Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Politics

  • On Moderating a Political Discussion

    One of the great joys of being a publisher is that I’m able to meet and work with some very intelligent and interesting people. As the election comes up, I find that my company, Energion Publications, has two authors who have written books for our new politics category, one a progressive and one a conservative. What does this suggest? Let’s have an election related discussion!

    Of course I have commercial goals for this discussion, so let’s get those out of the way. I’d love to sell books by these two men. You can find out more about that on Energion.net. In addition, as these are the only two books in the politics category, I’m anxious to discover new authors who will write new books to fulfill the mission of this category. Note that while the current two books focus on American issues, that is not a requirement for this category.

    Having gotten that out of the way, let me get back to the fun. This is my personal post on how I’ll moderate this particular discussion. The two authors are progressive Bob Cornwall, who is a Disciples of Christ pastor and the author of Faith in the Public Square, and Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., an engineer, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy. Elgin blogs at bobcornwall.com and Elgin blogs at hushbeck.com/blog.

    I’m excited about this discussion because I know that both of these men are committed Christians who are passionate about their political positions, but are also willing to discuss them in a civil manner. I edited both of their political books (as well as several others for each), and I know that they will hold many contrasting positions. It’s rare that we get to see civil discussions of widely differing points of view.

    My role will be to propose questions. Each Saturday I will propose a question to both men. The question will be posted on Energion.net. They will post their answers on the following Wednesday and then each will respond to the post written by the other. I will post links to their responses over on Energion.net. I certainly have enough questions to ask them, but I’d really love to hear from any readers. Either comment or email me with things you would like to see discussed.

    Is anyone welcome to get involved? Are you kidding? This is the blogosphere! Not only are comments permitted on either Elgin’s or Bob’s blogs, they are also permitted on Energion.net. There are reasonable rules for civil behavior in all these locations. In addition, however, we would welcome more bloggers to post on the questions raised, and provided the posts remain reasonably civil, I will link to those as well, also from Energion.net. So get ready to get involved.

    My plan is to stick primarily with issues and policy. There is plenty of discussion going on about ads and the process. These are valid points to discuss. I’ve certainly seen plenty of ads that I think could bear serious examination and critique. But that takes time, so we’ll generally avoid it, and concentrate on specific policy issues.

    So send me your questions and I’ll pick one for each week. Then get involved in the resulting discussion.

  • A New Testament Political Theology

    Dave Black has some very useful comments on political activism, responding to a video by N. T. Wright, which I’ll embed here:

     

    I appreciate this video for several items, but I even more appreciated Dave Black’s comments. I personally am politically active. I always vote. I often advocate for various causes or candidates, and in the past I have even gotten involved in political campaigns, though not recently.

    One of the difficulties I think Christians have is distinguishing one’s own standards from those that should be imposed on others. In my view, the state should not be there to force the public to live according to Christian values or any other separate agenda. I think we always need to distinguish between “I like that” and “there ought to be a law.” It’s not just Christians that have trouble making that distinction.

    But more importantly, in my view, I see our political approaches to problems infecting the church. If we’re law and order people in society we often lose the redemptive idea of Christianity. What is the solution to the drug problem? Is it more drug enforcement, or might it just be more reaching out to those who abuse drugs? It seems to me that as a Christian, my solution to such a problem is contained in the gospel, not in the making of laws. While laws may well be necessary, I shouldn’t let the need for such laws make me despise the violators or forget about the grace of God.

    In any case, Dave’s comments resonated with me today.

    Faith in the Public SquareFor a somewhat different, though not incompatible view on our involvement in politics, I want to quote from the recently released book Faith in the Public Square (Bob Cornwall). Bob is comfortable being called progressive.

    I understand why some of my co-religionists have chosen to stay clear of government entanglements, though I’m not convinced that it’s possible to work for justice or work for the common good without engaging the political system in some way. It is for this reason that I have involved myself in efforts to engage elected officials in conversation and when necessary even pressuring them to do what I believe would be the right thing. Additionally, even as I recognize that political parties are not perfect instruments, I have chosen to support one of the two major parties and its candidates for office during elections. It’s not that I believe God favors one party over the other, but I do believe that one party better fits my own understanding of the common good, an understanding that
    is informed by my faith.

