Four Concerns about the New Congress

In early January 2015 the 114^th U.S. Congress will convene for the first time. As a result of the Nov. 4 election, both chambers will be controlled by Republicans.

Senators in the 114th Congress

Some of the new senators, such as Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, are quite conservative. Consequently, I have four serious concerns about the new Congress.

Personally, I will likely be impacted little by the new Congress. In fact, my modest portfolio might grow even more than it has in the past two years. So my concerns are not personal.

But my Christian faith compels me to love all people, especially the weakest and most vulnerable people in our country, as well as to care for the earth God has placed us on. So from this perspective here are four of my greatest concerns about what the new Congress and the new Missouri legislature will, or will not, do.

(1) My first and biggest concern is for the poor people across the nation, the people (and especially the children) who do not have enough to eat, who do not have adequate housing, and who do not have sufficient health care.

Conservative, Tea Party type legislators seem to be primarily interested in reducing the size of government and lowering taxes. Cuts in welfare, or the so-called safety net, are common proposals for those with this mentality.

But, for the well-being of a sizable percentage of people in poverty, in addition to sustaining their welfare provisions there needs to be an expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

Missouri is one of many states where the latter is badly needed. But with the new General Assembly, that likely won’t be done.

And while their efforts will not be successful, the U.S. Senate will possibly try to repeal “Obamacare,” removing millions from healthcare insurance.

(2) I am also concerned about the new Congress exercising adequate care for the environment. Republican congresspeople, such my Missouri Sixth District Representative Sam Graves, repeatedly criticize regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, whose purpose is to protect the earth for the coming generations.

And it is quite likely that Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a global warming denier, will be the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Heaven help us!

(3) Concern for the children of “illegal immigrants.” Immigration reform has long been a major desire of the President and many legislators.

The Senate passed a comprehensive bill last year, but the House never even took it up. I am very concerned that this needed legislation will not be passed and that the President will take executive action leading to turmoil and even greater dysfunction in Washington.

(4) Concern for women and gays/lesbians as there is the likelihood of further anti-abortion laws and rejection of LGBT rights.

One does not have to agree with women who seek an abortion or of gays/lesbians who want to have legal marriages in order to uphold their civil rights.

If the new U.S. Congress passes legislation necessary to help the poor of the country to survive and to raise what is often a wretched standard of living, passes legislation that will protect the environment for the sake of our grandchildren, passes legislation that will give dignity and stability to the past and future immigrants into this country, and if they pass legislation that respects the freedom and dignity of women and LGBT people, then perhaps the election results were all right.

But until I see all the above happening, I will continue to have grave concerns about the election outcome on November 4.

A Victory for the Christian Right

Last Tuesday’s mid-term elections, as everyone knows, resulted in the Republican Party taking decisive control of the U.S. Senate.

There is not just one reason for this shift in political power. Nevertheless, a major factor has been the relentless six-year campaign against President Obama by religious conservatives.

From the day of his inauguration in 2009 the President (and the Democratic Party) has been the target of unending criticism and unceasing attacks by the Christian Right, which overwhelmingly supports the Republican Party.

One of the most active organizations on the Christian Right is the Faith and Freedom Coalition (FFC), of which I have written previously; e.g., here and here.

In a Nov. 5 article on their blog, the FFC announced, “Evangelical Vote Played Decisive Role in GOP Wave in 2014 According to Post-Election Survey.”

Their second headline gloated, “Self-Identified Conservative Christians Comprised Record Share of the Electorate, Backed GOP Candidates by 8 to 1 Margin.”

The FFC was gloating because they had worked so hard for a Republican victory. Ralph Reed, Chairman of the FFC, reported that the Coalition “distributed over 20 million voter guides in over 117,000 churches nationwide” prior to the Nov. election.”

They also “made over 10 million ‘get out to vote’ phone calls, knocked on 400,000 doors, mailed over 6 million voter guides, and emailed or texted over 4.6 million additional voters.”

My good friend Charlie Broomfield recently completed a Master’s degree at UMKC, writing his dissertation on the Christian Right and its political power.

Over the last few months, I have said that I thought the Christian Right was losing power and that they weren’t going to have as much political clout this year as in the past few elections.

Charlie disagreed with me—and it turned out that he was right, about this election, at least.

One of the most disheartening results of last week’s election was Thom Tillis’s election as the new U.S. Senator from North Carolina.

According to data supplied by Sarah Posner, 40% of voters in that state identified as white evangelical or born again—and 78% of them voted for Tillis. Only 16% of them voted for incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan.

