The Heart of the Matter

Recently, I was reading over Pope John Paul’s “Letter to Women” and I started thinking, “Hey, there is a woman currently running for President. I wonder what Mrs. Clinton has to say to women in America.” So I began to search around the web looking for different articles and what I found surprised me.

While looking at several different blogs, I realized that many women were speaking out against Hillary, holding the view that she does not represent all women. The NPR News Blog began with a blog entitled, “Why does Clinton Turn Some Women Voters Off?” The first blogger quotes a woman name Susan Reynolds who stated that “Hillary holds no appeal to me”. Various other women bloggers agreed. Why would women not want to vote for this woman to be president?

Appeal. I want to argue that Hillary does not appeal to the heart of women. Yes, one can go to her website and click on “A Champion for Women” and one will even find a video of Hillary speaking to women. But what is she saying to women in America? She ensures women that she will fight for higher wages and equal pay with men. She even comments on how the Wimbledon women winners do not make as much as the Wimbledon men winners. However, she is trying to take a stance for “low-income women”.

In her campaign, Hillary takes the stance against “governments that try to control a woman’s reproductive health decisions”. Wow, that sounds great! I don’t want the government to do that either! However, what does that really mean? It means she is advocating that the government should allow abortions if women choose it the best option. This is a big topic, and I do not necessarily want this discussion to be about abortion. However, her website states that “she believes the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare”, taking her husband’s stance when he was in office. I would like to contend she is making a very strong argument here. If you believe that man (and woman) is made for the government, than Hillary’s statement would seem reasonable. On the flipside, since the government is actually made for man (and woman), Hillary seems to be addressing an issue concerning the right to life with little concern for the inherent dignity of man (and woman).

When Hillary was specifically questioned about abortion during the summer of 2007, she argued that she would like to see the pro-life and pro-choice movements reach a “common ground”. That’s a great idea. However, there needs to be dialogue about what human life actually is. Without this agreement, the two worldviews will clash because they have different definitions. This is a moral issue that directly affects women and without knowing what life really is, how can you represent the women that give life?

Here is another statement Hillary makes to women, this time college women. One interesting proposal that Senator Clinton gives for unintended pregnancies which affects college women and students would be to restore the discount for birth control on college campuses and community health centers. She argues that college students are now spending more money on contraceptives and therefore “cutting down their budget for food”. This idea seems to give me the idea that college women are not smart enough to choose between food and sex that we need some sort of bill to cut down the price of birth control so that we can eat. Yikes!

Maybe these different issues turn women off from voting for Hillary. Maybe there are other reasons. At the same conference in 1995 where Hillary declared her famous line that “women’s rights are human rights”, another figure was promoting another view of femininity which speaks more to the heart of every woman. The Pope urges:

“You can see then, dear sisters, that the Church has many reasons for hoping that the forthcoming United Nations Conference in Beijing will bring out the full truth about women. Necessary emphasis should be placed on the "genius of women", not only by considering great and famous women of the past or present, but also those ordinary women who reveal the gift of their womanhood by placing themselves at the service of others in their everyday lives. For in giving themselves to others each day women fulfill their deepest vocation. Perhaps more than men, women acknowledge the person, because they see persons with their hearts. They see them independently of various ideological or political systems. They see others in their greatness and limitations; they try to go out to them and help them. In this way the basic plan of the Creator takes flesh in the history of humanity and there is constantly revealed, in the variety of vocations, that beauty-not merely physical, but above all spiritual-which God bestowed from the very beginning on all, and in a particular way on women.”

I know that I have brought up several different issues here. Equally, I do not mean to criticize Mrs. Clinton. However, if she is running as a “Champion for Women”, I hope she will address more than just unequal pay and women’s “reproductive health”. I want someone who speaks to my heart.

homelessness

In Peter Smith's Homeless: Can you build a life from $25?, we read the story of a young man who went from searching for a homeless shelter with twenty-five dollars in his pocket to a life with a job, a car, and a place to live.

Clearly, the American Dream, right? But what about all the other homeless people, the ones who are still homeless, who are still sleeping in the cold we can barely handle for a moment, in order to avoid the shelters ("I hate those places," people at Saint Pat's soup kitchen tell me). How do we end homelessness? And which candidates are going to try to tackle that in office-- or at least claim they will?

