pulpit politics

“Who would Jesus vote for?”

This weekend over 30 pastors nationwide gave their opinion on “God’s choice” for 2009.

Some pastors alluded to who they would be voting for while others went as far as to state that their endorsement was the only candidate approved by God.

This pulpit politics is a result of a meeting two weeks ago between 150 pastors and Alliance Defense Fund. The socially conservative legal group pushed their “Pulpit Initiative,” which encouraged pastors to speak up this past Sunday in an effort to “restore the right of each pastor to speak Scriptural truth from the pulpit about moral, social, governmental, and other issues without fear of losing his church’s tax exempt status.”

According to law, any political endorsement from a church official violates the laws that keep tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns. However, the Alliance Defense Fund promised to sue the IRS if the department threatens these churches. ADF is arguing that these pastors are being censored by not being allowed to share their opinion.

But no one is telling pastors they can’t speak their mind. They just can’t do so when taxpayers are subsidizing their organizations. And neither can any other tax-exempt organization. It’s not a faith-discrimination thing. It’s about protecting the taxpayer’s money.

Do I want my tax money subsidizing a Baptist church’s campaign to elect the “Christian” choice for a nation I do not believe to be Christian by Constitution? Certainly not.

For example, Pastor Gus Booth of Minnesota announced in his church that, “If you're a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.” There’s no way I can support such a statement. So thank you, IRS, for protecting the use of my money.

As I go about trying to live according to the faith I’ve chosen to believe in, I try my best to picture Jesus acting in the context of our society. And I just cannot picture him standing in the synagogue telling listeners which Pharisee to listen to. Throughout the Bible Jesus continued to remind his followers that our hope is not in a worldly order but rather in a new government that is yet to come.

Maybe if pastors spent more time paying attention to the words of Jesus and less time listening to special interest groups more concerning with power than truth, our politics would look a lot different.

Accountablity Needed in Bailout Plan

Congress has been handed the overwhelming task of deciding the fate of our economy. In regards to the Treasure Bailout Plan proposed by Secretary Paulson, there are several things to keep in mind. First, the potential cost of this deal, especially to the taxpayers, is drastic. Congress must come up with an effective plan that is mindful of its taxpayers. A large increase in taxpayer support will drastically limit the fiscal programs of our next president. And, why should theses losses be borne by taxpayers instead of the shareholders and debt holders? It’s time the CEOs of these companies need to be held accountable. Justice must be served. It is unfair for these executives to continue to enjoy the luxuries of second homes and expensive cars when the taxpayers are carrying the burdens of their mistakes.

When deciding on the best plan of action, Congress and the Bush Administration needs to seek a solution that promptly restores stability to our economy at the lowest cost to the taxpayer, that holds those responsible for such huge losses accountable and a plan that address the root of this crisis—the price collapse in the residential real-estate market due to a lack of government regulation on mortgage and lending companies.

I urge you all to send a letter to your senators and state representative. To find out who your state representatives in Congress are, visit www.votesmart.org. We need them to fight for the taxpayers of California and push for corporate accountability. And the urgency of this matter is paramount. Now is a time for all members of our Congress to put party politics aside and unite for the betterment of America.

“Wall Street lives on as a capitalist symbol, but the new inhabitants of its bricks and mortar have reduced its reality to an echo." --Wall Street Journal Sept. 25, 2008

A telling time for South Africa

While, the world has its focus on the global economic upheaval, South Africa faces its own political upheaval—one that will define the young republic’s modern history.

Last week, Thabo Mbeki, the second president of post-Apartheid South Africa, announced his resignation. The resignation comes only after a bitter battle with the African National Conference (ANC) party leader and former deputy vice president Jacob Zuma. President Mbeki will be leaving office on Thursday after accusations that he interfered in the prosecution of Zuma on corruption charges.

Jacob Zuma served as Mbeki’s deputy president from 1999 until 2005 when Mbeki let Zuma go due to corruption charges against him. Since then, the two prominent leaders have been at odds with each other. Those tensions heightened when Zuma was elected last December as the leader of the ANC Party. That election makes Zuma the clear favorite in the upcoming 2009 elections to become the third President of South Africa.