Mark Sandlin is a progressive Christian whose articles are posted on Patheos.com from time to time. His Nov. 5 article was titled, “A Minister From Thom Tillis’ State Tells Us What To Expect After The Election Results.”

Sandlin avers, “With the GOP taking over all of Congress, particularly with Tea Party lackeys like Tillis among the crowd, we will see legislative moves that aid the ever-growing separation of classes, which is defined by the continued shrinking of the middle class.”

He continues, “Corporations will continue to have more rights than people and those rights will trump the rights of individuals. Woman can expect to have more of their rights (particularly reproductive rights) challenged.”

But Tillis, partly, or maybe mainly, because of his outspoken anti-abortion stance was one of the three candidates for the Senate most strongly supported by the FFC.

The other senatorial candidates most ardently supported by the FFC were Joni Ernst in Iowa and Cory Gardner in Colorado, who both, like Tillis, are adamantly against abortion and same-sex marriage.

They, like Tillis and most of the other new Republican senators, also have said they are for repealing “Obamacare.”

Yes, last Tuesday was a victory for the Christian Right. But it was a sad loss for a sizable majority of the citizens of this country, many of whom, regrettably, didn’t even bother to vote.

Ebola and Gun Violence

The media has been inundated with news, and fears, about Ebola for many weeks now.

That disease is certainly a frightful one, and every effort should be made to keep it from spreading. Unfortunately, it is still spreading in West Africa, and additional efforts are badly needed to quell that dreaded disease there.

In the U.S., the fear of Ebola spreading has been great—and greatly politicized.

In spite of the fact that no U.S. citizen has died from Ebola, some have charged that the White House has been incompetent in dealing with this serious matter and needs to be censured because of the failure to keep American citizens safe.

It certainly was a grave concern when the two nurses who had treated the Liberian man with Ebola in Dallas last month came down with the disease, though both nurses have recovered.

Others have been quarantined and treated for Ebola, but, to this point, it has not spread, and with vigilance it won’t. But widespread fear lingers, and that fear has done more harm in our country than Ebola to this point.

In contrast to all the concern about Ebola, there generally seems to be little concern for those who are killed day after day with guns, which are still largely unregulated.

For example, on October 26 there were two shooting deaths in Kansas City. A ten-year-old girl was shot to death while standing in front of her house. Earlier that day a 39-year-old man was shot and killed in the Westport area.

If anyone, anywhere in the country had died of Ebola, it would have been national news and people would be in an uproar. But two shooting deaths in one city on one day are just local news items—and so common that except for the grieving families few pay much attention to those stories.

In recent years, there have been more than 11,000 firearm homicides a year in the U.S.—more than 30 a day all year long. In addition, more than 600 people a year, almost two each day, are accidentally shot and killed.

Despite these staggering numbers, there is not much talk now about gun control.

The U.S. Surgeon General should be at the head of the efforts to deal with the threat of Ebola. But the U.S. doesn’t have a Surgeon General at this time.

Almost a year ago, Dr. Vivek Murthy was nominated to become the nation’s Surgeon General, but he has still not been confirmed.

Why? Mainly because the National Rifle Association has expressed strong opposition to the President’s nominee.

The failure of the Senate to approve that nomination to this point seems to be directly related to the fact that Murthy several times in 2012 and 2013 tweeted that he believes in more gun control and that he considers that to be a healthcare issue.

Because of their opposition, the NRA, which scores policymakers’ records on gun rights, has stated that it would lower their grade on senators who voted for Murthy, causing some seeking re-election to lose needed votes.

This indicates that the gun lobby is still senselessly strong.

How can so many Americans have such high concern about the threat of a disease that has been held under control in this country and yet have such a low concern about more control of guns that continue to take so many lives all across the country?

Lord, give us more wisdom.

Dignity Votes

Tuesday is Election Day here in the U.S., so that is surely something worth considering in this last blog article before then. 

 

First of all, I encourage you to vote. (I trust you are duly registered.)

This year I have been an active part of the Northland Justice Coalition (NJC). (Northland refers to the area in the greater Kansas City area that is north of the Missouri River.) For the past couple of months NJC has been making telephone calls and going to people’s homes urging them to vote.

This activity is being called the Dignity Votes Campaign. Part of the dignity referred to is that of the people we have been contacting. 

Here is part of what I wrote for a flyer for the canvassers to hand to people they talk to or to leave at places where no one was home:

You are important. Voting is important. And it is important for you to vote on Nov. 4. Unfortunately, some people don’t think they are important or that their voice matters. But they are important—you are important. And their voice matters—your voice matters. That is why we urge you to vote on Nov. 4.