Let's see what the candidates say (thanks to their respective websites) about poverty or homelessness...


Barack Obama:

“I'm in this race for the same reason that I fought for jobs for the jobless and hope for the hopeless on the streets of Chicago; for the same reason I fought for justice and equality as a civil rights lawyer; for the same reason that I fought for Illinois families for over a decade… That's why I'm running, Democrats — to keep the American Dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity, who still thirst for equality.”

— Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

He encourages (and I quote his site), expanding access to jobs, encouraging working by giving tax and other incentives, strengthening families, increasing affordable housing, and more.


Hilary Clinton, surprisingly, does not list Poverty or Homelessness under her "Issues" tab, instead separating issues like health care and education that we know support the working poor. However, as I just looked through her website for a while, homelessness is not an easy topic to find. For someone who champions the middle class and has been granted the support of numerous organizations, why isn't this highlighted on her website?


John McCain also does not emphasize poverty on his website under "Issues," but, like Hilary, he mentions individual issues that will tackle the bigger issue of homelessness: education, human dignity, health care, and more.


So, who is going to inch us closer to an end to poverty in America? And how do we know that now? Are election claims or past experience enough for us to know?

Catholics and Obama

A random article about the Catholic vote...

Reaganites for Obama?

Sorry, McCain. Barack Obama is a natural for the Catholic vote.
By Douglas W. Kmiec

Just FYI :)

Yesterday, Republican Representatives left the House in protest of Democratic refusal to condone the Senate-passed bill to expand domestic spying expansion. According to the New York Times:

“The measure extends, for at least six years, many of the broad new surveillance powers that Congress hastily approved last August just before its summer recess” and “The Senate plan also adds one provision considered critical by the White House: shielding phone companies from any legal liability for their roles in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. The program allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?_r=2&sq=Vote%20of%2068%20to%2029&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=1&adxnnlx=1203108617-l12lqLI81aiiNZCQtBZAyA

Hillary, absent due to her presidential campaign, called her vote nay even though she voted pro when the Patriot Act was first passed in 2001. Barack, refraining from issuing an official statement, inferred in an earlier debate that he was against the bill. John McCain voted for the bill. President Bush, saying “There is still a threat on the homeland” delayed his trip yesterday, trying to put pressure on the House for renewal.

What does this mean for Americans? While some argue “I have nothing to hide” and others “Big Brother” I find this bill a blatant offense against our Bill of Rights

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

and another way to protect the profits of Big Business.

Is voting for Ron Paul the only answer? When is a mainstream candidate going to support a anti-domestic spying version of the pro-life movement’s “seamless garment.” Is this issue a slippery slope? History tells a tale of the importance of precedence, George Washington’s strong presidency, factionalism and the two-party system to name a few. Where will America go from here? Corner store check points? Universal ID cards? I worry the 1984 will become 2008.

No child left behind, no person left behind

Recently, while campaigning for his wife in Wisconsin, Bill Clinton described all that Hillary worked for and stood for when she first started out after law school. It is clear through many of her speeches that all of these things are still what she stands for and is trying so hard to get this nation to see that she will continue to work for. Here is Bill and what he has to say about his hard working wife

Bill talks about Hillary going door to door and asking parents the hard questions about why their children aren't going to school. Money was not driving her, it seems apparent that her heart is what was bringing her to each door step to inquire why these children were not getting an education. She cared about that individual family and their individual case. She was out to help. Is this what Hillary would do in office? Would she account for the many that are forgotten?
Hillary's ideas of helping and getting the job done in a way that makes people feel that they are a valuable part of society helps to get the Christian message of individualism and plurality. As a child of God, I am important and I am individual, but as children of God we are important and yes, America, I can make a difference, you can make a difference and together we can make a difference. I think that what Bill is saying while campaigning for Hillary is that with George W. Bush no child is left behind (or so he tries to say) but with Hillary no person will be left behind. Her past only illuminates the path for the future of America.

"Waterboarding"

Just last week, I was having a conversation with my sister about how the election has really taken over most of our news coverage and left the current President on the back burner. I thought I'd check up on him and see what newsworthy events are happening in our current administration. Rosa Brooks' piece in the LA Times speaks precisely to this lack of attention and its horror story-like consequences...torture.

