasmussen poll showing 45% approval of Joe Biden's job as President, eight points higher than the same poll had Trump right after his second State of the Union.  In fact, aside from some lower rated polls here and there, the President's job approval seems pretty steady at 45% in several reliable, higher rated polls.  The composite has him at 43, but that includes several of the more obscure, Republican controlled polls that showed up and missed the midterm results by wide miles.  Given the miss that 538 made on the midterm elections, and compared to recent presidencies at the second year state of the union, I'd say Biden is not in bad shape.  

Where's the Polling Data on the Culture War?

But what I would like to know, and have been looking for information to find out, is what kind of rating the Republican culture war is getting from the voters.  Their mishmash of everything they've gathered under the umbrella of their use of the now outdated term "Woke" which they are trying to convince people are the legislative agenda priorities of their opposition, even as the opposition's focus isn't on any of that, except opposition to the bigotry and white supremacy that drips off the anti-woke Republican culture warriors.  I'd like to see the long term political effects of waging a war against wokeness, banning books, restricting school courses and violating the free speech and expression of thousands upon thousands of Americans.  

Judging from the results of the midterm elections, I'd say that agenda is not doing well at all.  Gerrymandered congressional districts were the main reason for the GOP's being able to get back a House majority, though it is not anywhere near what they would have liked, nor will it be effective in pushing the empty agenda of their investigations, which are already going nowhere because of a lack of foundational facts submitted in evidence.  I don't necessarily read a lot of Florida news, but it seems like their governor's fascist attack on free speech is making some people angry, including many of those who didn't show up to vote.  

The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade, was a massive boost to the Democrats, in spite of opposition to abortion being the central issue of the far right's culture war.  That one issue was likely responsible for the kind of turnout among Democrats that they needed.  Democrats were highly successful in taking back state houses this midterm, and that was very likely the biggest motivating factor for those voters who turned out.  And I think that's an indication that the approach to the culture wars taken by the far right, which is the anchor of their political movement, is not popular with the voters. 

Some of the focus groups set up by media outlets after the SOTU, indicated that voters are more interested in the narrative the Democrats now seem to control than anything having to do with the culture wars.  Few people see any real threat from critical race theory, identified by the right, obscurely, as CRT, but they do think that the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes, and are incensed when evidence shows that some of those who made the biggest profits during the previous administration paid no taxes at all.  

More Americans are Woke than the Far Right Realizes

I think that what Ron Desantis is doing in Florida is going to create a lot of backlash that will ruin any chance he has of being elected President of the United States.  Most Americans don't know anything bout Critical Race Theory, but they do recognize racial bigotry when they see it, and most Americans do not believe that this country was set up to be a white, Christian nation by its founders, and aren't interested in perpetuating that false idea. I don't think a majority of Americans are in favor of censoring school courses aimed at racial understanding and reconciliation.  Most Americans are horrified by mass shootings and are in favor of gun control legislation.  And most Americans don't believe ridiculous conspiracy theories.  

Taking the political battle to a culture war is distracting from the real issues at hand.  There are a lot of people in this country who do not understand personal liberty, free speech, freedom of conscience and religious liberty, and want to use the government as a means to their end, which usually involves them receiving some privilege or benefit because of who they are.  They also realize that if the core principles of American democracy are taught in school, and students learn how to think critically and figure things out, they might make their own choices.  

There's a trade-off in this that undermines the culture warriors, and that is having to accept a level of corruption and dishonesty in those they choose to lead.  It's very difficult to be straightforward and truthful when the end is all about controlling someone else's behavior.  There's a lot of hypocrisy involved when it comes to the far right's culture war, and I think that is its downfall.  

I'm just wondering how long it will take, in a state like Florida, that is pretty much a microcosm of the whole United States, for this to blow up in their face.  In politics, it takes a while for the pendulum to swing from one side to the other, but I think, in this case, it is well on its way back from the peak it hit by electing Desantis to a second term. His hard line may be just the ticket to a Democratic resurgence in the state.  He's lined up an array of enemies in Disney, higher education and in the ethnic and religious minority groups, including the Jewish community.  I think he will feel the blowback at the worst possible time for his run at the White House.  

And I think, for most of the rest of the extremist right, it will be the 2024 election.  

