The Good Old Days

I lived my first nine or ten years in Milwaukee, in the 1950s. The Braves moved to Milwaukee in 1953 so I was caught up in baseball fever just like most boys my age.  I was a big Eddie Mathews fan and I have vague memories of Hank Aaron's rookie season in 1954.  One of my strongest memories, I think, was when I found out that Aaron had some difficulty buying a house in the suburb of Mequon because he was black.  It was probably the first instance in my life where reality was at odds with what I was being taught in school about America and its ideals.  I was utterly devastated, even at that age.

Sometime later in my grade school years, each of us in our class had to do some sort of report on a state in the US.  I did mine on Delaware.  I don't remember all the details, but in my research I discovered that interracial marriage was illegal in Delaware until the 1950s or 60s.  Another shock.  This wasn't even a state in the old Confederacy!

Several years later I was in the Army and we moved to the Washington, DC, area.  This was the early 1970s.  One of the jobs my wife had was as a computer programmer for a local retail business in downtown Washington.  One episode she related to me was when the credit manager used a mailing address (as a proxy for race) to decline a credit application, without looking at the actual application.

I bring up these memories because when folks on the right talk about "taking the country back", I am not impressed.  Take it to where?  They seem to be yearning for a return to an America that never was.  What happened to Hank Aaron occurred in the innocent and idyllic 1950s.  When people are wishing for the better values of the past, are these the values they're talking about?

A Puzzler

Here's a question for Glenn Beck and others.

Why is it that when a Progressive wants to make something better he's called an America hater, but when a Tea Partier does the same he's a called a patriot?

Tis a puzzler huh?

Buts...

I believe in freedom of religion but...

I believe in due process but...

I believe in freedom of speech but...

I believe in loving my enemies but...

I am opposed to torture but...

If we qualify our beliefs with "buts", do we really believe them?  If we claim to have firm beliefs but only practice them when it's easy or convenient, then what do we really believe?  Conservatives often accuse us godless liberals of moral relativism and situation ethics, but the qualified beliefs noted above are just as readily expressed by those morally superior conservatives as by us lesser types.

Invisible Hand?

Why does it seem that the most ardent advocates of the invisible hand (I refer to them as "Market Huggers") are also the loudest proponents of treating certain income more favorably than others?  Why should capital gains, dividends, "carried interest", etc., be given better tax treatment than ordinary income?  If money flows where the invisible hand directs it, then why does some activity need extra tax incentive?  The theory says that the risk/reward trade-offs will be compensated exactly as the market says they should, right?  Or don't you really believe in your theories?  It sure seems to me that saying certain behavior should be treated with this extra subsidy is an admission that the theory really doesn't work and that you really don't believe it.

CLR & Politics - Part 2

In the fourth quarter 2009 issue of Christian Life Resources' "Clearly Caring" magazine, they printed a disclaimer that they are not a "religious arm of the Republican Party".

It is good to see that they are at least thinking about the issue, but I think their claim is unsupportable.  They seem to go out of their way to say bad things about Democrats and go equally out of their way to avoid saying bad things about Republicans.  They point to their tepid criticism of Orrin Hatch to prove otherwise, but not much else.  For example, an August 5th story on their site referred to Elena Kagan with the epithet "pro-abortion activist".  Elena Kagan might be pro-choice, but describing her as an activist is inaccurate by any reasonable definition of the term.  Contrast this with, say, Dick Cheney.  If you do a search for his name on their website, the only stories that come up are very glowing in nature.  There's no mention of his support for gay marriage.  There is no "gay-marriage activist" epithet attached to him, only quasi-endorsements.  I think it's fair to say that Cheney and his family more closely fit the definition of "activist" in this regard than does Kagan.  My only point is that once you've decided to become political, you have--almost by definition--entered the arena of unfairness.  That's not a problem if it's a personal website or blog.  But CLR represents WELS and should not be engaging in politics or personal opinion.  They have chosen sides, even if they claim they have not.