The NJC is also encouraging people not just to vote but to be “dignity voters”; that is, people who, for example, cast their ballots for candidates who will support raising the minimum wage so everyone can earn enough to live on.

Dignity voters will vote for candidates who support universal health care so everyone can get needed medical treatment.

In Missouri and 22 other states that means raising the income bar so more low-income people can get Medicaid.

Dignity voters are for candidates who will seek to put limits on the exorbitant interest rates charged by payday lenders.

In short, a Dignity Voter is one who votes to enhance the dignity of everyone in our community, in our state, and across the country.

The NJC is affiliated with the Kansas City organization known as Communities Creating Opportunity, which is a 501(c)(3) organization. Consequently, those who work with NJC are required to be nonpartisan. That is, when we contact people we cannot mention any political party or any candidate’s name.

Largely for that reason, after canvassing on Oct. 18 I decided to stop working with NJC in their voter campaign. I still very much believe in Dignity Votes, but I am afraid many people don’t know who to vote for even if they want to be a dignity voter.

As I live in the 6^th congressional district, my representative to the U.S. House of Representatives is Sam Graves, who is running for re-election. But it seems clear to me that a dignity voter would need to vote for Bill Hedge, his main opponent.

In the past Rep. Graves has voted against raising the minimum wage, and his present stance seems to be the same. He also has repeatedly voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Hedge, however, is clearly for raising the minimum wage and for supporting and improving the ACA. So even though Sam will probably be re-elected, still I am going to cast a dignity vote for Bill Hedge.

Those of you who live in other congressional districts, or in other states, will need to determine which candidates would be most acceptable to dignity voters.

Please join me in seeking to be a dignity voter on Nov. 4. Let’s vote for those candidates who will do the most to help, and enhance the dignity of, the poor, the disadvantaged, and the most vulnerable persons in our society.

Moore of the Same

Back in August, “This is Moore Better” was the title of my blog article about Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. I meant the positive things I said about him then.

But now I’m afraid I can’t be so positive about him. The upcoming ERLC national conference looks as if it is going to be more of the same old anti-gay rhetoric that has been so prevalent in Southern Baptist and other conservative evangelical churches.

The Oct. 27-29 conference title is “The Gospel, Homosexuality, and the Future of Marriage.” The website for this gathering lists the speakers, many of whom are known conservatives and opponents of same-sex marriage or acceptance of gays/lesbians.

Among the many speakers in addition to Moore, who is the person mainly responsible for planning the conference, are the following:

—    Rosaria Butterfield, author of “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into the Christian Faith,” in which she tells about her transformation from a postmodern lesbian professor to a pastor’s wife and homeschooling mother.

—    Jim Daly, President and CEO of Focus on the Family; while not as strident as his predecessor, James Dobson, he is still a strong opponent of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

—    Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the best known and most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage and acceptance of gays/lesbians.

—    David Platt, recently elected president of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and as the others, strongly against gay/lesbian sexuality. His YouTube sermon “The Gospel and Homosexuality” has been accessed 37,300+ times, and many of the 450 comments are in agreement. But here is one of many negative comments: “Such hate in the name of Jesus, how many lives will be destroyed because of this preacher, how many will reject Jesus Christ, and His grace [because of his] hate.”

—    Christopher Yuan, a pastor and co-author (with his mother) of “Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother's Search for Hope” (2011); I have not read this book, but it seems to promote only celibacy for homosexuals.

While there are several other speakers, it seems quite clear that there will be little opportunity at Moore’s ERLC conference to hear from more than one side of the issue, which, of course, they see as the only correct position.

A promotional blurb for the conference includes this question, “Are you and your church prepared for the moral revolution surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage happening across America?”

In continues, “While human sexuality and social institutions are being redefined before our very eyes, the Bible presents marriage as an unchanging picture of the gospel through the union of one man and one woman.”

By contrast, there will be a “regional training conference” held in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 6-8. That gathering will be “a prime networking opportunity for all Christians who want to advance the dignity of LGBT people.”

One keynote speaker will be my friend Dr. David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and a lifelong Baptist. But his position on the gay/lesbian issue is quite different from that of Moore and the ERLC.

In addition, the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists want to have dialogue with the ERLC conference people.

I wish that Moore and the ERLC were open to Gushee’s position and the AWAB leaders’ request. But I am afraid all they will consider is more of the same: rejection of LBGT people. What a shame!