Security of person

The present (and passing) presidential administration has practiced illegal, criminal acts of torture. They have admitted as much. But their lawyers have claimed they didn't break any laws because they changed the designation name of the detainees. Geneva Convention and Hague Convention laws state civilians and combatants must be treated in a humane manner. The Bush administration claimed they were a new designation which didn't fit "civilian" or "combatant" calling it, "unlawful enemy combatant."

Of course this is legal jin jitsu. Of course they're combatants. If they're not combatants, they're civilians. Enemy sympathizers and logistical supporters have always been civilians, or at worst saboteurs treated as combatants.

However, we have other international laws and treaties which are de facto laws of our nation as well. Amongst them is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Article three of that declaration states, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

This is an unequivocal declaration against torture of any kind. "Security of person" is a term used to secure rights such as habeas corpus (suspended under Bush), freedom from torture of any kind (violated under Bush), and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (violated under Bush).

Further, the United Nations treaty called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 grants the same rights, "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person," adding, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." (Sec. 1)

It goes on to state that, "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release." (Sec. 3) Further, "Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation." (Sec. 5)

The next Article declares, "All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."

Clearly what is being done and advocated by the present administration is in violation of the law, and it needs to stop.

Election issues 2008 - part 2

I made a scoring correction on part 1. Now on to a few more issues I care about.

Torture and Rendition (5)
These two issues are usually hand-in-hand. We all know what torture is, and George W. Bush said we "don't torture" just before admitting we have/do. This is a big issue.

Rendition is the practice of our Federal government of removing suspects (usually terror suspects, or sympathizers) to a foreign country to curtail the interrogation (read: torture) laws we have in the States. Of course the current administration has tortured people in the States, but there is also the case of many who have been kidnapped and sent to another country (like Syria) where they are tortured and held for years. Some of these people have been kidnapped by mistake, but we hold them to hide the fact that we screwed up.

Former Representative Cynthia McKinney is opposed to torture and rendition. +5

I cannot find anything of Former Ambassador to the UN Alan Keyes specifically addressing these issues. +0

Ralph Nader is vocally opposed to torture and rendition. +5

Senator Barack Obama opposed the approval of torture in the Senate. +5

Former Congressman Bob Barr is opposed to torture. +5

I'm was saddened to have Senator John McCain change his mind on torture, especially after he opposed so vocally torture against the current administration. He is still against torture, but doesn't want to limit the CIA or other government agencies from being limited by the Army Field Manual approved techniques saying they need more leeway than the military. He rests on secretive documents we, the People, can't see suggesting those techniques are legal. I will give him the benefit of a doubt +0

Posse Comitatus (4)
This issue is probably the hardest to judge because you never know what a President will do until they actually do it. Posse Comitatus is the law which prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes. This is a measure to keep from turning into a police state. The law allowed for use in emergency situations (natural disasters, riots, etc). This may have been gutted by the Bush administration, and a military brigade is going to be set up in the States so it might be bygone, but lets see if I can track anything down. I'll only score candidates on this one where I find anything, otherwise they all get +0.

Congratulation to Former Representative Cynthia McKinney for supporting the act! +5

And accolades to Former Congressman Bob Barr for supporting the law as well! +5

A lot more issues to come. I have less than a week so I'll have to get on this. Scores so far (issues: abortion, torture/rendition, habeas corpus, and posse comitatus) are:

McKinney: 10
Keyes: 5
Nader: 6
Obama: 10
Barr: 14
McCain: -5

One proposition I can get behind

I think it is important to get behind Proposition 2. Factory farmers are opposed to it because it makes them accountable for the health of their animals, but don't listen to the lies. They're claiming this bill will make eggs less safe. Wrong! This bill will create healthier chickens which actually lay healthier eggs giving a greater nutritional value to Californians who eat eggs.

The bill makes it mandatory to provide room for pregnant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying chickens to turn around and spread their limbs. The factory farms which crams these animals in cages are unhealthy, disease-spreading facilities. Chickens don't grow feathers and cows lay in their own waste.

There is no argument against improved food safety and an end to cruel practices.

Election issues 2008 - part 1

Since I introduced this series, I have added a couple issues I forgot about. It was foolish of me because I think they're some of the most important issues. Torture, Rendition, Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus.

I think I will rate each issue on a scale of 1 to 5. When a candidate supports my position, I will add the number to their column, if they oppose my position I will subtract the number. If there is no information or they are neutral, they will get a zero.