Is This the Face Republicans Want to Put on Their Party?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Delivering the Republican Response to the State of the Union 

Democrats used to complain about being policy wonks but unable to control the political narrative.  But the eighty-year-old Democratic President matched the rudeness of hecklers on the GOP side of Congress during his State of the Union address, including calling out the reaction to his statement, supported by the facts which Republicans can't ignore, that Republicans were planning on putting Social Security and Medicare on five year sunset bills and cutting the benefits.  The proof is in the proposal by Republican Senator Rick Scott.  There's no denying it.  

So the President called them out, stated the facts and where to find them, including for any of the American people who want to look it up and confirm it, and then enjoyed the resulting standing ovation when he declared that, apparently, they all agreed on not cutting those benefits and standing up for seniors.  I consider that an excellent example of controlling the narrative. 

Contrast that with the Republican response delivered by Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.  The President emphasized the economic and job growth that has taken place during his administration, resulting from his policies, the cuts in the deficit in contrast to the spending done by his predecessor, and the multiple benefits everywhere from an infrastructure bill that even some Republicans have supported, fearing that the themes in their narrative are being ignored by an increasing majority of American voters. 

Sanders, whom I assume had control over what she chose to address, went right back to the same old talking points that cost the GOP in the mid-term elections, and going back to 2020, cost them the White House.  She assumed everyone knew what she was talking about, though few of those in the polling and focus groups actually did know, including almost all of the independents and many of the Republicans.  I really wonder, in her case, especially after having to put forth all the lies she told when she was Trump's press secretary, if she even knew how to actually be the "response" to the President's speech.  

We're just past two years into the Biden Administration, and after the best mid-term showing for the party of a sitting President in decades.  After predicting that they were going to flip 60 House seats, the GOP had trouble getting to a ten seat majority, and it is far from certain, and getting less certain every day, as the party seems to continue on this losing track, that the majority will hold, especially on extremist legislation and extremist investigations.  The Biden Administration is confident it will get the debt ceiling raised without negotiating anything away, and I'd bet on that.  

So where was Sanders when Biden was giving his speech?  Surely she had a copy of it in advance and was able to see what he was talking about.  But with very little actual rebuttal, she let what the President said stand without a challenge,  wasting an opportunity for a response which would at least demonstrate a realistic grasp of the situation instead of repeating themes in their extremist code language that cost them control of the Senate, several state legislatures and governorships and a disappointingly small majority in the House that will--mark my words--not support the extremism.  

To use a phrase that I sometimes heard growing up in the ranchland of Southern Arizona, she was "all hat and no cattle."  She's a Baptist preacher's daughter who has become accustomed to lying.  

The expression on her face in the photo from the Washington Post says it all.  

Christian Nationalism is the Result of Faulty Church Doctrine and Theology

 White Evangelicals Three Times More Likely to Support Christian Nationalism

"The US Government should declare America a Christian nation." 

"US laws should be based on Christian values." 

"If the US moves away from our Christian values, we will not have a country anymore." 

"Being Christian is part of being truly American." 

"God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."  

In a recent survey of more than 6,000 Americans by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institute, 64% of white Evangelical Christians were found to be either firm supporters of Christian nationalism, or sympathetic to it, from agreement with statements such as these.  Among Protestants of color, 52% are either considered adherents or in sympathy with Christian nationalist beliefs.  

Christian Nationalism is a Heresy Without Biblical Support

In my Evangelical background, such statements would be taken for granted as true, without any question of their veracity and without requiring any of the support from the biblical text that other doctrinal statements require among them.  Most Evangelicals are biblical literalists, believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical text, and develop their doctrine and theology out of this approach to interpreting the Bible.  

But when it comes to Christian Nationalism, which a majority of them see as a matter of settled orthodoxy, the threshold for biblical support, or for historical evidence, drops down to almost nothing. And if biblical text it cited for support, it is usually something from the Old Testament taken completely out of context. 

I do not believe that ignorance of American History, by any reasonably intelligent, patriotic American, can be excused.  Students should not be able to graduate from high school or get a GED without a clear understanding of the formation and drafting of the Constitution, including understanding the intentions of the founders, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, when it came to clarifying freedom of religion and conscience.  There is nothing at all in the Constitution, or indeed in almost any foundational text related to the beginnings of this nation, that remotely resembles any kind of Christian Nationalism, or establishing a nation based on biblical theology and Christian values.  

The influence of Christianity was anticipated and expected, but never mandated or enforced, precisely because the founding fathers had observed, and experienced, the corruption of the church under the control of monarchs using it as a political wedge, all but drowning out its mission and purpose as a body of Christ. In fact, it was those who were confessing Christians by practice, and who were Evangelical in their doctrine and theology, and who had been persecuted without mercy by the established state church, who petitioned Jefferson to place a "wall of separation" between church and state.  Jefferson's letter to these Christians, the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, is the best evidence supporting the fact that the founding fathers never intended to establish a "Christian nation."  