Torture has actually been in the news quite a bit these last few days. A steady stream of articles and editorial pieces have covered the issue of "waterboarding" and the recent confession by CIA Director Michael Hayden that the US used this torture tactic against accused terrorists several times in the last few years. The Senate recently approved a measure to require all US interrogators to follow the Army Field Manual (which limits them to 19 interrogation tactics and excludes waterboarding); however, President Bush is threatening to veto it. A Washington Post article by Richard E. Mezo, who served in the Navy for 6 years, gives a detailed account of his personal experience of waterboarding during Naval "survival training." Mezo points out the not-so-subtle linguistic change from water torture to waterboarding and calls the act a "crime against humanity."

What is going on in our country? I fear that the nation's preoccupation with the future president has turned our attention away from what we think of as a lame duck president. I also worry that our frontrunners in this election, all of whom are currently Senators, are neglecting their responsibilities as such. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on the Senate proposal regarding the Army Field Manual. Surely it is a delicate balance of doing your job and trying to be elected to a new one. But why are we not more outraged by this recent confession of torture and the President's determination to uphold the CIA and other interrogators' right to torture? From the Washington Post:

Mr. Bush continues to resist calls for the suspension of policies that erode the values of this country, put U.S. personnel at greater risk of being abused and are largely counterproductive because detainees desperate to avert pain provide unreliable information. Earlier efforts to outlaw torture through the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act have fallen victim to the Bush administration's legal duplicities. The administration, which recently admitted the use of waterboarding on three terrorism suspects before enactment of those laws, still refuses to declare definitively that waterboarding is illegal even under the new legal scheme.

It seems as though our current administration, in its perennial focus on "national security," is more concerned with protecting the government's freedom than protecting our country's moral authority in the global community. The two are intricately connected. How can we gain or even keep global allies if we are seen as morally bankrupt--denying human rights left and right, at our choosing? Acting as if we are above international law? As mentioned in Brooks' LA Times article:

The administration's PR push on waterboarding doesn't enjoy much support, either internationally or here at home. Our closest allies, the British, reaffirmed Tuesday that they consider waterboarding a form of torture prohibited by international law. That's an opinion shared by the U.N. human rights commissioner.

There have been a lot of things circulating around in my mind since the election took off and so did the discussions in our class. After reading a lot of the posts and exploring political websites there has been a question looming in the back of my head. We often hear the phrase, "faith and politics," but I wonder, is this different from "religion and politics?" This idea of a separation between faith and religion is something I have been thinking about since that first class where we watched the videos of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. I found it really interesting that this issue actually came up in readings for two of my other classes, it seems that I could not avoid the issue! Below I am going to include a few of the quotes that I came across while researching this issue, or simply reading for my other classes. I think they hold some interesting ideas and perhaps topics for discussion.

First, I simply typed the two words into dictionary.com to see what the words actually mean by definition.

Faith-

1.	confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.	belief that is not based on proof

3.	belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

4.	belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

5.	a system of religious belief

6.	the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

7.	the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.

Religion-

1.	a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.	a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

3.	the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

4.	the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.

5.	the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6.	something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

7.	religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8.	Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion

So, from dictionary.com's perspective it seems that there is a subtle difference between what defines one's faith and what defines one's religion. Religion seems to include a ritualistic, ceremonial aspect that is not necessarily included in faith. Also, religion is necessarily a set of beliefs that is held by a group of people, rather than faith that could simply be one's personal beliefs. I thought #5 under religions was interesting,

5.	the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Religion, then, is the observance of faith. I thought that was an interesting correlation between the two.

In my other theology class, the major seminar, we recently finished a book entitled, "Christianity and the Religions." While reading through this book I found an interesting quote that I think pertains to my thought on this issue. The author writes, "There is no religious life without religious practice. Nor is there, in this sense, any faith without religion." When I read this quote I was a bit taken aback. I am not sure that I agree with this idea that without religion there can be no faith. I think there are many people who feel a firm connection with a higher power but do not identify themselves with a particular religious sect, or perhaps are in the midst of searching for one. I think faith can exist without religion, and i think even further perhaps faith is a necessary foundation of religion. I do not think that religion comes before faith, I think faith comes before religion. In my opinion, the more proper quote would read, "Without faith, there is no religion."