I will list only Presidential candidates for now, and I will compile a list of the legislative offices later with just scores. I don't know if I will necessarily vote for the candidate with the highest score, but it will at least point to someone who more closely matches the majority of the issues I care about. (Note: The order of the candidates is the same order found in my absentee ballot.)

Habeas Corpus (5)
Habeas Corpus is one of the basic rights upon which liberty is built. It gives everyone the right to a fair trial; a chance to prove they are innocent. The current Bush administration has removed this right, violating the Constitution of the United States of America which specifically states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This suspension is a temporary measure, but those detained would be given this right back when the suspension was removed. The Bush administration basically sustains this suspension indefinitely. This is a huge issue because without habeas corpus, our entire liberties are at stake.

So who on the ballot supports Habeas Corpus, and who support's the Bush opinion?

Former Representative Cynthia McKinney voted to restore the writ. +5

Former Ambassador to the UN Alan Keyes is against suspending habeas corpus, as far as I can tell. +5

Ralph Nader opposed suspension of the writ. +5

Senator Barack Obama supports the writ, and has supported it in the Senate. +5

Former Congressman Bob Barr supports restoring the writ. +5

Senator John McCain voted against restoring habeas corpus. -5

Abortion (4)
This is a huge topic, and I have posted previously on the issue, so I'll get right to it. I'm against abortion, but I want to take practical steps to reduce the number of abortions. The "pro-life" side wants to make abortion illegal, with no regard to the life of the mother, or the facts that the legal status of abortion doesn't do anything to reduce the instances of procedures. This issue is difficult to judge because each candidate takes a middle-of-the-road stance. So how do I judge if a candidate? The office of the President is not a legislative office, they don't create legislation or vote on legislation. They do have veto power, however, so they can prevent laws from passing that would expand the number of abortions. This would basically be laws that might pay for abortions overseas, for example.

Former Representative Cynthia McKinney has supported abortion in all its forms, including partial-birth abortion and funding overseas abortions. She even supports transporting minors across state lines to receive abortions (even though transporting a minor between states is illegal without parental consent anyway - stupid legislation). However, she does support social issues which could lead to lower instances of abortion, including single-payer healthcare, funding for child-care, etc. Purely conjecture, but ss President she would surely oppose efforts to restrict abortions, and would probably seek to fund more abortions. -4

Former Ambassador to the UN Alan Keyes is very strong against abortion, claiming the Constitution guarantees rights to "posterity" he is opposed to government funding of education and healthcare though, which can lead to more abortions. He basically wants to evangelize everyone, make them all believe his Christian beliefs, and if they all think like he does they would not have abortions - problem solved. +0

Ralph Nader supports the National Organization of Women (NOW) agenda. This means he's equivalent to McKinney. He doesn't have a voting record. He is for single-payer healthcare, and other programs that would help lead to lower instances of abortion, but doesn't make it a goal. -4

Senator Barack Obama is opposed to partial-birth abortion, though he voted against a measure which didn't give an exception for the mother's life. He inserted into the Democratic National Convention platform the goal to reduce the instances of abortion (to the chagrin of NOW). He wants to leave reproductive decisions to the states. He doesn't support single-payer healthcare (at least he isn't pushing for it), but does support programs that target women to help them get prenatal care, postnatal care, child support, and supports offering adoption as an option. He is the only candidate who has expressed his desire to work with both sides to actually reduce the instances of abortion, but does want to make sure abortion is still legal. +0

Former Congressman Bob Barr voted against funding abortions abroad, partial-birth abortions, and minor transportation. He opposed Roe. v Wade and supports banning abortion nationwide. He opposes funding programs which may reduce abortions. +0

Senator John McCain is hard to determine because he has changed his mind a few times. He said he wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade, but wanted to make it irrelevant. But then he said he would overturn it, as long as rape and incest were exemptions. He wants to support adoptions. He is opposed to funding abortions, partial-birth abortions. He is concerned that women would seek illegal, unsafe abortions, but said he would prosecute doctors, not mothers. He's all over the place on his position. The Republican party this year removed language to "work together to reduce the incidence of abortion," while this may not be McCain's choice, he is the de facto leader of that party right now. His healthcare plans are sketchy of if they would work or not, so there I can't tell if they would help women or not. +0

I suppose this is long enough for now. I'll get to more issues later.

Update: I reduced Obama on the abortion issue to a +0. After thinking about it, I can't say he would necessarily do anything, he's only promised to do something. I know this puts every score into question because they're all based on promises, but I'll just have to trust my own gut on each of those as if the candidate has the ability to actually follow through (weighing in their past performance).

What's wrong with a social gospel?

