People pack churches to hear Shane Claiborne talk about "Jesus for President," the book he co-authored. The dreadlocked Christian activist from Philadelphia and his team parked a black school bus around the back. The hand-painted gold letters on the side read "Jesus for President." The bus runs on vegetable oil and, yes, it's a political statement. "It'll be a long time before we fight a war over used veggie oil," says Claiborne with a sly smile. Claiborne is touring the country, packing churches and community centers, in support of the book he and Chris Haw co-authored, "Jesus for President."
...
Young evangelicals represent an important swing-voting bloc. They're not a lock for Republicans as their parents were. Their feet are firmly planted on issues dear to both parties. Traditional family values are, as they have been in the past, an important issue.
But these voters say views on abortion and homosexuality won't define them in November. The environment and social justice are moving to the forefront of their discussions.
Taken from CNN. Emphasis added.
4 comments:
I like that article, and I think I would be friends with that guy. He has pretty cool hair, too.
For reasons aside from abortion and homosexuality, I think that Obama, if elected, would set our country on the wrong path. Given a Congress that will be very favorable to his ideas, I see it as highly likely that many of his proposals will become law (such as universal, gov't funded health-care ). I think the Jayhawk read the following manifesto in February, and I wonder what he thinks about it today. :)
"Since Jim called me out, I am going to endorse... Ron Paul. Just kidding. This is a difficult one, because no candidate represents my views. I'm considering not voting, or voting for a small third-party candidate. I couldn't vote for Obama or Clinton because 1) with their ideas regarding health-care and social security, they will assuredly put the US economy strongly in the European "perfect society" model, which means large government and high mandatory spending for decades to come; 2) their solutions for environmental problems ignore the cause of environmental degradation... which is a culture dominated by materialism and wastefulness (I am still waiting for the candidate who will outlaw individually-wrapped slices of cheese) and 3) despite all the nice rhetoric that sounds pro-life in the deep sense (working towards world peace and reduction of poverty), they are not pro-life in the obvious sense (seeing dignity in human life even when it cannot advocate for itself... i.e. at the beginning and the end of life). They notice the fern seed but ignore the elephants. To me, this says that deep down their vision of world peace and reduction of poverty will be based on who advocates the loudest, which means it will be based on empiricism, as opposed to reality. The classic problem of bleeding-heart liberals is that they throw money (and in the case of world poverty, money and condoms) at the problem, without understanding the depth and complexity of the problem.
But to be balanced in my criticisms, I would have trouble voting for Romney because 1) he thinks the first solution to illegal immigration is to arrest employers who hire them -- a situation that is neither feasible nor desirable; 2) fiscally he will continue the trend of spending a lot overseas while sticking to the mantra of lowering taxes, which as we have discussed represents (in the leadership of our country) the type of overspending that plagues Americans today and 3) he provides no vision for taking care of the environment. In terms of his Iraq policy, I don't know how to read him. I think he is the most prudent of the candidates here, in that he wants to reduce our presence pronto, but without instigating a power vacuum that will lead to major loss of life.
On to McCain. He is the trickiest candidate for me to put my finger on. Ultimately, I'd have trouble voting for him primarily because of his stance on Iraq (which is to increase the number of boots on the ground). McCain is a smart man, and understands the realities of modern war better than I do... and accordingly he says that to stabilize Iraq we need to increase our troop presence. He is probably right. However, I am unclear about his exit strategy. How, if ever, will we transfer power back to a sovereign government in Baghdad? This is, after all, the goal. Despite the threat of terrorism, we still cannot impose a "Pax Romana" on the Middle East.
So anyway, given all that, if Jim still wants me to endorse a viable candidate, I will endorse McCain, and pray that he finds a way to reduce our troop presence in Iraq sometime in the next 4 years. That being said, I am still seriously considering the small, third-party candidate who better represents my position."
I would like to comment on the article. Taking the stance of WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?), is noble in good times and bad. Giving more to others and those in need is a goal most Christians, if not all, should be striving for on a daily basis. That said, I am skeptical this bio-fuel bus driving hippies message centers around Jesus' life of altruism and is probably more about selling his new book.
I hope the blanket statement I am about to say does not offend any of the loyal Jayhawk readers but I will go ahead take my chances. Here it goes: Evangelical Protestantism is a business. It is more about the dollars than the faith.
There I said it.
But onto the point of the article. I do believe, as CNN states, "... these voters (young evangelicals) say views on abortion and homosexuality won't define them in November." It will be more about Obamas mantra "Change". The American public, especially its youth, will vote in high numbers for Barack but that will not be enough. (as we saw in the 2004 election) He will need, and probably get, the middle class voters who were on board with Bush in 2004 when he promised progress in Iraq but failed to deliver much since.
On a related note, leading up to the election, I would not be surprised at all if McCain changed his "99 more years" tune when it comes to the War in Iraq.
I still have readers - sweet!
