Good stuff, going to the site to see the rest. Thanks.

I believe AndiF’s statement about MLK is correct; he was motivated largely from his sense of calling and faith in God’s will and wisdom in the struggle for civil rights. It was his context to a lot of folks benefit. The same for Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, John Paul, and Daniel Berigan, who has spent many months in jail for resisting military violence, poverty, human rights and nuclear proliferation in Christ.

Religion in and of itself is not a threat to the political process. There needs to be room for all belief systems that express themselves in respect for others, to be free to live without coercion in a safe and compassionate community. If that is achieved by the brotherhood of communist philosophy, religion, or faith in the innateness of our human nature so be it.

I have never made the receiving of my actions predicated on anyone knowing the source of my motivation; it is not material to the offering. However, I cannot offer a drink of water outside of my faith in serving humanity in Christ’s name; if that makes me ineligible to work with you in politics that would be a terrible shame.

Treating people fairly and in love as a matter of ones faith, should not be an impediment to being a Justice either.

Blessings.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wm_029200_politicalpar.htm

“…U.S. third parties have been in the vanguard in embracing the feminist goals of suffrage and national officeholding. At least six parties, including the Populist, Progressive, and Prohibition parties, preceded the major parties in support of suffrage and equal-pay legislation. Of the female candidates for president (12) and vice president (46) appearing on a national ballot since 1920, all but one were nominated by third parties. Parties of the Left, in particular the Socialist Workers Party, have been most open to a woman on the ticket. More than a dozen women of color were nominated between 1980 and 1992.

Exclusively women’s parties have also been formed or considered. The Equal Rights Party offered the presidential candidacies of Victoria Claflin Woodhull (1872) and Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (1884, 1888) as a means of raising gender and ethnic issues. For example, the platform of 1884 advocated equality and justice for all regardless of sex, color, or nationality and supported full citizenship for Native Americans. In 1989 the national conference of the National Organization for Women (NOW) agreed to explore the possibility of forming a new political party that would be more responsive to the issues of women’s rights, racism, homophobia, the environment, peace, and social justice. The resulting Commission for Responsive Democracy, after two years of regional hearings and meetings, announced in 1992 the 21st Century Party, the Nation’s Equality Party, with Dolores Huerta as its chair. The national NOW conference has endorsed the concept of the party, but it is unclear whether this group would operate as a political party by contesting elections or act as a social movement/interest group as has the National Woman’s Party…”

Of course, we all know that NOW’s aspirations toward a Women’s Party proved to be a paper tiger the minute there were subject to a little vitriol from the proto-Kossies back in the 1990s. That wouldn’t preclude another organization with more guts and less dependence on the DP’s purses from jumping into the breech, if they wanted to.

It certainly would be but I suspect neither one of us is going to hold our breath.

But just once when a dem is accused of not being religious, I would like them to make the distinction we did rather than trotting out their sunday school attendance card.

I should clarify that I’m not a Christian nor am I interested in becoming one. (In fact, I don’t wish to belong to any religion.) I do have, however, a deep appreciation for people of faith. But thanks for the thoughts.

Kim,

My feeling is that religion should never be a part of politics. I don’t want anyone bringing their religion into political discourse ever. That’s when it becomes about compliance to a specific view. But I think it is entirely different when people’s beliefs lead them to take part in political activities. I feel fairly confident, for example, in thinking that Martin Luther King’s faith led him to take the actions he did. King wasn’t trying to get anyone to accept his religious viewpoint; heii was using his faith as an inspiration for his thoughts and actions.

The left can become an avenue where people of faith can gather and share that love and compassion we know, mine from Christ and others as they understand it. However rhetoric that blankets people of faith does little to warm them to feeling welcomed.

I can understand the sentiment behind this, but to me, the warm feeling of being welcomed in a political fold should be despite religion, not because of it. That isn’t to say that the unique perspectives shouldn’t be appreciated, but by approaching it as a despite, it doesn’t set a heirarchy on the perspectives as one being better or more legitimate than another.

The left can become an avenue where people of faith can gather and share that love and compassion we know, mine from Christ and others as they understand it. However rhetoric that blankets people of faith does little to warm them to feeling welcomed. I know it is hard when Christ the liberator (He came to set the captives free.) is used to club people with legalism and judgment, but that is not the fault of the faith, but those that just don’t get it.

There is an excellent magazine called, “The Christian Century.”? It is nothing like Christianity Today or other pop religious mags. I would recommend looking at it sometime or visiting the web site. It is progressive in nature as our faith should be, (in my opinion.) and speaks to the Neibuhr crowd. We are out here; we just don’t have a real home.

Blessings.

