Tea Time

Over the course of the past year, I have been following (begrudgingly), the ever-changing mess that is American Politics. In the election of 2010, the Tea Party movement made its debut, entering the political scene in a big way. This group had lofty goals: No new taxes, No new taxes, and no new taxes. In addition, Tea Party politicians appealed to the unemployed, promising new job creation, derived from their three part plan (no new taxes). Once elected, what we got was an entirely different story. In Wisconsin, among the first pieces of new legislation was a sweeping voter fraud bill. The stated purpose of this law was to reduce voter fraud. Noble cause, but one need only to look at the fine print to see that it is not about voter fraud at all. Buried in the pages of this law were measures designed to eliminate voter registration on all college campuses, as well as to make student IDs a non-accepted form of identification. The result? Those without a drivers license must apply and wait for an approved ID. Along with these new requirements, DMV locations in poor areas have been slated for closure and/or staff reductions, while their counterparts in wealthier areas have seen additional funds for expansion and increased hours. In florida and several other states, smilar legislation is "in the pipeline". Other notable legislative "triumphs" of the Tea Party include draconian immigration bills in states that do not share any borders with Mexico, and deep cuts to public education, favoring charter schools (I'm looking a You, Rick Scott).

But lets move beyond state politics for a moment, and take a look at the Tea Party on a national level. With a national platform of "No new taxes", and "Job creation", one could safely assume that the Tea Party would be preocupied with legislation that would achieve those goals. Meet my good friend, Reality. Currently, we have "important" legislation in the works to de-fund parts of NASA (such as the replacement for the Hubble Telescope), the stalling of legislation that would keep the Federal Aviation Association staffed and running, legislation to eliminate states rights to deal with the issue of Gun Control (so much for small government), and of course cuts for that "evil" institution known as Planned Parenthood. Lets also not forget the fact that these same individuals held up DADT repeal, and have refused to eliminate DOMA (Because recognizing gay marriage would have SUCH a negative impact on taxes and job creation).

So, where does this leave us (the voting public)? I think we can safely assume that by "No new taxes" and "Job Creation", the Tea Party really means "radical right-wing social agenda, and net job losses, through massive Federal, State, and local government job cuts."

And now, with the Debt ceiling looming, the Lemmings in the Tea Party appear ready and willing to kill the economy..I mean lower our taxes and create jobs.

Enjoy your Tea...

The Presbyterian Church (USA): Towards a Church as Just as God's Grace

This week, I have been following with great joy (and some amusement), the recent vote on amendment 10a in the Presbyterian Church(USA). What is amendment 10a? To summarize, amendment 10a effectively reverses 1996 legislation that previously restricted ordained ministry to candidates who were chaste in singleness, or married to a partner of the opposite sex. Although this small part of the Presbyterian Book of order says nothing about homosexuality, the result was to categorically exlude all Gay and Lesbian candidates from ordained ministry, unless they agreed to remain celibate. To me, this requirement had several flaws: 1) In the Presbyterian Church, the process for working towards ordained ministry begins in the local church, and ends with the approval of the presbytery. At no point in the process, is the national body involved. This legislation (known as g1016b), inserts the national body in the process of ordination. 2) God's Call. I have a very serious problem with organizations that refuse to recognize God's call, in candidates for ministry. I have spoken with several members of clergy, as well as some who have served on nominating committees. There have been times in our history, where otherwise gifted candidates were turned away, simply because of the people they are attracted to, or the relationships they may have. I believe that as a reformed body of believers, we should have standards for ordained ministry. However, I believe that sexual orientation should not be one of those. 3) G6.0106b places emphasis on one of the many "nonessentials" of the faith, rather than on what most in the PC(USA) view as the essentials. Amendment 10a changes all of this, replacing the text of G6.0106b with clear standards on ordained ministry that make sense. The former G6.0106b (listed first), is replaced by amendment 10a (listed second):

6.0106b:

"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and

in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the

requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman

(W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice

which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or

ministers of the Word and Sacrament."

10A

" Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to

submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body

responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s

calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall

include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all

requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003).

Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual

candidates.”

The result, is a church that is not afraid to live out its calling in ministry to and with all people. Too often, Christian institutions are viewed as old-fashioned, out of touch, and unwilling to reach out to the marginalized, the poor, or those who society says are "different". This is an important step in the right direction, and towards a church that is "as Just as God's Grace".