    Even as I align myself with one of America’s two political
    parties and accept the realities of being a citizen of a particular
    nation, I’m also cognizant that I’m called to give allegiance not to the flag or the nation for which it stands, but to God whotranscends national interests. That is, if I faithfully pray the Lord’s Prayer then I must give full and complete allegiance to God and to God’s realm. Whatever I do in the public sphere must be done in the light of that prior commitment.  Remaining faithful to one’s ultimate allegiance, while engaging the public square, is not an easy task. It requires humility and a willingness to recognize that not everyone shares my beliefs or values. My goal in engaging the public square isn’t purely religious; that is, while my goal is not to impose my faith on the populace as a whole, I am committed to being present in the public square, which involves political action. This
    political action is informed by my faith. I may engage it as a private citizen, which allows more partisan engagement, or I may come to the square as part of the faith community, but in this case the engagement should be less partisan or even non-partisan (pp. 4-5).

    I think this is a topic that deserves wider discussion. The consequence of simply letting things ride is that we will follow the path of least resistance, and that path will make the church reflect the culture, in which case, what value remains in the church?

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • A Note to Politicians This Election Season

    I’m reading about direct mail in the campaign, and soon it will come to Florida. I just want all politicians to know that no piece of direct mail has ever increased my chance of voting for the candidate who sponsored it. Concealing your sponsorship behind a supposedly independent organization (I think they should be legal, but I don’t like them) won’t work. I take the time to find out who sent the item, and like Santa, I’m making a list, only mine is for election day.

    So skip the direct mail. Oh, and if I get a robocall, you go right on the “naughty” list. I don’t much like your TV and radio ads either, but since I’m rarely watching, they don’t do so much harm.

    What would I like? Solid, content-filled position papers. I don’t even mind research that brings up the negatives about your opponents and their positions. Just make sure there are lots of footnotes and that the notes point to good sources.

    I know, none of you are going to make me happy. You’ll all end up on the “naughty” list, and in the end I’ll have to vote for one or another naughty person. I just thought I’d let you know.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Polls and Headline Writing

    Margin of error
    Image via Wikipedia

    . . . or how to lie with headlines.

    I get very annoyed with the reporting of polls. One way to create news is to incorrectly headline or even incorrectly describe polling data.

    For example, CNN uses the headline Poll: Romney & Gingrich Tied for Top Spot in reporting on the latest USA Today/Gallup poll regarding the Republican presidential race. In the text they explain that Romney and Gingrich are at 20% and 19% respectively, that this is well within the margin of error of the poll (+/- four percentage points), and is thus essentially a tie. The number part of this is essentially correct.

    Then they say that Cain is following close behind, but they don’t point out at this point that Cain’s 16% is also within the sampling error of both of the leading candidates, or rather, that the probable range of Cain’s percentages largely overlaps those of the leading two candidates.

    The margin of error provides a range within which the real percentage of the whole population is likely to fall. If you go to the Gallup site for this poll you’ll find that the confidence level is 95%, in other words, there is a 95% probability that each candidates percentage of the real population falls within +/- 4 percentage points of the poll’s result. Thus there is a 95% change that Cain’s percentage is between 12% & 20%, that Gingrich’s is between 15% & 23%, and that Romney’s is between 16% & 24%.

    If you’re wondering why the polls seem to swing quite a lot among the leaders, this would be your explanation. If in a future poll, the number varies by less than four percentage points, that number would not necessarily reflect any change in that particular candidate’s support.

    Essentially, the news writers can produce the story they want. It’s possible (though with multiple polls showing him dropping, it’s not likely) that Cain could still be leading this.

    Now this particular headline may seem minor. But if you examine the headlines after just about any poll you’ll find that different news services spin the results differently, and that by reading the headlines and the first few paragraphs, you’ll get a somewhat different picture than you would if you read to the end of the story, or even better, go to the source of the poll.

    In this story, while we are told that the difference between Romney and Gingrich falls “well within the poll’s sampling error” in the second paragraph, we don’t find the actual margin of error (+/- four percentage points) until the very last sentence. At that point, if we look back, we can see that Cain is also within that margin of error, or rather that the intervals of all three top candidates overlap considerably.

    (For a write-up on this, see the Wikipedia article Margin of Error.)

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • To the IRD: Democracy is Biblical?

    Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy thinks that religious leaders should not be supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement:

    “Religious activists who have aligned with the Wall Street Occupation should model mature Christian discernment, not echo angry resentments that dream of a secular utopia.”

    That quote is highlighted at the top of the IRD statement titled IRD Challenges Religious Left over Support for Wall Street Occupation (HT: Christian Post).

    Now I have reservations about religious leaders becoming tightly connected to a particular political movement. I think it is way too easy to let our commitment to the kingdom of God be hijacked by various political agendas.