I hear a bit of blowback towards a social gospel. You know, the gospel that says we should care for the poor and oppressed as part of our worship. The gospel which Jesus said was brought to the poor.

Well, some people want to sit in their religious towers judging fellow Christian brothers and sisters for actually caring for the downtrodden, they will call them heretical.

But don't tell me you're against a social gospel. It was a social gospel that ended slavery in the British Empire, and helped bring it to the social conscious of the States. It was a social gospel that granted women the right to vote. It was a social gospel that ended Jim Crow laws in the South. And it is a social gospel to speak up for the unborn. It is a social gospel to "defend marriage."

And maybe the poor Christians should look up to the rich, white folks condemning those who would help them in their misery and call them heretics. Jesus condemned the religious who were not merciful (Luke 10). He was very critical of those who didn't help the lesser-off (Matthew 25). In fact there were only two times in the Gospels where Jesus spoke of hell, and both of them had to do with those who do not care for the poor and hungry (Matthew 25; Luke 16).

And then maybe we could just love one another, for those who love know God and are known by God (1 John 4). Instead of running around trying to point fingers, accusing each other of theological heresies, maybe we should love one another. Love even your enemies. For God loves his enemies, and he has given us the commandment to love them as well (Luke 6; Matthew 5). Remember we were once His enemies, and He loved us so we should love one another. We should not just love those who love us, Christ exemplified for us that we should love even those who hate us. The Father demonstrated that he loves those who do not love Him, and He calls them into His inheritance.

The Gospel, and the social gospel, are rooted in love. God's love for us, that while we were sinners He died for us (Romans 5). Since he loves us, we should love one another (1 John 4). If we love our neighbor, we will care for them. We will have mercy on the suffering and take care of them. If we love our enemies, we will do good to them (Luke 6).

Finally, what them is lawful? To do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill? (Mark 3:4)

Marginalization

Throughout the Biblical story one thing is clear: God is on the side of the oppressed and marginalized. He stands for the poor and hungry. His holy nation was a small nomadic tribe, oppressed over and over. Jesus visited with the unclean, the lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors and Samaritans.

We're also called to stand up for the oppressed, the poor, the widow and orphan. This is the calling of the Church.

This American economy and culture pushes the poor to the margins. We celebrate the wealthy and the decadent. What's even worse is our church congregations push them to the margins of the worship services.

Someone said Sunday morning is the most segregated time of the week. Rich congregations gather, poor congregations gather. Hispanic congregations, black congregation, families, social-minded, etcetera.

When someone ventures out of their place and into a different congregation, they're stuck in the back, or off to the side. I remember when a couple homeless-looking guys came to this large, wealthy congregation here and were personally ushered to the back of the room. Surely we can't have these people mixing in with those people we really want here (because they tithe a lot!).

I have struggled with this in my own pursuit for a fellowship. I don't feel at home with the jock crowd, and they aren't comfortable with me. Clearly I have the advantage of being male and white in America, but if I'm not fashionable enough, or I don't fit in some way, I'm not welcomed nearly as much as when I visit a small, poor community.

So should everyone just find a small, poor community? No. What we need to do is welcome everyone. The Church is not a social club, it is not meant as a place where like-minded people come together. No, it is a place where like-Spirit people fellowship. The focus should always be on the Spirit, and worship of the Father.

A lot of congregations try to entice people to come by relating to them on the carnal level; sports, art and good music are a few examples. Why can't we just relate to their heart?

To vote or not to vote

This year I'm mostly ambililant to all politicians and ballot measures. I'm still trying to figure out if I should vote, and if I do vote, how. I figure I'll go through the different elections and issues and post them here. This is a multi-part series.

I do have to do a lot more research on everyone, and read the propositions, but I think I need to first figure out which issues I care about, and somehow weigh them for priority. This is a difficult thing for me to do because I tend to prefer a holistic approach to everything, I don't care so much for individual issues. I think issues relate to eachother more than we realize, so any position I find will be some sort of capitulation, or a concession at least.

Because of my holistic approach, it is actually somewhat difficult for me to separate issues to even figure out what I address. Politics don't generally talk about mercy, justice (shalom), humility, grace, and forgiveness. This is basically the foundation of my beliefs, so in letting this inform my politics I am faced with a wall. Government by its very nature is legalized violence and coercion. Laws are passed which force compliance throught he threat of punishment. Politicians talk about war as a tool, military might as a goal, economic dominance as the plan, and more government spending.

