I’ve been doing some thinking about James Dobson’s crusade against gay cartoon characters - er, I mean cartoon characters who are being used to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians (allegedly).

And now that I think about it, maybe he and I aren’t as far apart on this one as I thought. I don’t think that from a Christ-centered perspective, we should be promoting tolerance at all.

Let me say that again. Followers of Jesus should not be tolerant.

Why? Because Jesus didn’t teach tolerance. His teachings went far beyond that. He taught us that we should be promoting compassion, understanding, and sacrificial love towards all people who are different than ourselves - and that includes people who may have a different sexual orientation than ourselves.

Time and again, Jesus encountered individuals who were clearly sinners as defined by his own teachings - adulterers, divorcees, tax collectors (who were oppressing their own people so that they could get rich). And time and again, he responded to them with a non-judgmental love and compassion - far beyond mere “tolerance.” If Jesus responded this way, certainly there should be room in our hearts for non-judgmental love and compassion for a group that Jesus does not even discuss, much less condemn - gays and lesbians.

But instead, parts of the church have chosen to vilify them, saying that their “agenda” is going to somehow infect our youth. They have chosen to wage war against them, lobbying to get discrimination written into the Constitution. And they have ignored the part that all of us have played in undermining the institution of marriage through our half-hearted commitment to it and instead focused on some imagined threat to it posed by gay marriage. This doesn’t seem very Christ-centered to me.

On second thought, I guess Mr. Dobson and myself are pretty far apart on this after all.

Max takes Glenn Reynolds to task for this statement:

“When Ted Kennedy can make an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech on the war, when Michael Moore shares a VIP box with the last Democratic President but one, when Barbara Boxer endorses a Democratic consultant/blogger whose view of American casualties in Iraq is “screw ‘em,” well, this is the authentic face of the Left. Or what remains of it.”

Read the whole thing - it’s worth it. I particularly liked the way he closes the piece:

“If you had your way, Saddam would still be in power.” Yes, if I had my way, Saddam would probably still be in power. And ten thousand American families would not be suffering. That’s an easy call.

Not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families.

But what I wanted to focus on was something I have discussed a number of times in the past - the fact that supporters of the party currently in power seem to be fixated on using McCarthyesque language to attack those who disagree with them.

Case in point - Reynolds’ repetition of that favorite right-wing talking point: anyone who speaks out against the war is a traitor (or at least, borderline-traitorous).

Now, I’m sure I’m just mistaken here, since Glenn Reynolds is a law professor and all, but I always thought that the First Amendment protected our freedom of speech. And given the fact that we’re supposed to be living in a democratic society, I thought that it was the role of our elected representatives to debate the policies which will be followed by our government, not just rubber-stamp the misguided policies of their overlords.

Not that I would ever want to stoop to their level, but it’s thinking like this which makes me wonder:

Which is more traitorous, exercising your Constitutional right to free speech in order to criticize an unjust war instigated by an administration which used misinformation to get it started, or claiming that those who use those First Amendment rights are “borderline-traitorous”?

And which is more patriotic, calling for our troops to come home from a lost cause which is only making America MORE vulnerable to terrorism, or stubbornly insisting that we rack up another several thousand casualties before we finally retreat with our tail between our legs?

And which is more un-American, calling our President on his repeated misrepresentation of the truth, or being the President who brazenly misrepresents the truth to the American people?

Now, the extreme right (our current overlords) has been terribly effective at framing the language in support of falsehood. But imagine how much more powerful it would be if the rest of us could finally learn to frame our language in support of the truth?

I know, I know, I’m just a traitor like the rest of them. But then, I guess the fifty-five percent of Americans who feel the President is doing a bad job in Iraq are as well, right Glenn?

Bush to seek $80bn for war funds.

That’s 5 years of feeding the world’s hungry, for those counting at home…

The New York Times has an article on a group of relief workers/missionaries from Antioch Community Church and how they are stirring up controversy in Sri Lanka for preaching the gospel during the course of their relief work.

This is especially interesting to me (and a bit worrysome), since I know one of the members of the team (who actually isn’t a part of the church, but went along with the team).

On its face, the article puts the Antioch group in a rather bad light. Whether this is an accurate reflection of the team’s approach or simply the bias of the reporter is hard to tell, but I wanted to pull a few parts of the article out and raise some questions:

The Americans, who all come from one church in Texas, have staged plays detailing the life of Jesus and had children draw pictures of him, camp residents said. They have told parents who lost children that they should still believe in God, and held group prayers where they tried to heal a partly paralyzed man and a deaf 12year-old girl.

On the surface, these activities seem pretty consistent with Jesus’ call to spread the gospel and heal the sick. But it raises some questions about whether the Antioch group’s approach is sensitive to the local conditions. Is Antioch partnering with local Christians? Remember, the Antioch team will only be on the ground for a few weeks and then will leave - it is the local community which will have to deal with any potential backlash (or even a large number of converts) afterwards. It’s really easy to be bold when you’re not the one who is going to face the consequences, most likely.

Last year, Buddhist hard-liners attacked the offices of the World Vision Christian aid group and vandalized or threatened churches and pastors 75 times. They accuse Christians of using money and social programs to cajole and coerce conversions.

This paragraph is a bit unbalanced. What was the response of the local Christian community to these accusations? What is the Buddhist’s definition of “cajole and coerce?” It is possible that from their standpoint, even talking about Jesus is considered coersion.

The Rev. Sarangika Fernando, a local Methodist minister, witnessed one of the prayer sessions in Sri Lanka and accused the Americans of acting unethically with traumatized people. “They said, ‘In the name of Jesus, she must be cured!’ ” he said. “As a priest, I was really upset.”