This idea of having faith without religion is discussed in another of my classes although under the terms of religion and spirituality rather that religion and faith. It is discussed in my Social Work class which looks at it in light of working with clients of various religious backgrounds. The class is specifically in human behavior in social systems. Therefore, we look at religion as a particular social system. In the book, they differentiate between religion and spirituality:
Religion is defined as "The institutionalized social organizations that promote social cohesion through the transmission of values and beliefs shared by members as they relate to enduring human concerns."
Spirituality is defined as "The individual quest of seeking answers to enduring human concerns through means that transcend everyday experience or rational inquiry."
Here, my social work book differentiates between the institutionalized social organization of religion and the individual quest of spirituality. I think in some ways spirituality could be interchanged with faith in this context, although spirituality perhaps indicates more of a search than faith does.

So, it does seem that most sources would differentiate between faith and religion. But what does this mean in terms of the political sphere? The first thought that I was having when I watched the video that first class on John F. Kennedy was whether his bracketing of religion meant a bracketing of faith. In our current election, it seems that there may indeed be a significant difference between faith and politics. In an article that I came across entitled “Personal Faith and Candidate Image in the 2008 Campaign” I read about the impact that a candidate’s faith can have on the general public. It seemed that both in the 2008 as well as elections of the past, a candidate’s faith has had a positive influence on their support. However, does this pertain to all forms of faith, or just that of the majority voters. The article states, “Historically, strong personal faith has often been an asset, particularly if a candidate was a member of what was perceived as a “mainstream” faith.” This was interesting to me in light of some of the speculations of the candidate’s faith, or should we say, religion. For example, Mike Huckabee is accused of his fundamentalist evangelical views, Mitt Romney lost votes from many republicans who were “scared” of a Mormon president, and Barack Obama is often accused of being Islamic. But these issues, at least in my opinion, are issues of religion. I think that there is no doubt that almost all of the candidates have been vocal about their faith, which is scene positively, but it is often their religion that can get them in trouble. Mike Huckabee has faith whether he believes in evolution or not, Mitt Romney has faith whether he reads the Book of Mormon or the Christian Bible, and Barack Obama has faith whether he prays to Jesus Christ or Muhammad. The point is, I think what is important in our next president is faith, not religion, and I think when we talk about the issues it may be important to differentiate between the two, because it seems that they do not mean the same thing. What is important is a figure who has a belief in a greater power, in something bigger than him or herself and an overarching set of values that will make positive change for our country. What is less important, in my opinion, is the institutionalized expression of those values, in the end, is it not all the same God?

Neo-conservatism and catholic social thought

As the US is now involved in perhaps the most difficult foreign policy situation in Iraq since the Cold War, it is imperative that the new President has a firm and effective strategy for estalishing peace. However, it begs the question....is this war even endable? Or even further, does the war on terror even have an end? As Cheney predicted, has it not just become a quagmire?

It seems all three major candidates for Presidency all think there is some end in sight: the Democrats through a scheduled, immediate withdrawal and McCain through his "finish the job" strategy that may, in his own words, leave a US military presence in Iraq for 100 years. The problem with these options, however, is there is no moderate perspective - its either leave now or stay for the rest of all of our lives, literally.

So as catholic voters I think we have to ask, which foreign policy perspective will build solidarity, however restricted it may be, with the rest of the world? And, which policy toward this most difficult situation will lead to a greater respect for the value and dignity of human life amongst all the parties involved? Also, is it right to continue in Bush's Iraq policy?

The answer to this question, I think lies in the current administration's approach to foreign policy - particularly, neo-conservatism. Particularly, its influence can b seen through former members of Bush's cabinet.

As a starting point, Donald Rumsfeld was central in the development of a neo-con think tank named the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 1997, which actually sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998 asking him to overthrow the Iraqi regime through diplotmatic, military, and/or political means. What is important for this discussion, however, is the group's view on the US' role within the international system. Specifically, the idea that the US, as the world's hegemon, has a duty and a right to secure its interests internationally, using even the pre-emptive war strategy as an effective means to that end. Further, it seems to hold that american exceptionalism perspective that we spoke of in class: the US is the world leader and the world seems better off because of it. The "city on a hill syndrome" seems to have "invaded" our foreign policy for the last 5 years, and has it truly secured our interests, or if not more importantly for the ideology, has it bettered the world? Has it furthered solidarity and social justice throughout the world, affirming the equality of all people?