So I think I might just have to use the issues as the public discourse describes them. Abortion, Civil Rights, Crime, Defense, Disabilities, Drugs, Economy, Education, Energy, Entitlement Programs, Environment, Ethics, Faith, Family, Fiscal, Foreign Policy, Gun Control, Healthcare, Immigration, Justice, Poverty, Privacy, Science, Social Security, Technology, Taxes, and War.

Each of these issues has a general idea behind them about what is wrong with them and the debate is on how it should be fixed. My opinion on each of these is probably different than every politician. I'm not "main-stream."

In future posts, I will describe each issue, rate each issue on order of priority, give the candidate's response to each issue, and rate how I feel about each answer. I will then discuss the California state ballot measures, and possibly the boring local races as well.

Church unity should not be trumped by politics

I'm so sick of politics, and the reason why is because it infiltrates the Church and poisons the unity of the body. Paul was very concerned with the unity of the Church (Ephesians 4:3), and he wasn't talking about the Church voting for one person in unison.

Voting is informed by your faith, and I definitely support everyone to vote in faith because "everything that does not come from faith is sin." This I take from Romans 14, which I think can be applied quite a bit to politics.

This pericope is about those in the Church judging others for the meat their eating which may have been sacrificed to idols. Some in the congregation thought the meat was tainted because it was used for pagan rituals, and others knew it was OK to eat because paganism has no power, only the Lord of Hosts has power. There is no conflict between different gods, there is only one God.

I want to use it with politics because we have pastors misusing the name of God to support candidates. They basically write off Democrats as non-Christian for voting the way they do (and vis-versa). Even though you might have the conviction to vote a certain way, you should not judge a fellow believer who voted differently.

If I might rephrase verses 17 through 20a:

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of voting and party affiliation, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of elections.

This Sunday my pastor taught a politically subversive message without his knowledge. He was teaching about where we put our treasure, on earth or in heaven (Matthew 6:21). He was talking about materialism and money, but it is a deep issue that transcends mammon. The pastor quoted somebody (who's name I forget) who said we should live for "the line" not "the dot." The "dot" is now, and the "line" is eternity. America exists in the dot. Politics exist in the dot. War exists in the dot. Borders exist on the dot.

If we could live on the "line" with an eternal perspective, couldn't we really see some unity in the Church?

He also brought forth the quote from Jim Elliot who said, "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." What a statement!

We cannot keep America. We cannot keep our political parties. We cannot keep our money. We cannot lose the Kingdom of God. We cannot lose the Bride of Christ.

St. Augustine said, "The Church is a whore, but she’s still my mother." What an appropriate quote to include here. We have disagreements, we have sins and filth, but we are still holy in the sight of God, and we are each others. We should love one another.

Schoolyard politics

It amuses me, but it also makes me depressed. The fact that two grown, mature men and their intelligent cronies, are acting like children. What's worse is they're both vying for the most powerful position in the world.

John McCain and his side are using this silly inference about someone Barack Obama met a few times to call into question ... I'm not sure what they're inferring. They say, "Nobody cares about an old, washed up terrorist." If nobody cares, why bring it up!? Because, "We know there is more to their relationship than Senator Obama is claiming." So they're calling him a liar? Yes. "It's about time Barack Obama came clean with the American public about his relationship with William Ayers."

So they're subtly inferring that Barack Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, and claiming he's not truthful about it. An outrageous claim because they don't have evidence there is more, they're just claiming there is and Barack is lying about it. But if there was more, wouldn't it be in the public interest for McCain to explain what's it is? No, he'd rather just throw it out there claiming it's about Barack's transparency.

One politician calling another one a liar. Amazing! You don't do that because then it opens yourself up to criticism for your lies. Like when McCain said he was going to run a respectable campaign, they would not run a negative campaign, and negativity would not come from their side at all. Lie! When he "suspended" his campaign to solve the credit crisis. Lie. And that's just the last few months.

And then out comes Senator Obama calling McCain, in essence, a "chicken." Really? He said Senator McCain made claims about him but didn't have the guts to "say it to my face." What is this, high school? Senator Biden took his jacket off while saying, "In my neighborhood, if you have something to say to a man you say it to his face." Was he threatening John McCain with that gesture? Maybe it was just hot, but it sure looked like you wanted to beat him up.

So the stock market lost $2.5-trillion in the last seven days, and these gentlemen are talking about lies and cowardice. You know who's not a coward? Hugo Chavez. He came to New York and stood in the same podium George W. Bush did and said he still smelled the sulfur. Now that's balls! He doesn't lie either, he said he would boot the US ambassador from Venezuela - and he did. The point I'm making is that it's the policies that matter, not the personality.

