Now that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has switched allegiance from the Republican to the Democratic Party he has laid himself open to criticism as to his lack of loyalty and principles. Of course if he had no principles why not just accede to the agenda of the core Republican party and continue on his merry way in the Senate? It seems to me that if he is doing anything it is being true to himself. His views have not changed. The Republican party has chosen not only to abandon him, but to attack him and to gear up to defeat him. They did that recently in Maryland where they defeated an admirable moderate Republican Congressman in Wayne Gilchrist. The ultimate result was the election of a Democratic congressman in that district. The same could well happen in Pennsylvania as well, and Arlen Specter could be that Democratic Senator.
It is true that Specter started out as a Democrat, which means that he has actually changed parties twice. That fact does give one pause, but I must say I wasn't
following Arlen Specter back in 1965 when he first switched to the Repulican party so I can't really speak to what was going on at that time. It does seem, however, that 44 years as a Republican is not exactly fly by night, not to mention 20+ years as a major Republican force in the Senate.
No one can doubt that Specter is making the switch because it will give him a much better chance to be reelected in next year's senate elction. He himself has said as much. Specifically he said that he would not allow the Pennsylvania Republican electorate to decide his fate in the primary. That doesn't seem like a loyal party member. Chris Matthews of MSNBC essentially said on his show "Hardball" that Specter stands for nothing and will do anything to get elected. This seems overly harsh. Clearly his party has decided it wants to defeat him. Should he therefore be defenseless and do nothing? Is it reasonable to remain in a party that has made its priority dumping him? Is the issue really about which party he belongs to or is it about holding fast to the positions he has always believed in? Specter has not come recently to his independence or his moderate beliefs. There is nothing in his background to suggest he has ever been a right wing ideologue. If those are the only people welcome in the Republican party today, does it really make sense for him to try to remain a Republican? It does seem accurate to say that he is not leaving the Republican party, but that the party has left him.
Clearly, there was a time when the Republican party was not what it is today. We could go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican President. We could recall that virtually all African Americans were Republicans for many years. In the recent past there has always been a strong liberal or moderate wing in the Republican party. Whether we speak of Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republicans clearly it was a very different party. Does anyone remember that Richard Nixon was pushing for Universal Health Care? Arlen Specter had a reasonable home in that Republican Party, but it doesn't exist anymore. Today we have a party in which Tom Ridge, another moderate Pennsylvania Republican, was denied a spot on the national ticket. He fell victim to an anti-abortion litmus test. Even though Ridge was John McCain's top choice for vice president he had to turn to Sarah Palin to find an acceptable candidate for the party.
Demographically, what does this mean for Republicans? I believe it is true that the party is in its worst shape since the Goldwater disaster of 1964. My faithful blog readers will know that Barry was one of my heros in 1964. At any rate it is important to note that 4 years later, a Republican, Richard Nixon was elected President of the United States. If we know anything it is that the public can turn on a dime. At the 100 day mark for President Obama, despite all the deserved accolades, the one undeniable fact is his contunued popularity will depend almost entirely on the success of his programs. If the economy does't turn around by next year's election there will be another quick sea change in Washington.
Despite these caveats, there are some real problem areas for Republicans. They are having major problems in too many areas of the electorate. They are doing poorly with African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and young people. All of these demographics are showing continuing and significant growth. It seems unlikely that angry white males are going to win too many elections in the future. A party without outreach to growing minority populations is in trouble.
Back to Senator Specter. His long history in the senate has shown him to be a man of character and principle. He has been thoughtful and deliberate on many of the issues that have defined this country over the years. His principled vote on the President's stimulus package reflects his willingness to stand up and be counted in an effort to get things done. He also clearly enjoys being that pivotal Senator that can make or break an issue. Nothing has changed, except that he will now be that pivotal vote from within the Democratic party. He will not be any more predictable than he has been in the past. But undoubtedly he will continue to serve the people of his state and this country in trying to discern how the country can move forward to be successful and better in the years ahed. The Democratic party should feel fortunate to have him in the fold.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Is Christianity on the Decline?
There have been a spate of articles recently on the apparent decline of Christianity in the United States. Probably the most significant of these is the Newsweek article, "The Decline and Fall of Christian America". These articles bring several questions to mind. First of all, What is actually meant by Christianity in these articles? How does one interpret the data that these articles reference? Is Christianity being used only to refer to the religious right? What, in fact, should a resurgent Christianity look like?