A Brief Glossary of the Tea (= New Republican) Party

• Socialist:  Anyone whose politics I don't agree with.
• Anti-American:  Anyone whose beliefs I don't agree with.
• Compromise:  One of the many bad things that those Anti-American Socialists do.
• Taxes:  Another bad thing forced on us by those Anti-American Socialists (you know...it's that money the federal government collects from the blue states and then sends to the red states).
• Terrorist:  Any US president with a Muslim-sounding name.
• Armed Insurrection:  Exercise of Second Amendment rights.
• Torture:  One of those things that's very bad unless we are the ones doing it.
• Freedom of Religion:  The freedom to impose my religion on others.
• Religious Persecution:  Not being allowed to impose my religion on others.
• Godless Liberal:  (see Socialist, Anti-American above)
• "Good" Christian:  One who has been declared so by Dr. James Dobson (apparently this includes that wonderful family man Newt Gingrich but not, say, John McCain).
• Bipartisanship:  Two part definition. (1) If Republicans control Congress:  voting with the Republicans. (2) If Democrats control Congress:  letting Republicans write the legislation.
• Self-Appointed Elites:  President and members of Congress elected by wide majorities whom we do not agree with.

Got Anger?

So what am I supposed to make of the anger of the Tea Partiers?  They seem to wear it on their sleeves as some kind of badge of honor.  They certainly have the constitutional right to be as angry as they want, but I wonder what they expect me to believe?  Does being angry mean that they are more sincere in their beliefs than I am?  Does a willingness to be loud and obnoxious and rude prove that they are right?  Do people really believe that problems will be solved better in the heat of anger than in the coolness of reason?

Can't we disagree without being enemies?

How Do You Decide Which Stories or Columns Are Worth Your Time?

Do you have a hard time deciding which of the hundreds of stories and columns that are out there are worth reading?  I don't mean which do you agree with, but, rather, which to take seriously.  For example, although I don't always agree with David Brooks, I usually read his columns because they are thoughtful and respectful;  and, they do not insult the reader.

Half in fun but half in seriousness, I have developed a list of phrases for which--if I come across in a story or column--I stop reading immediately, because by their use the writer has forfeited all credibility.  Among them are the following:

1. The phrases "politically correct" or "politically incorrect".  Resorting to either of these to "prove" a point is simply lazy writing.  If you have a point to make, then make the point well, don't resort to something so ill-defined and nebulous, as if it ends the argument.

2. "Al Gore invented the internet".  This should require no comment.  If Jay Leno wants use it in a monologue, that's cool.  But if a writer wants to be taken seriously, then please....

3.  "Liberal bias".  Stop your whining already....

CLR & Politics

The Christian Life Resources website currently contains an editorial entitled "Political Candidates and Your Vote".  I have a couple of issues with this editorial.  First of all, it encourages readers to check out the websites of the National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliates to get "information" about various candidates.  Well, these websites not only have "information" but actually endorse candidates for office.  The Right to Life Committee does lobbying and therefore donations to it are not tax deductible as charitable donations. CLR, in the other hand, is a tax deductible charity, so this smacks of being a backhanded way of endorsing candidates for political office.

The editorial also contains the sentences: "We at Christian Life Resources find it difficult to imagine voting for a candidate that not only accepts abortion on demand but actively votes and acts for its continued practice. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the contrary view that candidate positions on other issues also can be considered 'life issues.'"  If the second sentence is true, then why is the first sentence necessary?  If the "contrary view" is equally valid, then what purpose is there for the first?  Is it the personal opinion of someone at CLR?  If so then why is CLR using its website to promote a personal opinion?  I suspect, though, that CLR does not regard it as equally valid (but then we have to wonder what "acknowledge" means).  I suspect that they think their position is more Christian than the contrary view.

September 14, 2010

First post ever....
As you can see from the title, I am one of those rare birds among members of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS):  a left winger.  In addition to observations and opinions of a political nature (as they randomly occur to me), I decided to create this blog to vent about two things:  (1) the WELS-affiliated organization called Christian Life Resources (CLR) and (2) the so-called Christian Right in general.  Whether anyone ever sees any of this remains to be seen, but I thought it might actually be possible that there are other WELS members who share my opinions and concerns and this might let others know that they are not alone.

Specifically, CLR--at least its website--has become inappropriately political.  Future posts will go into this in more depth.

The Christian Right (with which CLR has also become closely aligned) has appropriated the word "Christian" and by implication tries to invalidate the Christianity of people like me.  One "proves" one's Christianity by one's political beliefs.  This turns Christian (or at least Lutheran) belief on its head.  More on this later, too.