Donald Trump, or Donald Duck: The Hairy Reality of U.S. Politics and Policy

Things Donald Trump and Donald Duck share in common: 1) They are both comedy sideshows 2) They have cartoon-worthy hair 3) They are both unnecessarily loud and 4) They are both equally qualified to run for president.

This statement (while intended with a dose of humor), is something that should give one pause, when considering the fact that Donald Trump has a chance of becoming our next president. We, as voters who wish to exercise our privilege with due diligence and care, should be asking ourselves who we would want in the Oval Office, with access to state secrets, and the nuclear launch codes. We should carefully consider whether Donald Trump has what it takes to be not only commander in chief, but PR director in chief. Does he have the composure and maturity to be the leader of the free world? Would his brash style get us into trouble abroad? One needn't look too far to see that politics in the United States has become comedic to the point of absurdity. It was a few short years ago, when Sarah Palin was on the Vice Presidential ticket alongside Senator John McCain. We all know how that turned out! If the GOP intends to be taken seriously as a national party, they must seek candidates who are electable. While birtherism and petty insults will buy Donald Trump popularity with his base, I do not believe this will play well in a GOP primary, or against a popular incumbent president. When "The Donald" (not the Duck) jumped on the birther bandwagon, his obsession with the birthed issue should have immediately raised red flags within RNC leadership, and folks should have immediately sought to dismiss these claims (and his presidential aspirations). Soon after Trump's tyrades began, President Obama released the "long form" birth certificate that Trump and others had sought. Rather than admitting that the "facts" of the Birther movement were a mere figment of his overactive (and over-wigged) imagination, Trump proceeded to congratulate himself several times on forcing the release of the birth certificate: 

"I am so proud of myself because I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish,"

"I want to look at it, but I hope it’s true so we can get onto much more important matters, so the press can stop asking me questions. I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue,"

"We have to look at it, we have to see is it real, is it proper, what’s on it, but I hope it checks out beautifully. I am really proud; I am really honored."

So, where do we go from here? For starters, we need to stop giving the microphone to provocateurs like Donald J. Trump. Trump (and those like him) are in it for the recognition, and for the spotlight. The man is a professional showman, a marketeer, a money-maker, and a charlatan. If there is an opportunity to make more money, or to gain the spotlight even for a minute, Donald J. Trump will be there as fast as the birds nesting in his hair can fly him there. We need serious candidates, who are willing to push aside the urge to live and thrive off empty rhetoric, absurd soundbites, and who are truly capable of engaging in sound policy debates.

My Faith

As I sit in my usual seat at Allsaints Coffee, surrounded by hipsters, several homeless individuals, other students, and people from all walks of life, I find myself pondering the world as it stands currently, and my faith.

A few weeks ago, I made the decision to cancel my seasonal membership at my home church (a United Methodist congregation). This was partially prompted by the fact that I only go home three times a year, and that my parents had left that congregation. The church my parents have transferred to (another United Methodist congregation) is just simply not a good fit. After some consideration, I decided to move my seasonal membership to Riviera United Church of Christ, which is LGBT affirming, and local.  

As for my spiritual life in Tallahassee, I am fortunate to have found a great church family at First Presbyterian Church. First Presbyterian Church (or "Old First Church", as it is affectionately called by many locals) is led by Rev. Dr. Brant Copeland. To say that Brant is outspoken is an understatement. In his polite and thoughtful way, he challenges us to think more deeply about our faith, and how it relates to our own personal calling as we engage with the world around us, dealing with issues of poverty, injustice, oppression, and privilege. In my time here, I have watched this church make a real impact on our community. When legislation regarding equal protection in the workplace and benefits for LGBT persons came before the city council, Brant made his voice heard loud and clear, as a supporter of the measure, joining several other faith leaders. When the Imokalee farm workers were at the capital to protest abusive work conditions, he was there, at their side, and Old First Church was there to provide shelter and food. This should come as no surprise for those who know Brant, as he has this same respect for/ compassion for all of Tallahassee's underprivileged and under-represented citizens. Last year, I voted with the Property council to install a solar power system in our church facility, as part of our ongoing work as an Earth Care Congregation. Although the initial cost was high, the project has indeed proven to be a success story. Each sunday, as I walk out the doors of the church, as I hear the sounds of our magnificent organ behind me, as I look up to see these solar panels at work, and as I look down to watch a line of  homeless and hungry neighbors entering the church to be fed, I know I am home, and that God is at work here. Thanks be to God! 