It is difficult to use any group or denomination of Christianity as representative of Christian thought. Christianity has always been a broad-based movement that has exemplified diversity since its inception. A quick look at New Testament Scriptures would highlight major differences between the Christian thought of the Pauline and Johannine biblical literature. Most Christians will remember how Peter and Paul fought over the inclusion of gentiles into their community in the Acts of the Apostles. The historical record includes many early Chruch heresies, the split with Eastern Christianity, and of course the Protestant reformation. Modern Christianity has shown a decline in adherence to mainline protestant denominations, but growth in pentecostals and evangelicals. How does one point to any one manifestation of Christianiy and speak of Christianity as being in decline?
Let's take a look at the data that is referenced in the Newsweek article. We are told that Americans professing no religious affiliation has jumped from 8 to 15% since 1990. Self identified Christians have fallen from 86 to 76%. Also, the number of individuals identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics has increased dramatically. These numbers are interesting and significant, but whether they warrant a headline like "The End of Christian America" is questionable.
It should also be noted that we have seen how events can move such numbers quickly in one direction or another. In 2004 gay marriage galvanized the religious right and helped reelect George Bush to a second term. Currently, there appears to be a conservative movement around taxes and guns that might create another surge in religious activism. Of course one might ask the question as to what taxes and guns have to do with religion. I don't know the answer to that question and have often asked it myself, but there does seem to be a correlation with core conservative issues that tends to move the religious right.
Back to the question of what is meant by Christianity, however. It is important to remember that the political influence of the religious right is a fairly recent phenomenon, essentially beginning in the 1970's. Many may have forgotten the religious influence of the 60's which came from Christianity as well, but it centered on the civil rights movement. The Christianity preached during those years was considerably different from what we have become accustomed to over these last 30 years. Will the real Christianity stand up? Of course all Christianity exists in tension between reconciliation and punishment, heaven and hell, compassion and judgement, etc. etc. I do think that reality, however, reminds us that we need to be careful about attributing a one sided approach to religious issues as being what Christianity is all about.
With some of these caveats in mind, what does appear to be happening with Christianity in our contry today? First, I think it may be possible that the aggressive political tactics of the Christian right may have just worn themselves out - at least for the time being. As the article points out some evangelicals have come to believe that tieing themselves to the Republican party may not have been such a great idea, and they feel that they have not gotten as much from the partnership as they expected. I think it is also true, that the movement managed for many years to generate more influence than their numbers actually warranted. I believe we are beginning to see this play out on the gay marriage issue. The majority of Americans are more tolerant than the message of the Christian right, and especially with George Bush no longer in the White House, their message is not resonating as much with Americans and politicians as it did in the past. Relatively little noise has been heard over gay marriage actions in Iowa and Vermont. Perhaps this may partly be because people recognize that the country hasn't collapsed because of gay marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut. I repeat, however, that one never knows when an issue will catalyze the movement and precipitate a resurgence.
Finally I would like to consider the possibility that rather than the decline of Christianity we may be seeing the beginning of a new kind of Christianity rising on the scene. We may be talking about a kind of faith that more moderate Christians profess, maybe something akin to the Christianity of a President Obama. We are talking about a Christianity that recognizes its limitations in impacting public policy and that emphasizes an out reach of compassion for all people. Such a Christianity sees justice as being about fairness, and respects the rights and beliefs of all Americans. It seeks a return to celebrating our differences and our cultural diversity. This Christianity seeks to find common ground with all believers and even non-believers in building a better world, in lifting up the downtrodden, in feeding the hungry and responding to the traditional works of mercy, the beatitudes, and the sermon on the mount. This is the kind of Christianity I can champion, and one that if it pervades our country can be celebrated by all as not a decline but a resurgence of authentic Christianity and religion in general at its best. Perhaps believer and non-believer alike could herald such a Christianity as playing a pivotal and appropriate role in the sphere of political influence.
It is difficult to use any group or denomination of Christianity as representative of Christian thought. Christianity has always been a broad-based movement that has exemplified diversity since its inception. A quick look at New Testament Scriptures would highlight major differences between the Christian thought of the Pauline and Johannine biblical literature. Most Christians will remember how Peter and Paul fought over the inclusion of gentiles into their community in the Acts of the Apostles. The historical record includes many early Chruch heresies, the split with Eastern Christianity, and of course the Protestant reformation. Modern Christianity has shown a decline in adherence to mainline protestant denominations, but growth in pentecostals and evangelicals. How does one point to any one manifestation of Christianiy and speak of Christianity as being in decline?
