A little context for the complementarian-egalitarian debate

In the past few weeks the complementarian-egalitarian debate has again featured prominently in the blogosphere. Perhaps it is time for a little context.

From Allison Dinoia Newcombe at the Huffington Post:

Last week, I visited the spot where a young girl was brutally murdered, set on fire and burned to death in the middle of the street in Los Angeles. I have searched to find answers about her plight, but to no avail; this story barely made local news. She was just 17 years old.
[…]
Every single day, girls in Los Angeles are kidnapped and coerced by traffickers and pimps into a life of sexual slavery and violence. The average age of entry into this life is 12 years old — the age of a child in seventh grade. There are hundreds of children affected by this crisis in LA alone. Alarmingly, yet not surprisingly, estimates consistently show over 70 percent of the children victimized through sex trafficking are foster children. Traffickers know that foster kids are an abused and vulnerable population, and that these girls are desperate for the love and attention that they did not receive from their own families. Lacking the necessary relationships and support, coupled with likely sexual and physical abuse at a young age, these girls are particularly at risk for the organized and pre-meditated tactics of traffickers.

Child sex trafficking, though largely unheard of and often misunderstood, is in fact a domestic crisis. It has become one of the most common organized crimes in the country, third only after the sale of illegal drugs and arms. Gangs, which have been entrenched in Los Angeles neighborhoods for many years, are increasingly becoming involved in child sex trafficking. Gang members have learned that, unlike drugs or weaponry, a young girl’s body is a “commodity” that can be sold time after time. An added benefit for traffickers is the decreased risk: when selling girls, the primary risk falls on the child being sold, who is standing alone on the street, not on the trafficker who is safely out of sight. And while a child is not of age to consent to sex, they can be arrested and charged with the crime of prostitution due to legal loopholes. Just last week I observed a court hearing where a 12-year-old was being charged with the crime of prostitution. Likely pre-menstrual, still with a childish look in her eyes, she sat in court in an orange jumpsuit, with tears streaming down her cheeks, while the judge explained the charges.

Do not miss it: a 17 year old girl, set afire and burned to death in the middle of a street in Los Angeles, California, USA.

Do not miss it: a 12-year old girl, likely brutalized and trafficked by a gang, arrested and charged with prostitution by cops and D.A.s who should know better. With tears on her face she sits in front of a judge who may be too uncaring to set aside unjust laws. Or possibly hindered by a legislature too stupid to change them.

From a Reuters report entitled, “Syrian forces use sexual violence against men, women, children”:

[Human Rights Watch] said many of the assaults were in circumstances in which commanding officers knew or should have known the crimes, such as electric shocks to genitalia, were taking place.

In another face-to-face interview a woman from the Karm al-Zeitoun neighborhood of Homs city which was overrun by Assad’s troops said she heard security forces and shabiha militia rape her neighbors while she hid in her apartment in March.

“I could hear one girl fighting with one of (the men)… She pushed him and he shot her in the head,” HRW quoted the woman as saying. She said three girls, the youngest aged 12, were then raped. After the men left the woman went next door.

“The scene on the inside was unreal. The 12-year-old was lying on the ground, blood to her knees… More than one person had raped the 12-year-old… She was torn the length of a forefinger. I will never go back there. It comes to me. I see it in my dreams and I just cry.”

Some interviewees told HRW that victims did not want their families to know about the assault because of fear or shame. In one case, HRW said a female rape victim was willing to be interviewed but her husband forbade it.

Do not miss it: a 12-year old girl gang-raped in an apartment. Brutalized emotionally, psychologically and physically with body ripped as if she had endured a traumatic childbirth.

In fact here’s an entire website dedicated to tragedies being endured by women in Syria: Women Under Siege: Documenting Sexualized Violence in Syria. Recent entries included, “Woman tells Brandeis students Assad soldiers raped her,” “Man reports Republican Guards raped woman, killed men, in Douma apartment building,” “Former officer describes being ordered to rape in Homs,” and more.

Or this from the Chattanooga Times Free Press, September 2012:

Note to parents: Go check your kid’s cellphone. Or Facebook. Just check. Just … check.

Back in April 2010, one mother did just that. Her daughter was 14 at the time, right in the thick of middle school. Should be texting about cute boys or Hannah Montana or pre-algebra problems.

Instead, here’s what showed up in her sent texts.

“Cud u use a condom this time. I’m still not on birth control pills yet.”

You’d freak, right? Ready to wring the neck of some punk seventh-grader? Mom found more texts, all involving a caller known as “Greg.” Police traced the texts back to a cellphone number. Turned out Greg hadn’t been in middle school since the 1970s.

