posted November 01, 2004 10:28 PM              

Posted on Sat, Oct. 30, 2004

POLITICS AND THE PULPIT

Some clergy: Bush isn't our chosen one

BY ALEXANDRA ALTER

aalter@herald.com

To some clergy, the key religious issues in this year's presidential campaign are not gay marriage, abortion rights or stem cell research.

Rather, it's war, poverty and tax cuts.

'When I see that poverty has risen each year for the past three years, this is a fundamental failure by the Bush Administration on the Biblical priority of reducing poverty,' said the Rev. Jim Wallis, executive director of Sojourners, a Washington, D.C.-based Christian ministry that advocates social justice. ``Our faith has been stolen from us and it's time to take it back.''

Wallis is part of a growing number of progressive religious leaders trying to do just that. In the months leading up to the presidential election, they've launched a grass-roots campaign to counter the religious right.

They're running ads in national and campus newspapers saying ''God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat.'' They're sending clergy to swing states to mobilize voters. And they're taking a page from the Christian Coalition in broadcasting their message.

Their refrain: The administration's economic and foreign policies are un-Christian.

''Our God would say if you ignore the poor, it's an insult to the Creator,'' said the Rev. James Forbes of Riverside Church in New York, who will speak Sunday evening at Miami's St. Paul AME Church as part of a campaign to pressure the presidential candidates to address poverty.

The Rev. Vincent Mitchell, pastor to St. Paul's 1,150 parishioners, has been urging his congregants to educate themselves about the issues he considers most vital: ``We're concerned about the deficit as it relates to unemployment, we're concerned about the national image of America and the relationship with our allies, we're concerned about health care and Social Security.''

Once a formidable political force during the civil rights and anti-war movements, religious progressives have been eclipsed in recent decades by the religious right, which mobilized conservative Christian forces in the 1980s to oppose legalized abortion and the ban on school prayer. More recently, religious conservatives have lobbied against stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and the constitutional ban on religious displays on public property.

But this election season, liberal Christians have taken a cue from their media-savvy conservative counterparts.

''It's a major new effort and one that is long overdue,'' said Paul Sherry, the director of the National Council of Churches 'Let Justice Roll' anti-poverty campaign, which will host the event at St. Paul AME Church.

Last week, 200 Christian theologians from prominent universities and seminaries signed a letter condemning the Bush administration's ''theology of war'' and ''language of righteous empire,'' arguing that unilateral military action and the denial of due process to prisoners of war contradict Christian principles.

''What we see now . . . is an attempt on the part of the religious left to get back some of its national influence,'' said Laura Olson, a professor of political science at Clemson University.

Liberals' efforts to take on the religious right have fallen short in the past, in part because the movement splintered into local grass-roots efforts, Olson said.

To some extent, they are still struggling. The leadership is divided over abortion rights, with a handful of clergy saying they oppose it, others saying they support it, and the majority remaining silent. Liberal clergy are similarly divided over gay marriage.

''It becomes very difficult for anyone to try to mobilize religious liberals on the national level to come up with a doable policy,'' Olson said. ``You don't end up firing anyone up about anything.''

But that may be changing.

In November 2003, a network of Christian and Jewish clergy organized to mobilize religious progressives against the Bush administration's policies. Called the Clergy Network for National Leadership Change, the 35-member group has been meeting with clergy to train them in political activism, mobilizing voters in battleground states, and encouraging pastors to spend election day at the polls.

The Rev. Bill Brockland, a retired United Methodist minister in Palm Beach who is the network's Florida coordinator, said he became involved because he felt liberals needed to do more to appeal to religious voters.

''I thought it was important that the progressive liberal groups should have a larger voice in the public arena representing people who have religious values,'' Brockland said. ``I felt that the Christian right and the religious right had captured that voice.''

Then there's Mobilization 2004, an anti-poverty campaign sponsored by the National Council of Churches and the Center for Community Change. It's also spearheading ''Get out the Vote'' drives in churches in 15 cities.