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association,

But the ignorance of the biblical text, and the ability to interpret and apply it in its proper context and meaning, is inexcusable among people who claim that one of their core doctrines, which they claim sets them apart from "other" Christians, is belief that the Bible is without error and is infallible in its authority over Christian faith and practice.  It is, in fact, much easier to discern from the biblical text, especially from the words of Jesus himself, as well as those of the two key first century Apostles of the church, Peter and Paul, that the ministry work of the church was of a spiritual nature, not needing the secular, temporal power of government.  

Christians were instructed to acknowledge and respect the power of the government by both Apostles, recognizing that all governments exist because God allows them to do so, in spite of their flaws and their lack of acknowledgement of his existence.  But they were not to depend upon that power to achieve their mission and purpose, and that is made clear, not only by the Apostles, but by Jesus himself, who, in his rejection of the temptation to use worldly power to advance his kingdom, declared, "My kingdom is not of this world."  Jesus never challenged or rebelled against the rulers who sent him to his crucifixion, as did the generations of Christians who did not rebel or resist the government's attempts to persecute them and eliminate their influence in its first two centuries of existence.  

The covenant between human beings and God, established by Jesus and outlined in the New Testament, is an individual one, offering redemption from sin following conviction, repentance and receiving grace through faith in Jesus.  The greatest period of evangelism, winning converts to faith in Christ, occurred during the two hundred year period between the time the last book of the New Testament was written and the reign of Constantine officially ended the persecution of Christians.  That makes it pretty clear that God never intended the church to be the dominant power in the state, controlling the government so that it could achieve its mission and purpose.  When the church is controlled by the state, conversion is a matter of politics, not faith.  

Anglo-Israelism and Other Forerunners of Christian Nationalism 

At the core of Christian Nationalism is white supremacy.  The racist idea that white, Europeans are the "chosen" people of God in the same way that the Jewish people were the chosen people of God in the Old Testament was spread across the American frontier by untrained, uneducated individuals who were chosen to be pastors and preachers because there was no one else available.  Being God's "chosen" for Jewish people did not mean they were racially superior to others, though through their history, events occurred which are attributed to God's judgment on them for thinking that way, and not fulfilling their intended purpose, which was to testify to the world of God's existence, and that he was the only God.  

The idea that white European settlers in America were superior to the native Americans, because of perceived differences in culture, and superior to Africans, for the same reason, let to the decimation of the natives and the enslavement of the Africans, neither practice of which is consistent with any biblical teaching, though the Bible was distorted and taken out of context to justify both.  But the idea that whites were "God's chosen" spread across the frontier through the churches.  It was reinforced by uninformed preaching which took the Bible way out of its context, applying a fundamentalist, literalist perspective to what justified taking land away from native Americans and destroying them for fighting to defend the last vestiges of their own culture. 

So the phrases, like those cited in the Baptist News Global article above, have become embedded in the rhetoric of Evangelicals where they have hardened into false theology and doctrine.  The idea that Christians need political favor and control to evangelize is completely counter to the Christian gospel of Jesus and is an evil idea that subverts true Christianity, turning it into something that Jesus never intended it to be.  

Christian Nationalism is Counter-Productive to Christian Evangelism

Like virtually nowhere else in the world, except where there is a free church in a free state, Christianity in America has thrived beyond what it ever did in places where it was co-opted by the national government.  Churches were established out of major revivals, built their own buildings out of their own offerings and not government assistance, and developed their own ministries under complete religious freedom.  People participate in churches by choice, not obligation, and Christianity has thrived under religious freedom and separation of church and state in America as it has not done anywhere else.  

Madison, who had a theological education, was probably one of the few founders who saw how detrimental it was to the church to be connected to the state, and how un-Christian society became under the influence and control of the state church.  His perspective was prophetic in setting American Christianity on a path toward revival and evangelism that has been all-pervasive in terms of how Christianity has influenced this country.  

Eliminating a free conscience, like Christian Nationalism would do, would also remove the power of spiritual conviction and repentance, and Christian "conversion" would become a matter of political expedience and coercion, having no genuine convictions of its own.  Many Evangelicals see the existence of the church as a bulwark against evil spirits in a war between good and evil, God and Satan.  In that context, Christian Nationalism would be a "tool of the devil" to weaken the church by rendering its evangelistic outreach ineffective.  

