Catoosa Vision: June 2006

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Religion + Politics = ???

Recall that the last time that we mixed religion and politics in America, we ended up
burning people at the stake...

Just a thought (or reminder).

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Religion and Politics

On this blog, I typically avoid any broader, national-scale discussion of politics. However, given the down-home evangelical nature of our local GOP, I thought I'd mention something I read earlier this morning.

Randall Balmer, a professor of religious history at Barnhard College and an avowed evangelical, recently wrote an essay about the current state of Republicanism and Religion in America. Specifically, he talks about what has the religious right -- in control of all three branches of government -- done with their power? Here's just one excerpt:

And what has the religious right done with its political influence? Judging by the platform and the policies of the Republican Party — and I'm aware of no way to disentangle the agenda of the Republican Party from the goals of the religious right — the purpose of all this grasping for power looks something like this: an expansion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the continued prosecution of a war in the Middle East that enraged our longtime allies and would not meet even the barest of just-war criteria, and a rejiggering of Social Security, the effect of which, most observers agree, would be to fray the social-safety net for the poorest among us. Public education is very much imperiled by Republican policies, to the evident satisfaction of the religious right, and it seeks to replace science curricula with theology, thereby transforming students into catechumens.

Here's a link to the full essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Here's more...

If evangelicals believe that God cares about the fate of a fetus, it shouldn't require a huge leap in logic to surmise that God also cares about people of color or prisoners or immigrants or people with an orientation other than heterosexual.

Finally, an evangelical social and political ethic would take into account the pluralistic context of American society and recognize the genius of the First Amendment. That requires respect for the canons of democracy and for the importance of public education to ensure its future. It acknowledges, for example, that the proper venue for the teaching of creationism or intelligent design is the home or the Sunday-school classroom, not the science curriculum. It means refusing to identify the symbols of the faith — the Bible, prayer, the Decalogue with the political order. In short, our best hope for the recovery of an evangelical social and political ethic lies with recognizing that the faith functions best independent of the political order. (emphasis added)

I could not have said it any better. I highly recommend reading the entire essay. I'm pleasantly surprised to hear such rational thought from an evangelical conservative christian.

How rare, and how refreshing. Maybe there is hope in our society.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Ballot Battle

Finally, the Catoosa County News picked up the scent of a story here... They ran an article today online citing an apparent attempt to have the ballot questions removed and the entire ballot replaced. There's a possibility that local attorney Renzo Wiggans (sp?) (Boy, that would earn a lot in Scrabble!) has either filed or threatened to file (on behalf of whom?) a suit demanding that the ballot be pulled and changed.

Apparently, the ballot questions were added without the express approval of the (R) Party Executive Committee. Boy Wonde(R) Brad Scott, who has since resigned from the party leadership, said that he emailed everyone on the Executive Committee and didn't get any responses.

How Gen-Y.

Any-hoo... We'll have to wait to see how it plays out. I agree that it doesn't matter that there are partisan, non-binding questions on the ballot. I, like others apparently, simply object to the manner in which the questions were added to the ballot -- done from behind closed doors (or, at best via email to a select few), originated/written by who knows whom (but most certainly including the Puppet Master himself)... we are left to wonder just who the (R) party is trying to represent?

Friday, June 09, 2006

Good Knight, Mr. Scott

In perhaps the first demonstration of sanity in years, the Catoosa Republican Party's top two officials "stepped down," citing differing reasons -- but, both of which are related to party in-fighting, bickering, dissention, whatever...

Here's the link...

Electing Brad Scott as Party Puppet... I mean, Chairman was just insane. (Or perfectly sane, if you buy the widely-held "puppet" theory.)

Here's what I find fascinating though... I dont' believe in coincidences, especially when related events so conveniently align themselves, to wit:

I've been questioning (even to some elected Republicans, and Party officials) how the heck did those questions get placed on the Republican primary ballot without any public discourse? I mean, everyone I've talked to just say "Well, it's Bill, Brad and Don. Yep. That's 'bout it." Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with partisan ballots with partisan questions.

But Dudes! Come on... The questions are written SO POORLY, making them so obviously transparent. Let me go ahead and tell you what's going to happen:

After the primary, the results from the "non-binding" questions will be tallied. Even if only 5 people answer the questions (or make that three people; see above), certain elected officials (Bill Clark) will be making statements about "You Good People have spoken! You want _______," where one or more of the various issues so clumsily questioned will be inserted. These "straw poll" interrogatories will be used as political kindling to fuel the Anti-Anything Attitude Those Who Are In Power maintain.

Some of the issues on the ballot are (excuse me for not having the ballot handy; it's on my desk at the office):

Sole Commissioner (I mean, why not just go ahead and state the question "Do you think the current five member Board of Commissioners should be reduced to a Sole Commissioner selected by Bill Clark and Co.?")
Colonnade (Of those who would consider voting to remove funding to the Colonnade need to pay attention to the amount of positive publicity and attention generated by the Colonnade, as well as the myriad PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE -- read: not private Country Club -- events are held there.)

By the way, about Ann Knight, based on the comments in the article, it appears that she left because of problems within the Party. Good for you, Ann! I respect your integrity and courage to walk away from a fractious party that is quickly becoming a joke among mainstream (i.e. sane, decent) Catoosa Republicans.

*Sigh* OK. I'm going to log off and write more next week. I just had to get this off my chest after reading the Catoosa County News article.

Catoosa Vision