Let's take a look at the data that is referenced in the Newsweek article. We are told that Americans professing no religious affiliation has jumped from 8 to 15% since 1990. Self identified Christians have fallen from 86 to 76%. Also, the number of individuals identifying themselves as atheists or agnostics has increased dramatically. These numbers are interesting and significant, but whether they warrant a headline like "The End of Christian America" is questionable.
It should also be noted that we have seen how events can move such numbers quickly in one direction or another. In 2004 gay marriage galvanized the religious right and helped reelect George Bush to a second term. Currently, there appears to be a conservative movement around taxes and guns that might create another surge in religious activism. Of course one might ask the question as to what taxes and guns have to do with religion. I don't know the answer to that question and have often asked it myself, but there does seem to be a correlation with core conservative issues that tends to move the religious right.
Back to the question of what is meant by Christianity, however. It is important to remember that the political influence of the religious right is a fairly recent phenomenon, essentially beginning in the 1970's. Many may have forgotten the religious influence of the 60's which came from Christianity as well, but it centered on the civil rights movement. The Christianity preached during those years was considerably different from what we have become accustomed to over these last 30 years. Will the real Christianity stand up? Of course all Christianity exists in tension between reconciliation and punishment, heaven and hell, compassion and judgement, etc. etc. I do think that reality, however, reminds us that we need to be careful about attributing a one sided approach to religious issues as being what Christianity is all about.
With some of these caveats in mind, what does appear to be happening with Christianity in our contry today? First, I think it may be possible that the aggressive political tactics of the Christian right may have just worn themselves out - at least for the time being. As the article points out some evangelicals have come to believe that tieing themselves to the Republican party may not have been such a great idea, and they feel that they have not gotten as much from the partnership as they expected. I think it is also true, that the movement managed for many years to generate more influence than their numbers actually warranted. I believe we are beginning to see this play out on the gay marriage issue. The majority of Americans are more tolerant than the message of the Christian right, and especially with George Bush no longer in the White House, their message is not resonating as much with Americans and politicians as it did in the past. Relatively little noise has been heard over gay marriage actions in Iowa and Vermont. Perhaps this may partly be because people recognize that the country hasn't collapsed because of gay marriages in Massachusetts and Connecticut. I repeat, however, that one never knows when an issue will catalyze the movement and precipitate a resurgence.
Finally I would like to consider the possibility that rather than the decline of Christianity we may be seeing the beginning of a new kind of Christianity rising on the scene. We may be talking about a kind of faith that more moderate Christians profess, maybe something akin to the Christianity of a President Obama. We are talking about a Christianity that recognizes its limitations in impacting public policy and that emphasizes an out reach of compassion for all people. Such a Christianity sees justice as being about fairness, and respects the rights and beliefs of all Americans. It seeks a return to celebrating our differences and our cultural diversity. This Christianity seeks to find common ground with all believers and even non-believers in building a better world, in lifting up the downtrodden, in feeding the hungry and responding to the traditional works of mercy, the beatitudes, and the sermon on the mount. This is the kind of Christianity I can champion, and one that if it pervades our country can be celebrated by all as not a decline but a resurgence of authentic Christianity and religion in general at its best. Perhaps believer and non-believer alike could herald such a Christianity as playing a pivotal and appropriate role in the sphere of political influence.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Is it Time to Talk About Gun Control Again?
Those who are strong advocates of gun rights have won the war on this issue. The Supreme Court has clearly discarded the notion of the Second Amendment referring to arming militias and not individuals. Gun owners can be much more sanguine that nobody is going to take their guns away. Even if someone tried to take guns away they would not succeed because the courts and the law is clearly on the side of gun owners. The notion that a new Democratic Administration will try to outlaw guns makes little sense. In fact it is clear that no one in Washington wants to even discuss the issue.
One assumes that one of the reasons the National Rifle Association (NRA) was so adamant in fighting even the smallest possible infringement of gun rights was the concern that it might constitute a slippery slope, much as the old domino theory that led to the Vietnam War. It is to be hoped that with gun ownership safely ensconced in the constitution it might be possible to tone the rhetoric down and actually have some thoughtful conversations about dealing with gun violence.