The REAL Republican Platform: Regression

Today, I came to a profound realization. The Republican Party has only only one platform: regression. Regression on all fronts. Before I continue, let's examine the dictionary definition of "regression". opposite of "Progression". In simple terms, the RNC has made clear its intent to roll back civil liberties on all fronts (which is nothing new), and that the appointment process of officials will include racist overtones. Hint: when senators complain that a person's race will create "bias", and that this should bar you from service on the Supreme Court, that is racism. Not implied racism, not undercurrents of racism, but hit-you-in-the-head-with-a-ton-of-bricks racism. On Health care, anything other than tax cuts are out of the question for many in the party of "No". With comments like that of Cynthia Davis, who stated that "hunger can be a positive influence", when referring to cancelling a school lunch program for needy children, there is no doubt that progress is not on the plate (pun intended). On issues like GLBT concerns, the answer is that DADT works, marriage (and all benefits) are for straight couple only, and that GLBT persons can be singled out by employers, coworkers, and others for discrimination. On Financial issues, the RNC still adheres to the philosophy that "the best regulation is no regulation". We can all see now how "well" this particular policy has worked in the last several years. so, I now congratulate the Republican party for finally creating a consistent, cohesive platform. Welcome to the party of "no".

Why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Fails as a Policy, and The "Top Seven" Reasons Why I Feel This Way Share

Ok, so I will begin by saying that I am a nosy person. I often hear what people say, whether I really want to hear about it or not (usually the latter, unfortunately). I was at the gym, and overheard a couple of people discussing the DADT, and the whole "gay" issue. To give a background for those who did not come into political awareness until after the Clinton administration, the concept of "Don't ask, Don't Tell" was introduced in 1993 as a compromise between then president Bill Clinton (who stated in a campaign promise that he wished to end the ban on homosexuals serving in the military), and House and Senate Republicans (who wished to keep the complete ban in place). The conversation that I overheard really brought me back into reality for a moment. I am used to a Liberal/ progressive Church background, have wonderfully accepting parents and friends, and have been out and open for a long time mow. It constantly surprises me how different the real world is. The conversation centered around homosexuals as individuals, what should and should not be allowed, and how it relates to DADT. Both parties involved expressed great fear and anger towards the gay community. One compared gays serving in the military to bin laden and al-queda being asked to join the US military, and the other stated that if one of his employees came out, he/she would be immediately fired. I can understand the fear, but I cannot get past the fact that people like this just do not seem to understand the full extent of what they are saying. In critiquing these statements, I will start off with the obvious: I am not a terrorist. Gays and lesbians are not going to infiltrate U.S. forces, and attack. Onto the second comment: The sad reality is that a person can indeed be fired for any reason under state employment laws, and every group is protected from firing except gays and lesbians. This means essentially, that the person who said he would fire any homosexual under his employment could indeed do so legally. This is a real problem, and I am frustrated by people who don't understand that it is indeed a civil rights issue. I do not see how anyone should be allowed to base employment on something like this. It really is that simple folks...everyone should have the same rights for employment. "The Gay" is not going to destroy the military. "The Gay" is not a disease, people... get it right. Now, to sum up my logic here, my "top seven" reasons why DADT is such a flawed policy are listed below:

1) We continue to lose valuable, skilled servicemen and women at a time when recruitment and retention are at record lows

2) The military personnel whose careers have been terminated cost (on average) over ten million dollars to re-train. This is taxpayers money being "thrown away" every time this policy is enacted.

3) At a time when jobs are hard to come by, many of these individuals will be terminated before they have reached tenure to be eligible to receive pensions, and medical benefits, leaving them "high and dry" without any warning.

4) Most industrialized nations have eliminated policies which ban homosexuals from serving in the military with great success.

5) What kind of message are we sending to the world with policies such as this one? We welcome you...unless you are____. This kind of message is not one that should be tolerated in this country.

6) This is a civil rights issue. It is not something that will cost money, and it is not something that I think needs much debate. To those who say "now is not the time", I ask a simple question: If not now, then when???