So, then, to address the original question, it seems that such an approach to international relations has not only failed these last 5 years, but it is also hostile to the catholic social teaching of solidarity, justice and peace. As Americans, this policy has created a negative backlash throughout the world, where South American leaders have begun to call us the "evil empire", and much of the rest of the world is suspicious of our policies. Thus, is the eilitism of neo-conservatism's understanding of America's role in the world truly consistent with the catholic understanding of solidarity and peace? I think it has some serious contentions with it.

In terms of this election, I think from the eyes of faith, international relations is an incredibly important subject. McCain wants a peaceful end to the conflict in Iraq, yet, as stated in this article, he still does support the initial reasons we entered. Therefore, is is prolonged presence in the region hostile to anti-terror policy goals, such that it will only inflame more extremism? Obama and Clinton are looking for a immediate withdrawal, but will that, as an altervative policy, guarantee peace in the region? As catholic voters, it seems very unclear which leader will build peace and solidarity with the rest of the world most effectively. It all seems to swivel on what impact the persistence of us troops in the middle east has on fundamentalism.

Another helpful article

E.J. Dionne has an article called "Faith and Politics after the Religious Right" in the latest Commonweal magazine. It gives a helpful overview, I think, of 3 major phases in the history of religion's role in American public life. In brief (his nuances are well worth looking at), the first phase was Protestant hegemony (founding to JFK), the second was the phase of a pluralism that turned into secularism, and the third phase (current) is the push back (and, actually, debate over) against the marginalization of faith in public life.

Dionne gives a very helpful example to illustrate the difference between stages 2 and 3:

The clearest symbol of the difference between the second and third stages is the sharp contrast between the way John F. Kennedy treated his faith as a public issue in the 1960 presidential campaign and how Joe Lieberman treated his Jewish faith when he ran for vice president in 2000. Both broke barriers as representatives of minority religions. But Kennedy made the case for his own election on the grounds that his religion was not at all important to his role as a politician. His central assertion, politically necessary at the time, was that if ever his faith came into conflict with the Constitution or the public interest, he would resign. Joe Lieberman’s approach could not have been more different. He spoke at length about the importance of his faith and about the legitimacy of a politician bringing his or her faith to the public arena. Notice: To win acceptance from Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants, it was absolutely essential for Kennedy to play down his faith. But when Lieberman did the exact opposite, by playing up his faith and speaking of God, this was seen as an effort to reassure and win over the very same groups of Evangelical Protestants (or perhaps their children and grandchildren).

In truth, Lieberman was simply more religious than Kennedy was. But their different approaches also reflected different historical moments. In Kennedy’s time, the fear to be addressed among conservative Protestants was that a politician was not a Protestant. In Lieberman’s time, the fear to be addressed among conservative Protestants was that a politician was not religious enough. This is a huge historical shift.

Dionne says that

the new politics of religion is not about driving religion out of the public square. It is about rethinking, again, religion’s public role. It is the latest corrective in our ongoing national debate over religious liberty, not a repudiation of religion’s social and political role.

But I'm not so sure. I think that the current politics of religion is very much a debate about whether religion should be in the public square or not. I do think that, for electability's sake, any candidate for President will have to show the right amount of religiosity. And I think that we are very very far from a place where an openly declared atheist could get elected. But could a Christian pastor (like Mike Huckabee, or if you can imagine it, a figure like Martin Luther King or Dorothy Day) get elected? I don't think so. I think these people take God as revealed in Christ too seriously. I think that the American people will demand someone who believes in a God who always puts American interests first.

Can you imagine?

Take a listen to the "slam poetry" of Eric Darby. Take it as a reminder that (1) poetry can be very political and (2) politics (always, but especially now) calls for a re-visioning of community, of hope, of what is possible, of what is needed, of how things fit together or might fit together differently.



Imagine things different. Radically different. And shaped not just by the discarded hopes in the American dream, but by the "kingdom politics" of Jesus. Can you imagine?