Mbeki was elected in 1999 and reelected in 2004. In his time as president he has had his glory moments and equally dark moments. His is well respected for his diplomacy efforts throughout the continent. He has supported peace operations in Burundi, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Ivory Coast. Although not very fruitful, Mbeki has also moderated a number of peace talks between long-time Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

But his role at home is cause for many South Africans’ disapproval. His infamous refusal to recognize the HIV/AIDS pandemic as a crisis in his country still haunts him today. He is also blamed, although maybe not rightly, for the increased economic gap between the rich and the poor. In addition, he received much criticism for firing Zuma as his deputy president in 2005.

The biggest obstacle to Zuma’s presidency was the corruption charges held against him. It has been perceived that Mbeki was interfering with the trial. "The political elite within the ANC then felt that the Jacob Zuma trial would never go away while Thabo Mbeki was in office," Adam Habib, a political analyst from the University of Johannesburg, told the BBC this week.

Because of Zuma’s current control over the ANC, Mbeki’s presidency has been rather restrictive during the past nine months so his resignation will not disrupt domestic political life.

So what’s next?

This is a defining moment in South African politics. So far, the country’s story of democracy has been a success. Thabo Mbeki is the country’s second president elected through democratic process and 2009 will bring the country’s 4th national election season.

So far the peaceful transition is telling of a working democratic society. But the rise of Jacob Zuma, a self-declared socialist and economic populist, will determine the course for South Africa. If the lifting of corruption charges are truly a result of the political elite, then South Africa could be in for a bumpy ride. Only time will tell…

the right woman?

At the fearless age of ten, I boldly announced my decision to run as president of the U.S. While most candidates wait until about two years before elections to announce their campaign, I decided I might need some extra time to convince my country it was time for a woman.

I was too young to witness the appointment of Geraldine Ferraro as the first female vice presidential nominee but I do remember watching Mrs. Clinton on TV—she seemed like a strong woman with political ambition, but I wasn’t convinced that the country would ever be ready for her. So what would the best female presidential candidate look like? I figured I had thirty years to figure out.

Fast forward a decade. Mrs. Clinton did run after all, but, alas, America wasn’t ready for her. It looked like we’d have to wait another four years before a Ms. President could be a realistic hope.

But wait. Then out of the middle of nowhere, literally, hails Beauty Queen/Hockey Mom/“Political Maverick” Sarah Palin. Much like Walter Mondale’s decision to run alongside Geraldine Ferraro, Senator McCain picks the little-known governor from Alaska in hopes of shaking up an otherwise doomed race for the White House. As the first Republican female vice presidential candidate, the second X chromosome will finally find its place on the November ballot. And if the 2009 vice president inherits the power our current vice president possesses, we could get our first taste of a female president.

So, is Sarah Palin the best woman to first represent American women in the White House? I’m not sure.

At age ten, did I imagine leading our country with a child on one arm and a hunting rifle on the other? Certainly not.

I’m convinced that if Sarah Palin does enter the White House on January 20th, it will be a half-ass win for female presidential hopefuls. But only time will tell if the pseudo victory becomes a setback.

My concerns are rooted not in political ideology, but rather in feminist theory. Classical feminism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries bred two schools of thought: conservatism and egalitarian. Conservative feminism was traditionalist and family-centered, embracing women’s roles in the home while also fighting for the education of women so that they may influence beyond the realm of the home. Egalitarian feminists sought to liberate women from their own womanhood, demanding that they be given the same rights as men. Both schools of thought worked together to bring women the rights we enjoy today.

Today, the contemporary feminism movement is dominated by the egalitarian ideology. This ideology of liberation has come to oppose female liberty—the choice to chose either the home or the workplace, or even both. Modern feminism has alienated the intelligent women who decide to rear children and care after their home. Conservative feminists, like Christina Hoff Sommers, are calling women around the country to reclaim feminism and to “Make the movement attractive once again to the silent majority of American women who really do not want to be liberated from their womanhood.”

All this to say, Sarah Palin, a could-be success story for the conservative camp, steps onto the ice with little-to-none experience and a feisty overconfidence. If she misses the goal, we could be sitting on the bench longer than we expected.