No one can be complacent about the continuing instances of gun violence that plague American society. The shooting in Binghamton and the slaying of police officers in Pittsburgh are just the most recent examples of such horrific events. However, these two events do seem to raise special questions about where we are headed as a society. Both gunmen were wearing bullet proof vests. Most people don't wear bullet proof vests when they are out for a Sunday stroll or in case they might want to shoot up the town. Planning and premeditation would seem to be involved. In Pittsburgh, the gunman was using an AK-47. What was he doing with an assault rifle, and why did he need one? Even when the assault weapons ban was in effect it was possible to purchase and own legal assault weapons so that it was never absolute, but it did perhaps deter some who might otherwise have purchased or acquired such weapons. It is difficult to argue that there are compelling reasons for such weapons to be available to ordinary citizens in the community.
Does the second amendment mean that my neighbor can amass a large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and there is nothing I can do about it? No one doubts that the first amendment protects freedom of speech. Yet we have passed laws since the founding of our nation to regulate free speech. We all know that this freedom does not give us the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded auditorium. We struggle with pornography, hate speech and other comparable issues in trying to determine appropriate restrictions on free speech that do not infringe on our rights as American citizens. Gun usage needs to be addressed in a reasonable way in the same way as we have done with all of our other freedoms. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect that guns be regulated with a view to keeping all of our citizens safe. Frankly, the most logical approach would likely involve licensing and registration, as we do with cars, drivers licenses, beauty shop operators, day care centers, physicians, etc. An unwillingness to accept such common sense categorizing of firearms might suggest less than honorable intentions.
The concern of those who feared government might disarm them has been addressed. I think it time that we address the concern of innocent citizens who become victims of senseless gun violence that might be reduced with sensible gun laws. Everyone agrees that we need gun laws and that they should be stringently enforced. We also need to look at those laws and tailor them in a way to make sure we are doing all we can to protect our citizenry within the framework of the second amendment. Such an effort requires meaningful debate among the citizens of our communities in which all points of view are respected, and preconceived notions are not used to determine the outcome of the debate regardless of what the facts or public opinion might suggest.
One assumes that one of the reasons the National Rifle Association (NRA) was so adamant in fighting even the smallest possible infringement of gun rights was the concern that it might constitute a slippery slope, much as the old domino theory that led to the Vietnam War. It is to be hoped that with gun ownership safely ensconced in the constitution it might be possible to tone the rhetoric down and actually have some thoughtful conversations about dealing with gun violence.
No one can be complacent about the continuing instances of gun violence that plague American society. The shooting in Binghamton and the slaying of police officers in Pittsburgh are just the most recent examples of such horrific events. However, these two events do seem to raise special questions about where we are headed as a society. Both gunmen were wearing bullet proof vests. Most people don't wear bullet proof vests when they are out for a Sunday stroll or in case they might want to shoot up the town. Planning and premeditation would seem to be involved. In Pittsburgh, the gunman was using an AK-47. What was he doing with an assault rifle, and why did he need one? Even when the assault weapons ban was in effect it was possible to purchase and own legal assault weapons so that it was never absolute, but it did perhaps deter some who might otherwise have purchased or acquired such weapons. It is difficult to argue that there are compelling reasons for such weapons to be available to ordinary citizens in the community.
Does the second amendment mean that my neighbor can amass a large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and there is nothing I can do about it? No one doubts that the first amendment protects freedom of speech. Yet we have passed laws since the founding of our nation to regulate free speech. We all know that this freedom does not give us the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded auditorium. We struggle with pornography, hate speech and other comparable issues in trying to determine appropriate restrictions on free speech that do not infringe on our rights as American citizens. Gun usage needs to be addressed in a reasonable way in the same way as we have done with all of our other freedoms. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect that guns be regulated with a view to keeping all of our citizens safe. Frankly, the most logical approach would likely involve licensing and registration, as we do with cars, drivers licenses, beauty shop operators, day care centers, physicians, etc. An unwillingness to accept such common sense categorizing of firearms might suggest less than honorable intentions.
The concern of those who feared government might disarm them has been addressed. I think it time that we address the concern of innocent citizens who become victims of senseless gun violence that might be reduced with sensible gun laws. Everyone agrees that we need gun laws and that they should be stringently enforced. We also need to look at those laws and tailor them in a way to make sure we are doing all we can to protect our citizenry within the framework of the second amendment. Such an effort requires meaningful debate among the citizens of our communities in which all points of view are respected, and preconceived notions are not used to determine the outcome of the debate regardless of what the facts or public opinion might suggest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