Maybe voters in America are stupid. Maybe that's why Presidential candidates can't use language higher than a 5th-grade level without being accused of elitism. I have hope that voters take this more seriously, but more than likely they'll vote for the guy who "looks presidential." That means you can have a beer with him, and he makes tough choices. Sounds like most of the guys I know.

Capitalism is a sin

Capitalism basically says it is man's greed that will maintain an economy. They will not let a company fail because of their greed, they will make better products because of their greed, etcetera.

But greed is a sin. We're building our entire economy on sin. (Mark 7:21-23; Romans 1:28-30; 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:9-11; Ephesians 5:3, 5; Colossians 3:5.)

And this is where hypocrisy comes into play. We can't have gay marriage because the government of the people would be supporting sin. We can't keep abortion legal (even though legal status does not affect the number of abortions) because the nation is supporting sin. But we not only allow capitalism's free reign, we encourage it.

When the fact that illegal abortions cause the deaths of tens of thousands of mothers every year, the response is that these women deserve it for seeking to commit such an evil act (and it is evil). Capitalism not only is based on greed - a sin - it also effects usury, poverty, oppression, slavery, racism, and many other evils.

Do something about abortion

I was just thinking about the huge resources poured into pro-life political campaigns. There are dozens of organizations committed to this one issue, but they don't actually help mothers in need. Their goal is so limited: to make abortion illegal. Millions of dollars are pumped into candidates' campaigns, lobbyists fees, and ballot propositions every year. But the fact is that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions committed.

At the same time, crisis pregnancy centers go underfunded, and many shut down do to lack of funding. These centers do real work, and real good in the community. They take care of mothers in their pregnancy, helping them get prenatal care, helping with bills, and child support post-birth.

What effect would we have if we re-engaged the abortion issue with all of this political money and put it into cities with high teen pregnancy, and high poverty? Fund these clinics, create more holistic clinics for families. We could really make an impact with this issue and truly reduce abortion in this country. We already know that more social spending does reduce abortion, so this isn't a wild idea that won't work.

What do you think? Could we manage such a feat?

Christ for President

Good ol' Woody Guthrie.

Christ for President lyrics

Let's have Christ our President
Let us have him for our king
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
That you call the Nazarene

The only way we can ever beat
These crooked politician men
Is to run the money changers out of the temple
Put the Carpenter in

O It's Jesus Christ our President
God above our king
With a job and a pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring

Every year we waste enough
To feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
And we shoot it down with wars

But with the Carpenter on the seat
Way up in the Capital town
The USA would be on the way
Prosperity Bound!

The secret to happiness

Last night in our home fellowship we watched the new documentary, The Ordinary Radicals. This film followed the Jesus for President book tour around the nation, and into Canada. Jesus for President was written by Shane Claiborne (Irresistible Revolution) and Chris Haw. I haven't had the chance to read the book yet, but I did buy it.

I'm not new to what Claiborne and other neo-monastics are preaching. When I was a child I read Cornerstone magazine, but none of that stuck because I was so young and submerged in the religious right. But over the last five years or so I've been proclaiming these things to anyone who would listen. What I love about Claiborne is that he's got so much humanity in this speaking and writing, and it is always encouraging to know there are others all over the world of a like mind.

There are great stories in the documentary, and some powerful images. It reminds me that I am so apathetic and lazy.

But the whole film had me realize, in the end, that I think is important: Consumerism creates a worldview that having things is more important than people.

We don't spend all our money on people, we horde it so we can buy more stuff. More stuff is the goal. The average home today doubled in size from the average sized home 50 years ago, and we don't use the garage for parking cars but to store stuff, and we have off-site storage as well.

If a budget is really a moral document, why do we set aside so much money to buy things and so little to help people out who have much less? Especially in my generation, the generation defined by consumption. We don't tithe in our congregations, and this is a huge problem for a lot of congregations who subsidize their young-adult programs with the tithe of the older folk.

A lot of us work hard just to pay our bills, and we don't have anything left over. I understand that, but why can't those with a bit left over help those with none, or those who don't have enough to even get the minimums?

You hear all the time when someone visits a third-world country; they say the people are so contented and happy even in their poverty. I think this might have something to do with the emptiness of material possessions and the joy of relationships. When a community has one mind and one spirit, what more do you need?

Verse for today

I seem to have skipped this over before. I've read Romans 1 a bunch of times, and I've heard it taught on over and over. Romans 2 is the point Paul is getting to by bringing up the sins in the first chapter. He says, "for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (v1) But then I hit verse 4. This hit me.

"Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?"

Contempt for God's character when we judge others. Ouch.