    But that’s not IRD’s point. They believe that the agenda of these leaders in the religious left is, in itself, not biblical. Their own statement says, “The Institute on Religion & Democracy works to reaffirm the church’s biblical and historical teachings, strengthen and reform its role in public life, protect religious freedom, and renew democracy at home and abroad.” In fact, if you look over your web site, it becomes apparent they have their own political agenda, for example on the death penalty, in which Mark Tooley again suggests that only those supporting the death penalty are presenting “careful reasoning rooted in Christian tradition . . . ”

    If one believes Mark Tooley, those who show “mature Christian discernment” apparently must support democracy, but oppose big government, and particularly redistribution of income. Now while I am leary myself of schemes to redistribute income, I do not make the assumption that my own political position is the only Christian one. I believe that God calls us to care for the poor and unfortunate; he has not told us in scripture the precise method to use.

    And please tell me just where it is that the Bible supports democracy. I have heard this over and over, yet I don’t see any case where democracy in any form recognizably similar to modern democracy, was practiced or advocated. Might it be the best way to run a country in which one may live as a Christian? I would imagine so. I like it myself. But the Bible doesn’t make that the one and only Christian option.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • The Dominionism Debate Continues

    Joel Watts and Peter Kirk are at it about dominionism, and now a book I publish, The Politics of Witness, is getting a place in the debate.

    I have a couple of problems with the title “dominionist.” First, in response to Joel, I think it is important to make distinctions between different viewpoints, even when we see some relations. Similarity is not the same as equality. I object when the right wing calls President Obama a socialist, because I think that blurs the distinction between his mixed approach to the economy and that of a real socialist. I also object when someone who thinks more Christians in office would be a good thing is equated to R.J. Rushdoony. I’ve read the latter; the two ideas are different.

    Second, my problem with the label “dominionist” is simply that I don’t see a reasonably defined movement that should all be painted (tarred?) with the same brush. It seems to me that the label is covering more people than deserve it, at a minimum.

    I’m going to write a bit more in a few days as I write one of my posts reflecting on publishing a new book, this time on The Politics of Witness. I am not favorable to the idea that we need to get more Christians in office. Personally, my voting is religiously neutral. There are many Christians for whom I would never vote. There are atheists for whom I would. I am never favorably impressed when a candidate puts his or her “born again” status front and center. I’ll explain why this is my position in that future post.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Motorists Detained for Paying Toll with Large Bills

    … like $20, according to this story.

    Now the story brings up interesting issues of profiling, and whether toll station workers were legally permitted to detain anyone. I think those are good questions. The Florida DOT’s coverup should also be investigated.

    But here’s something that got me:

    Although FDOT refused to comment because the Department expects to be sued, internal e-mail justify the program because of counterfeit bills. However, in a 2 and a half year period the DOT got $16,000 in counterfeit bills, while at the same time it collected close to $2 billion in tolls ($1,523,825,404).

    The Department also spent $32,000 on forms used to catch the $16,000 in funny money. The department also says in e-mails, the program will help law enforcement catch counterfeiters.

    Irrespective of all the very valid legal issues, as a businessman, I would say this should raise red flags. A program that spends $32,000 to prevent $16,000 in losses is not very profitable. Of course, it will be less profitable if FDOT loses the lawsuit.

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • A Christian Case for Limited Government?

    Allan R. Bevere is making a Christian case for limited government. Scot McKnight has linked to it. Some of the discussion is heated. Fun!

  • Because Government Money Means More Freedom

    Why do these folks want the government to pay for their convictions?

  • When Strategies Change Hands

    I was just watching Chris Matthews on Hardball who is quite upset about the 60% requirement for a Senate cloture vote because it prevents an up-and-down vote on the stimulus package.

    I seem to recall Democratic outrage at the “nuclear option” which would have removed that requirement for certain types of votes on judicial nominations.

    It seems that when the tool is in the hand of the other party it is no longer an important protection for freedom; now it’s obstructionism. Of course this rhetoric is no surprise from Chris Matthews but he’s not alone.

    And in case we might think this is only done by one party, we have Republicans now who are upset at scare tactics in pushing economic stimulus, yet they have been quite free in using scare tactics in support of unnecessary methods such as indefinite incarceration without any charge and the use of torture. Dick Cheney has just reminded us of this with some irresponsible rhetoric–again, something not unexpected from Dick Cheney.

    Oh well, as Bernard in Yes, Prime Minister would say, it’s an irregular verb: I strategize brilliantly, you sneak a bit, the other guy lies damnably.