He’s Greg Austin, a 46-year-old Ooltewah father of three and former president of CTC Technologies in Chattanooga.

Earlier this year, he pleaded guilty to two charges of statutory rape: having sex with two middle-schoolers in a $45-per-night motel.

Want to know where he is today?

Not in jail.

Thanks to sentencing reform and the fact Austin had no prior record, he received six months of jail, followed by 18 months’ probation and registration as a sex offender.

Even though he pleaded guilty to statutory rape of two girls barely old enough to see a PG-13 movie.

Know how many days in jail he has served for that crime?

“Zero,” said his attorney, Bryan Hoss.

Two middle school girls manipulated into sex–raped–by a man old enough to be their Dad. Probably, he was fantasizing that he was.

Or consider these statistics from Forbes:
–One in every four women have experienced severe physical violence by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend.
–Stalkers victimize approximately 5.2 million women each year in the U.S, with domestic violence-related stalking the most common type of stalking and often the most dangerous.
–One in ten 9th-12th grade students (mail and female) were physically hurt on purpose by a boyfriend or girlfriend in 2009 alone.
–One in five women have been raped in their lifetimes, and nearly 1.3 million women in the U.S. are raped every year.
–The statistics are sobering – even more so with our understanding that these types of crimes are often the most underreported. Many victims suffer in silence without confiding in family and friends, much less reaching out for help from hospitals, rape crisis centers, shelters, or even the police.

According to the newly released documentary, The Invisible War, which gathered its statistics from the United States government, a female soldier in combat zones is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire; over 20% of female veterans have been sexually assaulted while serving in the US army; of 3,192 sexual-assault reports in 2011 only 191 members of the military were convicted at courts martial. Further, as reported by ABC News,

As terrible as the rape was, the repercussions were almost as horrendous — [single] women were accused of adultery (if the perpetrator happened to be married) or “conduct unbecoming an officer.”

Kori Cioca

Cori Cioca, formerly of the United States Coast Guard, alleges assault and rape by a superior officer [Image credit]

They lost rank, they were accused of having “set up the men.” When one of the women reported a rape — the third that week in one particular unit — she was asked, “You girls think this is a game; are you all in cahoots?”
[…]
A Navy study conducted anonymously reported that 15 percent of incoming recruits had attempted or committed rape before entering the military, twice the percentage of an equivalent civilian population. Women who’ve been raped in the military have a higher PTSD rate than men in combat. In 2010, there were 2,617 military victims (women and men), but that represented only about 14% of the estimated number of victims; 86% did not report they had been sexually assaulted.

Until early 2012 military regulations required rapes be reported to one’s supervising officer. It was all to common, in cases where the victim was female, for that officer to be her rapist.

If you have not seen The Invisible War check out iTunes, Amazon.com, Vudu.com or the website above.

While on the subject of the military do not forget the fastest growing segment of the homeless population is women, many of them veterans.

Native American women? How about this?

The official number is bad enough: One in three American Indian women have experienced rape or attempted rape, a rate more than twice the national average. But it gets worse: One survey finds that in some rural villages, the rate of sexual violence is as much as 12 times the national rate, and interviews by the New York Times found that sexual assault is so common that few, if any, Native American women living on tribal reservations escape it.

The Times article relays wrenching stories (the 19-year-old rape victim who never received a return phone call from tribal police), offers more heartbreaking statistics (just 10% of sex assaults on reservations are reported, and arrests are made in just 13% of those cases), and details the myriad problems contributing to the tragic situation: isolated villages; alcohol abuse and a breakdown of the family structure; a lack of sexual assault training.

Look at this picture of Tarana Akbari, a young Afghani girl. She survived a suicide bomber’s attack that claimed seven members of her family and injured nine of her other relatives. This is anger. This is hurt. This is the face of one suffering inexplicable injustice. This is real; not manufactured. Complementarian vs egalitarian? It does not even get into the ballpark.

An egalitarian friend of mine read this yesterday to provide feedback. She wrote back:

Feminist and womanist theologians in the Third World have long accused white Western feminists of focusing on semantics and meaningless symbols (like female language for God) instead of doing real things to help real women suffering all over the world.

Now, go ahead and tell me how wrong it was that you did not get to teach that Sunday School class because there were men in it. Tell me how some couple is in sin because she cuts the grass and he vacuums the house rather than holding traditional gender roles. Tell me how debates about semantics and theology even come close to the tragedies endured by women–from those born to those unborn–on whom Satanic war has been waged since the Garden of Eden.