It is also, by definition, heresy.  Everything Jesus taught flies in the face of its basic premises.  The assumption that our prosperity is tied directly to the number of Christians we have and our national adherence to Christian morality is also heresy, not taught anywhere in the Bible and, in fact, contrary to Biblical teaching.  If American prosperity is tied to its being a "Christian nation", then how is the prosperity of Singapore, which is significantly higher than that of the US in terms of GDP, explained, where fewer than 15% of the population professes any Christian faith at all?  Or Japan, one of the most prosperous nations in the world, with one of the smallest percentages of Christian population?  

Economic prosperity is not what the Bible's writers meant to equate with "blessing."  That, too, is a belief far out of step with the Christian gospel.  This whole perspective, or "worldview," opposes Christian teaching, morality and the gospel of Jesus.  The idea of a religious belief having a favored status in a democracy the values freedom of conscience is also anti-American.  Fortunately, there are those within the Evangelical branch of American Christianity who have developed well reasoned, and Biblically supported positions against it.  Let's just hope there are always a majority of voters, Christian or otherwise, who reject candidates who are its proponents.  

 

One of the Best State of the Union Addresses of my Lifetime

I know all the commentators and pundits are already out there regarding last night's State of the Union address by President Biden.  I haven't paid much attention to their comments.  Their language and style, whether it's putting an edge on their words, or their choice of vocabulary, tends to frustrate me, so I will put this in my own words and be happy about it, hoping my readers also feel the same way.  

Why I Thought This Was One of the Best

The President didn't hold anything back.  In spite of lagging job approval ratings that are most certainly affected by the infiltration of data purposefully designed to lower his numbers, his party had a better mid-term election than any of his recent predecessors.  The Republicans have a majority in the House that is already resembling a Jenga stack leaning over and about to fall with half the pieces pulled out of the bottom.  So he took full advantage of it last night, and rolled right over them.  

He fired a cannon shot directly at them when he called out, correctly, Senator Rick Scott's proposal to put a five-year sunset clause on Medicare and Social Security.  It was such a quick shot, his facial expression conveyed the delight he was experiencing by calling them out, nailing them to the wall with the facts and then almost reveling in their discomfort.  I think, at that moment, he knew he'd won, and won big.  They couldn't hid from this reality any more, they had to do something or run the risk of experiencing the wrath of millions of senior adults in the coming election.  He reveled in knowing that he had done such a great job of getting under their skin.  

And he won the negotiation right there on the floor of the House.  Biden's handling of the facts, with raised eyebrows and a half-smile, forced Republicans to demonstrate agreement with his "hands off of social security and medicare" stance with a standing ovation.  

He also called them out on raising the debt ceiling by pointing out that his predecessor, whom he never actually named, was responsible for 25% of the current federal debt.  That did not go over well at all with the GOP, but in spite of their vocal reaction, they can't deny the facts and their moaning just drew attention to the issue.  He will get what he wants without any tradeoffs or negotiations, and yes, I would put money down on that bet.  

A Sharp Focus, Control of the Narrative, and on the Offensive All Night

If Republicans want anyone to believe that President Biden's age is a factor in his cognitive ability, sharpness of mind or physical stamina, they shouldn't point to this address as an example.  This was a far better display of the grasp of how politics works, of the facts, of organizing a speech that did exactly what Democrats wanted him to do, and that was underline and emphasize what has been a remarkable two years of achievements and accomplishments by this President.  

The list of accomplishments which he masterfully worked into this speech would make a series of campaign commercials.  He pointed out that gas prices had dropped over a dollar a gallon in the last six months, that inflation is under control, still too high, but being handled by his administration's economic policy.  He masterfully tied the crime rate to gun control and a push for control of assault weapons.  And he brilliantly linked support for the Ukrainian government in its war against Russia to the foundational principles of American democracy, and got Republicans on the record for their continued support, dragging out applause and even some who decided it was better to stand up than look un-American and anti-patriotic. 

In contrast to his predecessor, this speech clearly laid out specific achievements with references to the facts that supported everything he had to say.  There was no wandering aimlessly off script, cannonading at gnats and making it difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy.  This was the speech of a man who has the experience, knowledge and character to manage the Presidency in a way that few people are capable of doing.  He earned, and got my vote the first time, and he has already earned and will get it again, if he decides to run.  He is exactly what this country needs at this moment in its history, for the preservation of our democracy.