Neibuhr

This is a particular hobby horse of mine. Your first group are people who have faith; your second group are peple who have religion and they act out of need to compel obedience, not belief (which, of couse, cannot be forced). The irony is that the first group is more likely to actually change other people through the quality of their own behavior and ideas. I certainly have been much more affected by Reinhold Neibhur than James Dobson.

The rest of what you were saying does indeed resonate!

Alsis;
I was yammering on in the car today at Matt and Amp about being ticked off that I had been called a ’special interest’, in that I was a woman. At the same time, it struck me as humorously ironic that such a statement in and of itself is an admission of the inherent inequality of women, despite the repeated attempts of people saying ‘but what else needs to be done, women are equal!’

We’re already wounded, and have been for years. Keeping quiet about how painful that is doesn’t seem to be stopping our supposed allies from finding opportunities to pour more salt in the wounds every chance they get. Otherwise, Democratic feminists wouldn’t be relying on a pro-life Whip to help save them from a pro-life president. :(

Let’s worry less about splitting the left, and refuse to settle for the lesser of the two. The world is dying for a message, not the bashing that has come to be the mode of campaigning. We have the message, the rich get richer and you think it is independence? How about healthcare for your kids with asthma so you don’t go broke because they took away your plan at work in the latest negotiations? Hey, what kind of negotiating could you do if healthcare weren’t an issue?

Let’s think about just 25% of women getting the message and showing up for equal pay and benefits? Let’s take SSM and make it a civil liberties issue and not a religious issue, if the church don’t want to marry them, let the JP, lot’s of folks get married outside of the church, why should this be any different? We have the votes, what we need is the message that we will use them to advance the issues that are going to make a difference. (Not some stupid war that is wasting thousands of lives and billions of dollars that could be spent on the homeless, abandoned and abused.)

If Roe is the best argument they can come up with for a Judge, we can clobber them on a dozen other reasons and show them for what they are. It is shameful we have been co-opted and don’t even know it, we have the issues, we simply have to step out on faith to talk about them, and quit reacting to their fear based manipulations.

Kim, I am a Christian, and it is not an agenda that reflects my faith. GW understands power, the SSM amndment noise is aimed at the judiciary, look at the timing. Lump SSM fear into judicail fear and you get a swell of scared people that want whoever GW and Rove says is going to keep the GLB folks from being given rights by the judges. It needs to be legislated, that takes the issue out of the courts. (Look at Spain.)

Blessings.

Yeah, Kim. Why do you find those particular words ominous?

Well, two reasons really. First, I’ve heard speculation that it was a clear message being sent to the fundamentals with regards to faith based politics. Second, I find it extremely hard to look at the statement charitably when he’s already shown he will attempt to interpret and modify that very same constitution based on his faith (read: marriage amendment & abortion issues). He has made it clear that he feels religion DOES have a very real role in politics, including the constitution.

So either they can faithfully (as in loyally) interpret the constitution in the spirit it was meant, or they can faithfully (as in religiously) interpret the constitution to fit with a Christian agenda. Is there honestly any question for anyone as to which of these possibilities Bush would choose, and if he was in fact sending a message, does that not bear both scrutiny and concern?

Damn. I’m going for ruggedly handsome; kind of a Lloyd Bridges in Battlestar Galactica (”The Living Legend”) meets Robert Redford theme.

“Cute” means that I’ve overdone the pancake makeup again. Time to let a little more craggy out of the baggy.

Odds are if women’s right to vote were put up to a vote tomorrow, it would be a close call and a possible loss.

Shhh! That’s our secret plan for W’s third term, after Bork, Coulter, and Brown join the court and find that the voters’ right to privacy and choice override the plain text of the Constitution.

Doesn’t make women’s rights wrong.

A feminist party is a great idea. I’ll give you money. Please split the left in two and create a massive bleeding wound. Pretty please.

Votes.

Yeah, that ought to be enough time to start a Feminist Party. What are we waiting for again ? Somebody remind me, because I’m pretty sure it’s not for Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman to ride in on a white charger and save Roe. :/

“who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.”? (Gulp. how about faithfully seeing what damage their decisions can do to people and their families?)

Whatever we do, this is for keeps. I am far less worried about terrorists, then 25 years of Janice Brown on the bench; less about the middle class and more the margins with no voice. The left had better let folks in leadership know that this is where we show there is a difference between the two… not clear enough in recent elections. It cannot be enough to be Bush bashing, (though he is such a good target) we must explain why it is important to everyone that the court not lean so far to the right that it falls over and crushes us. We may have to rethink our goals. There is no chance of him appointing a centrist, but we can pressure for someone closer to O’Connor if the left uses a united and reasoned voice. In this struggle it would be a victory. (To think I was afraid of Reagan’s agenda…)

Blessings.