Sojourners, a group that revolves around a monthly Christian publication, has launched a nationwide ad campaign challenging the right's claim to religious values. It has published a guide highlighting Biblical passages that are relevant this election season. And the group's director, Wallis, has broadcast the group's message in editorials for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

But overturning the public perception of Republicans as the God party may prove difficult. Bush retains strong support among white evangelical Protestants -- traditional allies of the Republican Party. In a poll of 1,002 registered voters published last week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group, roughly 70 percent of self-described evangelicals or born-again Christians planned to vote for the president.

Some political analysts, however, say statistics can be misleading and do not reflect the views of African Americans or Hispanics. Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said more religious voters may find their views lining up with the Democratic platform this year.

''There may be some real surprises. There may be more of a religious vote for Democrats than we're used to seeing,'' he said.

Conservative religious leaders say they're ready to meet the challenge of a reinvigorated religious left, but question the movement's appeal to Biblical values.

Many religious liberals don't believe the Bible is the unerring word of God, and therefore have no claim to scriptural authority.

posted November 01, 2004 10:49 PM            

On the other hand most churches would say the homosexual churches aren't the chosen ones either.

Of course, there are those who would inquire what the purpose of a church could be which doesn't believe in what the bible clearly teaches.

There have been many secularists who have penetrated the churches in attempts to attach themselves to religion and give themselves cover for their antibiblical activities. Hello Barry Lynn.

Gee, we're a real church, we just don't believe in any of the biblical principles. Huh

You know Mirandee, when ever I hear or see the word social justice, it sets my teeth on edge and raises a red flag in my mind. You see Mirandee, that's the mantra of the Marxists in all of their literature, attempting to draw the dupes into their circle.

One day perhaps a Marxist will explain how social justice was carried out by the communists in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam, Communist North Korea, Communist Cuba and Communist Cambodia, all failed communist dictatorships around the world. That would be interesting.

posted November 01, 2004 11:06 PM              

That these are "homosexual churches" is your opinion. It does not state that anywhere in the article which was about a whole lot more than just homosexuality. I guess to a homophobic the word "homosexual" would just jump right out at you though. Then the mind closes.

What the religious right stated about these churches is a lie. All churches believe Scripture is the word of God. They just don't all believe fundamentally as the religious right do. The terrorists believe the Koran fundamentally too. We can see where that leads.

posted November 02, 2004 12:32 AM            

Now Mirandee, this is the guy who wrote the article you posted.

Let's have a look and see who he is, shall we?

You can read along as Alexandra Alter attempts to twist bible passages into meanings they do not mean. You did say you studied at Sacred...something or the other didn't you? If so, you should be able to spot where Alter (nice touch with the name don't you think?) departs from the truth..which is immediately.

The Church vs. Homosexuality
By Alexandra Alter / Knight Ridder News Services (KRT)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2004

Sophie Blanc, left, and Lourdes Triana sing at the Bay Church, a Christian worship center with a large number of gay congregants.
Some theologians identify six biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. Three are from the New Testament. The following wording is from the King James translation of the Bible.

-Genesis 19: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. "... the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. . ."

Some theologians say Genesis 19, which describes the destruction of the city of Sodom after the city's men demand that Lot hand over his guests, two male angels, illustrates God's wrath against the city's homosexual residents. Other biblical scholars say the story deals with rape and the desire to dominate and humiliate foreigners, not homosexual intercourse.

"Sodom and Gomorrah is really a statement about political dominance," said Mary Tolbert, executive director of the Pacific School of Religion's Center For Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry.

Some say the verb "to know" does not necessarily translate to sexual intercourse here as it does elsewhere in the Bible.

-Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Conservatives cite the passages from Leviticus as a condemnation of homosexuality.

Other scholars say the prescriptions are antiquated and no longer applicable. Other passages of Leviticus identify eating shellfish and wearing clothing made from mixed fabrics as acts punishable by death.

-Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

The apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, one of the few verses in the New Testament that deals with homosexuality, is cited by those who say the Bible condemns gay relations.

Some scholars argue, however, that Paul is refering to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts, which go against their nature, not homosexuals engaging in sex.

-1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Conservative scholars say the "effeminate" means homosexuals.

Liberal Biblical scholars say it is unlikely that Paul meant to refer to homosexuals with the word "effeminate," noting that he would have used a more appropriate, less ambiguous Greek word.

-1 Timothy 1:9-10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Conservatives say that "defile themselves with mankind" refers to homosexual relations.

Liberal scholars dispute the translation of the Greek word.

There you have it, the bible doesn't mean what it says at all. It doesn't say or mean what translators have translated it to say for most of 1000 years and we have Alter to thank for pointing that out to us.

I don't know why homosexuals don't write their own bible Mirandee.

"In the beginning God created Ed and Adam".

"Therefore a man will leave his father and will join with his husband, and they will be one flesh".

posted November 02, 2004 02:31 AM              

It's called "tolerance." While the Religious Right believe in "condemnation." That comes from their fundamentalist black and white interpretation of Scripture.

St. Paul also said that women should be subject to their husbands, never speak in church and wear a covering on their heads to hide their hair. How many of us live our lives that way these days? You see, jwhop, St. Paul was not put into a trace while God did all the writing for him. God gave the writers of Scripture a free reign with their literary style. What God, through the Holy Spirit did was "inspire the writings of Scripture." Which means the things in Christian Scripture (the New Testament) that pertain to God and Jesus and what he said and did are no doubt true. However, St. Paul lived over 2000 years ago. What he said about women being subject to their husbands etc. was the norm in Jewish society. He was an ex Jewish Rabbi. So he was speaking of what was normally accepted in the society of his time. Most of us have evolved in intellect and understanding over the past 2000 years.

You cannot take things out of context from Scripture and quote them without looking at what came before that and what came after it. Who was St. Paul addressing when he said that? What happened before he said that? What came afterwards?

How does the Christian Right explain that Lot, who in the Old Testament is said to be a just and righteous man, slept with and fathered children by his two daughters after his wife was turned into a pillar of salt in the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah? Today that practice is called incest and is considered a sin and is in fact, against the law. It was not only acceptable in Lot's time it was a common practice. David not only committed adultry he had the husband of the woman he committed adultry with killed. Yet he was considered and is considered a just and righteous man. He wrote the Psalms. That was back in B.C. We have evolved in our intellect and understanding since then.

RC teaching is that it's okay to be homosexual because we don't know for sure if people are born that way or it is environment that causes it. Only the Church says while one can be homosexual they shouldn't practice it. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either.

The consensus of thought in the RC Church among priests and bishops and the Pope is that no one would actually choose that lifestyle where they are guaranteed to be persecuted and outcasts in society. Would you choose a life style that would cause you be an outcast in society? I wouldn't. So therefore, homosexuals have to be born that way and it is not their fault. Something goes wrong in the gestation cycle. We don't know for sure because the medical facts are not discovered as yet.

The Bible was not written so that we could use it as a weapon to beat others over the head with it by picking quotes out of context to make our point. You can do that with any verse in Scripture. For every quote you give me I can give you one that contradicts it. The Bible DOES have contradictions in it. It also has hyperbole, songs, poetry, parables, and all forms of writings.

The point is that the whole lesson of Christianity or the teachings of Christ was to love one another, be tolerant of each other, and not judgmental and condemning of each other. We are gaining new understanding all the time. We should not condemn homosexuals and not allow them their human rights because in all probability they cannot help being as they are. They were born that way.

Which was the point that Kerry made in the debate when answering that question as to whether or not they thought that homosexuals were born that way. Bush made that point too when he said " I don't know." We don't know so why condemn them if we don't know? I should add that, if you remember, BOTH Bush and Kerry went on to state that personally they believe that marriage was between a man and a woman.