What is "Traditional Christianity?"

Don't miss Mark Jordan's fantastic article at ReligionDispatches today on the political assumptions made about the "traditional" and "liberal" divide.

I'm as guilty as the next "liberal" of railing against the imposition of "traditional values" in medicine and social services. Jordan gives us the necessary reminder that "traditional values" as proclaimed by the Religious Right (Catholic and Fundamental/Evangelical) are not representative of the whole or even traditional religious teaching. This frame has greatly helped opponents of equality and individual rights. And the media, reticent or unable to report the nuances of religion, have used the frame to perpetuate inaccurate assumptions about religious teaching and adherents.

Of course the Religious Right plays a heavy hand in enforcing the dominance and theological rightness of it's positions. Saying that church theology supports, for instance, gay equality, falls outside the understood, reported, polarized frame. Jordan writes:

You wouldn’t know this reading Steinfels’ description of our recent debates. To be fair, he is hardly alone. Most reporting of religious debates over sexuality, whether in the Times or on the wire services, assumes the same division—or performs the same sleights-of-hand. When self-proclaimed “traditional” voices are quoted against same-sex marriage, they are allowed to claim scriptural evidence, church history, and even the name “Christian.” When other Christian clergy or believers are quoted in support of same-sex marriage, they become “activists” who are allowed only to speak about civil rights or fairness or—sometimes—wispy Christian principles, but not about scripture or church history or faith itself.

I used to think that this was the fault of progressives—that we reverted too often to the bland language of fairness, toleration, or rights. So I tried always to give reporters scriptural and historical arguments. They rarely found their way into print. I wondered whether the forced simplification of religious journalism had a built-in bias for obvious, “literal” readings of scripture. Or whether the need to tell a story—to sell a story—drove reporters back to the familiar plot: venerable belief versus modern liberalism. So I began to experiment with saying very traditional religious things in interviews.

“I support ordaining openly lesbian and gay candidates because that’s where I’m led when I study scripture and pray.”

“My belief in incarnation pushes me toward the blessing of same-sex unions.”

The reaction was mostly an awkward silence. I could hear the typing stop at the other end of the line.

Marriage Equality Defeated in New Jersey.

Yesterday New Jersey voted to prevent equality for all citizens in marriage:

The Jersey City resident was upset and surprised that the state Senate defeated the Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Actin a 20-14 vote today.

Hecht and Beth Achenbach, her partner of eight years, said they don’t know that they can continue to call New Jersey home with states like Connecticut and Washington D.C. close to passing gay marriage laws.

“It’s not that far to move to get equal rights,” Hecht said. “I basically feel like the state of New Jersey doesn’t need my money then.”

She added, “I should probably go to a state that will appreciate everything I have to offer and will take my tax money and will give back fair and equal rights.”

Workplace Discrimination Charges Reach New High.

From an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission release yesterday:

The FY 2009 data show that private sector job bias charges (which include those filed against state and local governments) alleging discrimination based on disability, religion and/or national origin hit record highs. The number of charges alleging age-based discrimination reached the second-highest level ever. Continuing a decade-long trend, the most frequently filed charges with the EEOC in FY 2009 were charges alleging discrimination based on race (36%), retaliation (36%), and sex-based discrimination (30%). Multiple types of discrimination may be alleged in a single charge filing.

The near-historic level of total discrimination charge filings may be due to multiple factors, including greater accessibility of the EEOC to the public, economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, employees’ greater awareness of their rights under the law, and changes to the agency’s intake practices that cut down on the steps needed for an individual to file a charge.

The back-up statistics are here and break the filings down into categories.

Define Social Justice.

The infamous Kathryn Lopez writes at Auburnpub.com that Teddy Kennedy and the left don't own social justice. Jack Kemp, who also died last year, also stood up for social justice. But Lopez is only promoting the right's version of social justice, a strain of the conservative movement that saw "compassion" as a way to shore up the support of the socially concerned - and to impose religious restrictions on "the least of these," an easy target because of their vulnerability in society. They sought/seek to reframe social justice as a patriarchal, religiously dictated approach to serving the poor, the undereducated, the unemployed. And doing so feels good! It means you can pat yourself on the back for your superiority.

I have no interest in painting a left-right, good-evil argument as Lopez does (based on "family values" and the "killing of the unborn.") Both sides of the legislative fence have instituted noble and ill-serving social policies. Many churches, even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, work for the good of the underprivileged and have stood up for health care for immigrants, for instance. Churches do often make a difference for those in need. But when assistance is given with prayer strings attached, it takes the poor hostage. Prayer for food; the belief of the giver in exchanged for what is received.

When social justice is framed as paternalistic "charity" and comes with a strict religious or ideological concept of what lifestyles are acceptable, it becomes patronizing discrimination. Concern for unwed mothers, as noted below, is a good thing when absent the judgement of black women for "having out of wedlock sex" or black men for not marrying their girlfriends. There's nothing the matter with having a child out of wedlock unless you ascribe to a lifestyle view that determines marriage an answer to social problems. Or abstinence an answer to unwanted pregnancy. Such positions approach social challenges with ideological answers, answers that are found in traditional ideas of "life" and family structure and personal responsibility but have little to do with fact and autonomy.