The heart of the matter is whether this is truly unethical, or if it is merely a difference in approach. I don’t have a good answer to this. I would have to say that I doubt this is unethical - as a follower of Jesus, I believe that while it is absolutely crucial to meet the physical needs of people, there are deeper, spiritual needs which also must be addressed. Now obviously, approach is everything - if these folks were forcing people to attend their presentations in order to receive aid, then yes, that’s unethical. But I suspect that they were merely sharing what they believed to be true with individuals who were free to come and go as they pleased. In any case, I should be able to find out some answers when my friend comes back.

Older Christian aid groups like Catholic Relief Services, Lutheran World Relief and others with religious affiliations say they do not proselytize, abiding by Red Cross guidelines that humanitarian aid not be used to further political or religious purposes.

I’m going to have to say I disagree with this stance. While I certainly agree that humanitarian aid should never require that recipients hear what the workers have to say about religion, I would consider it unethical if you felt you had something that could contribute to spiritual healing and did not share it with those willing to listen.

Residents of the camp here reported no healings as a result of the group’s prayers. But they said they appreciated the aid and activities for children that the group provided and did not want to see them end.

This statement is pretty telling. If what the Antioch group is doing is so bad, then why do these folks want them to continue? I will definitely ask my friend about the healing part though, since I’ve been hearing the opposite about there being physical healings. Someone is misinformed.

In the end, I think it is possible that this group was not as sensitive as they should have been to the local conditions, and did not work closely enough with the local Church leaders who will need to handle the aftermath of their stay. But on the other hand, who we worship is a life and death matter. If we get it wrong, most of the world’s religions say we’re in for a bad eternity. So maybe they can be excused for a little overzealousness if it means that a few more people may be able to get on the lifeboat?

Quick, hide! Tinky Winky and Spongebob are going to turn your kids gay:

Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob’s creators had enlisted him in a “pro-homosexual video,” in which he appeared alongside children’s television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a “tolerance pledge” that includes tolerance for differences of “sexual identity.”

This is a real pity for me, because Focus on the Family truly could play a positive role in promoting intact families (and many of its programs do just that). But I can’t help but think that in the last year they have gone completely off the rails - blurring the line between nonprofit and political action committee (possibly in violation of their nonprofit status), publishing the address of Michael Moore, and now joining Jerry Falwell in the crusade against children’s television.

Note to Focus on the Family: intolerance is NOT a good family value.

On this late eve before Mr. Bush is re-inaugurated President of the United States, I feel it is appropriate to echo the wise words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.”

I sincerely wish Mr. Bush understood the truth behind this statement. I pray that he does before it is too late.

Richard Armitage, outgoing Deputy Secretary of State: “The biggest regret is that we didn’t stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot.”

On this January 20th, Inauguration Day, hope and optimism are in short supply.

Josh Claybourn, to his shame, is once again copying-and-pasting his annual takedown of Martin Luther King, Jr, this time on his new joint blog, In the Agora. I generally respect Mr. Claybourn as one of the few conservative voices in the blog world who puts his politics into the broader context of his faith rather than the other way around. But in this instance, once again, he is wrong. There are 364 other days to talk about King’s humanness and failings, if that needs to be your focus. The day we celebrate his life and the things he and so many others worked for is not one of them.

Today is a day to honor Dr. King’s dream. It is a day to commit ourselves to the Biblical concepts of the “fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man” and the establishment of the “beloved community.” It is a day to recognize within ourselves the ways we have contributed to the continuing racial divide in our country and the continued injustice, violence, and inequality in the world. And more importantly, it is a day to do what we can to stamp out those vices.

It is not a day to insult the memory of perhaps the greatest leader in American history.

I only hope that he reconsiders the way he pays tribute to Martin Luther King next year.

UPDATE: I have generally been willing to give Josh the benefit of the doubt on this subject, but this post makes me wonder if I’m giving him a bit too much credit. I’m not sure if he’s just decided to become the MLK killjoy or if there is an even darker motivation behind it, but his zeal to take MLK down a few notches is a bit disturbing to me, to say the least.

I apologize for the technical problems - the comment authentication “feature” blew up so no comments could be posted for a while. I have turned the authentication off, so hopefully you can post comments freely again.

Eric Seymour is looking beyond Roe v. Wade:

If (as seems more possible now than at any other time in my life) Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will be more like the beginning of the struggle than the end. The fight to ensure every child is protected in law and welcomed in life will continue at the state level and, more importantly, in the hearts and minds of the people.

As an anti-abortion progressive, I appreciate Eric’s long-term goal of ensuring that every child is “protected in law and welcomed in life.” But it is critical that we put some flesh on the bones of this pithy statement. What does it mean for a child to be protected in law and welcomed in life?

Is it sufficient for us to merely protect their existence, but not worry about what kind of existence that will be (or even how long it will last after they enter the world)?

Is it sufficient for our welcoming party to extend only to those precious minutes after the child is born?

Clearly, the answer is no. The struggle should not end even if abortion is outlawed in every state of this country and every part of the world. We must press on to ensure that each child born into the world has more to look forward to than grinding poverty. We must make sure that each child is brought up in a home where they are loved by adults who are equipped to love them. And we must have compassion on the women who currently find themselves in a dilemma where abortion seems the only way out by ensuring that their pregnancies do not become a life sentence to poverty.

And this is a struggle we can wage right now, whether or not the courts ultimately decide if abortion may be outlawed or not. We can work to provide child care to single mothers who would otherwise be forced out of school or the workforce by an unexpected pregnancy. We can encourage adoption of children - all children, regardless of skin color - through tax policy and other means. And we can have a realistic approach to sex education among our teens which encourages abstinence but provides contraception for those who reject our encouragement.

Human rights goes beyond simply the right to life. It extends also to the right to a life worth living.