So, to play devil's advocate and to challenge p-ditty a little bit, here we go:
1. This is a difficult one: Yes it is. And I haven't made my mind up yet.
2. with their ideas regarding health-care and social security, they will assuredly put the US economy strongly in the European "perfect society" model, which means large government and high mandatory spending for decades to come
a) Is there any price you'd pay for a 'higher' society, one in which health care is affordable to all? You know, a woman I worked with (Michelle) at a motel in Kansas in 2001 went without food on Christmas - no turkey, no ham, no chow. Nothing. On Christmas day. You know why? She had an emergency tooth extraction the day before and used her Christmas food fund ($100) to pay the dentist. I wish I had the words to describe how I felt.
b)Comparing the economies of the US and Europe at the present time, Europe seems to be doing a lot better, despite it's "large government spending." I'd rather spend the billions here feeding the hungry and housing the homeless in SE DC than arguing about which company gets the next Defense contract - Northrop or Lockheed? Onto Iran I suppose.
3. their solutions for environmental problems ignore the cause of environmental degradation...which is a culture dominated by materialism and wastefulness
You really believe that Republicans are more environmentally friendly than hippy, tree-hugging Democrats?! Seriously?! Have you been to Texas? I was just in Houston for the past two days - you would think cars produced oil. I take that back, you'd think Escalades, Hummers and F350 trucks produced oil in mass quantities.
Let's suppose that Democrats are these creatures of "materialism and wastefulness" - what does that make Republicans!?!
4. they are not pro-life in the obvious sense Did you know that in a recent Supreme Court decision, 4 Conservative *and Catholic* justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) voted for capital punishment? Thank God there's at least one Catholic on the Court - Kennedy - who upheld the Church's standard along with the other "liberal" justices to not allow the state to murder a citizen. Isn't this also the most obvious pro-life position?
5. The classic problem of bleeding-heart liberals is that they throw money (and in the case of world poverty, money and condoms) at the problem, without understanding the depth and complexity of the problem.
And what do Republicans do? What have they done in the past 8 years? Scoff at Democrats' attempts to try to come up with a solution, albeit not in the most efficient sense, to a complex problem. Do Republicans have a panacea to these issues? I suppose the richest man in world, Warren Buffett, giving away his money ($40+ Billion) would be classified as "throwing money" at a problem.
6. McCain is a smart man, and understands the realities of modern war better than I do... and accordingly he says that to stabilize Iraq we need to increase our troop presence. He is probably right. However, I am unclear about his exit strategy.
Agree.
7. I am still seriously considering the small, third-party candidate who better represents my position.
You should. I am doing so as well.
8. Evangelical Protestantism is a business.
Yes, lots of truth to it. But, if that's what makes them feel closer to God, and - more importantly - makes them act accordingly, good for them!
I think the CNN article was a good introduction to the idea that just because you're religious does not give you a political shade or political color.
Politicians should not be able to bank on a Church to provide the votes, they ought to earn them through sound legislative action.
The article also underscores something that I think a lot of Conservative religious people think but don't always say, and that is the notion that one is "intrinsically evil" for even thinking of a voting for a Democrat - normally because of the A* issue. It is ironic, of course, that they ignore to "Judge not, least ye be judged."
So, anyway, that's that. Respond at will!
Of course you still have readers! We are devoted to this blog.
I think the Reno Ranger is right that voters will flock to the mantra of Change this November. American politics normally runs along a pendulum swing. In my opinion, this is because people like to blame their problems on somebody else, and the most obvious choice for scapegoat is the ruling party. Don't get me wrong, the Republican party has messed up in quite a few concrete ways in the past 8 years. But our country's deepest problems will persist long after Obama (or McCain) is in office.
(This was my point about environmental degradation. It is true that Republican leaders are no better. However, given my opinion that the root cause of environmental degradation lies in a culture of materialism, Obama & Co. are not the environmental saviors they are made out to be.).
European "perfect society" economics -
a) I don't discount the pain felt by people who do not have health insurance, or who cannot make ends meet. Not to make it personal, but I for one did not have health insurance during my high school years. However, socializing costs across the whole country is not the only alternative answer. In fact, that historically has made things worse. It is difficult to discuss this in the abstract, but we can certainly say that history gives us a good lesson : the more social services are provided by the government, the less individual and local responsibility is taken. The end result is a people totally subservient and dependent on their government (see Soviet Russia or present day China). This is the opposite of the vision of freedom and responsibility.
b) Comparing the economies of the US and Europe is indeed helpful here. In terms of unemployment, per capita GDP, investment, the US has been outperforming Europe for decades. The US economy is hitting a downswing, but many European economies are on that point as well (e.g. Spain, which has grown a lot in recent years, and has been lifting the GDP growth figures of all of Europe, is on the verge of a housing crisis worse than ours). Here is a telling headline comparing EU to US economic health:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
Hey, I better get back to work, but
I just wanted to write back a few thoughts.
Post a Comment