Lopez seems to believe that enforcing traditional, religious laws on the underprivileged will return us to a golden day when all Americans were equal. That day never existed, nor will it. She is willfully ignoring personal freedom of faith and conflating it with poverty. Call it "spiritual poverty."

Our last president worked hard to paint his administration as "compassionate." To prove that compassion, he brought in faith-based initiatives and solutions to social challenges such as abstinence education which have again and again proven ineffective.

True, effective social justice is not the imposition of traditional or religious ideology on the poor. It is a fact-based use of the government's resources and laws to create equality. It is not an excuse to discriminate against lifestyle choices. Until the right gets that straight, they are still working to impose restrictions on segments of society they find lesser and distasteful, not lifting them.

And so right now the world may consider social justice a monopoly of the left. But it's not. The left's dominance over justice issues is a contention that deserves to be challenged. And the challenge has been laid down. It even has a Web site,restoringsocialjustice.com, organized by the Heritage Foundation, and featuring a broad list of contributing organizations, where one can read: “We're troubled that four out of 10 children and nearly seven out of 10 black children in America are born to unmarried mothers, a fact that will cast a long shadow down the course of a child's life.”

They worry that the supposed answers to poverty have turned into an industry with little connection to the people it claims to serve - and they're concerned that government has eliminated the essential relationships in the solution-making process. At the same time, Jeff Kemp warns: “Our ideas seem very principled and pure. But if we treat ourselves as if we have our act together and are the paragons of virtue and everyone can get it because we've got these good ideas, then we've set ourselves above others and no one wants to learn from someone who's setting themselves above others. It's humility that allows your ideas to be transferred.”

That was Jack Kemp's approach. It's also what Ronald Reagan did when he attracted so many so-called Reagan Democrats. It's how you win, and not just elections. It's how you change the world.

“The character of a nation is determined by how we treat the least of God's children,” was a guiding principle by which Kemp operated, as Robert Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise explained during the Kemp forum. That's only right.

Those in Need Are Lazy. Systemic Poverty Is Not Our Fault.

Yes, I once worked for the woefully dated Investor's Business Daily. In marketing. But that was in the early 90s. I see their philosophy is still recklessly dated and discriminatory. If this doesn't wake you up this morning - should you have an ounce of moral justice in you - I don't know what will.

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins who ignore facts, logic, the benefits of privilege, social structures, quality education and systemic inequality; and therefore this screed plays on the mythic and fallacious American idea of "all men are equal." By denying that government favors some races and classes over others, they've continued to feed their own - and their reader's - self-righteous ideas of superiority. Assuming that "the needy" are in need because they are lazy or inferior is blatant discrimination.

It is a prime example of ideological unreason. Factless. Hateful. Privileged. The result of poor thinking, and poorer reasoning. Ignorant of how society actually functions. That this sort of 80s and 90s argument can still be made is astounding to me, after "trickle down" and "entitlement" talk has been so disproven by the decimation of the middle class, continued poverty, joblessness, and other unsolved social ills.

But if one is committed to proclaiming this is the greatest country in the world without questioning why or how, without examining statistics that prove otherwise, how will this country continue as such? The superiority of a class or race in this country has been kept by such ignorance of facts - and to our detriment. Only when the underprivileged are able to contribute to society does stability grow. By usurping the "patriotic" mantle, those who work to oppress and demoralize only do damage. Because they fear losing their privilege, the benefits they and their families have generationally received at the expense of "the needy."

In the run-up to the Senate's passage of the health care bill, opponents of ObamaCare denounced it as an unprecedented expansion of government control over medicine.

They warned of the proven consequences of government medicine, pointing to the rationing that occurs in Canada and Europe.

They pointed to the low cancer survival rates in places like Britain. They cited statistic after statistic showing that ObamaCare will raise costs and lower health care quality in America.

They were right — yet it looks like Obama will get his bill. And even if the Republicans are able to pull off an upset, there is no question that over the coming years government control over health will continue to grow.

Why? Consider the history of government involvement in health care.

In the 1960s there was a perception that some elderly were not receiving adequate health care. To meet this need, Congress passed Medicare. The same concern was voiced about the poor. To meet their need, Congress passed Medicaid.

The same concern was voiced about those too destitute (or too irresponsible) to buy health insurance, and in the '80s Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, forcing emergency rooms to treat anyone who needed medical attention, regardless of their ability to pay.

The same concern was voiced about parents who were too well off for Medicare, but who nevertheless couldn't meet their children's health care needs, and in the late '90s Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The message is clear: If you have a need, you are entitled to have it fulfilled at others' expense.

The reason we continue to move toward socialized medicine is that everyone — including the opponents of socialized medicine — grants its basic moral premise: that need generates an entitlement.

So long as that principle goes unchallenged, government intervention in medicine will continue growing, as each new pressure group asserts its need and lobbies for its entitlement, until finally the government takes responsibility for fulfilling everyone's medical needs by socializing the health care system outright.

Some believe you can stop this process midstream: The government will intervene only to help those in dire circumstances while otherwise leaving people responsible for their own health care. But that's an illusion. If need entitles one to the wealth and effort of others, then there is no logical reason why the government should restrict help to some small subset of the "needy," and refuse to help the rest.