I wonder if these victims of inhuman barbarity wake up each day frustrated because they were not allowed to speak at a panel discussion, did not have their CV considered by a pastor search team, or thinking their dad was too patriarchal. Think about these stories when you are trying to decide whether a women testifying in church can speak behind the pulpit or must stand on the floor so as not to be confused with the preacher.

Tell me instead how unborn girls have a right to live. Tell me 12 year olds have a right to not be sexually brutalized 70 or more times a week. Tell me how women have a right not to be raped by soldiers or law enforcement officers. Tell me teenage girls should not be shot for wanting an education. Tell me seventeen year olds should not be burned to death in the street.

Tell me the gospel matters for more than discussion, debate and division. Tell me these women matter more than the luxury we have for endless disagreements.

If they do matter then why do we not redeem the time in a way reflecting it?

Below is a brief TED Talk called, “Every 15 Seconds.” It was presented by Matt Friedman at TEDxSanJoaquin. The title refers to the frequency people around the globe are sold into some kind of human slavery. Women, girls, men, and boys.

Listen to him talk about professional rapists. Do not even try to hold your anger.

Adventures in food stamps: a personal story

I have never been on food stamps. Sonya, my wife, was raised in a family that has never been on food stamps.

A while back I was underemployed for a period of almost two years. My income was drastically reduced. Twice during that time we strongly considered at least applying for food stamps (now called SNAP–Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The second time I had already found the office address for making the trip to apply. Both times we decided not to apply. We do not have the experience of being looked at with disdain by other shoppers who wonder if we are lazy, criminal, or “just poor.” Or those other shoppers who examine the groceries of such folks for any non-generic items.

We did enough research to know the stamps have been traded for reloadable cards. Rather than a book of tear off sheets, recipients pay just like using a debit card. Folks around the check-out line who are not paying attention may not even realize the difference.

Which brings me to a story of Sonya yesterday at our local Aldi grocery store (a story she did not want to to relate, but here we are).

The lady in front of Sonya, whose groceries were being scanned, was old enough to be in the social security range. Sonya watched as they removed item after item from her order, rerunning her card to no avail. Soon it became clear the woman did not have any money on her card.

It was about this time Sonya realized she was trying to pay with her SNAP card. She heard the customer and cashier discussing what day of the month and that the card should already have been refilled for use. It dawned on the lady trying to buy the groceries that no matter how many groceries were removed she could not pay for what was left.

As Sonya watched these events unfold the Holy Spirit prompted her to include the lady’s purchase in our own. So she said to the cashier, “I’ll get hers. Just include it with my groceries.”

After the expected quizzical looks from customer and cashier, the customer expressed her profound appreciation. After the transaction was completed she and Sonya hugged several times, near tears. Sonya said, “God will meet your needs and He’ll meet ours.” About then the cashier let loose with “That’s right! Amen!” and a small revival was had in the grocery story.

As they were getting ready to leave the lady then asked, “Where do you go to church?” After Sonya told her, she said, “Well, I was about to invite you to mine.”

I relate this story primarily to highlight generosity and the blessing of following God. But there is another component.

When talking about the poor we often hear the argument, “It is not the responsibility of the government to help the poor. It is the responsibility of the church.” It sounds good, right? It sounds right, right?

But is not the church (or churches) made up of people? Of we who claim the name of Jesus? How much helping of the poor do we really do? If all income taxes were to fall away overnight, would Christ followers increase their offerings or increase their possessions? Would we buy pants, shirts, gloves, and food for those in need, or empty our own closets of perfectly good threads to make room for armloads from our favorite clothier?

feeding the hungry and homeless

Would we feed the hungry and homeless? [Image credit]

In a conversation with a homeless person yesterday, Sonya found out his greatest need is for thermal underwear (as he stands in the cold selling newspapers). If we fill that need it may mean that one of us does without something we would like to have. Just how long would we live like that?

Would churches reallocate their budgetary funds away from buildings and property that house the faithful once or twice a week to construct, fund, and staff shelters for the long-term and transitional homeless? Organize and provide job training or job opportunities? You know, the stuff some say the government should be doing?

If churches were suddenly awash in cash from generous members would they join together with other churches to supplement the food needs in their community, or just hire additional staff to do the ministry the members should already be doing?

In short, would we “do justice,” or merely do business as usual?

Support this blog! Even $1 is helpful. No PayPal account necessary.





Ground Zero, Syria [PHOTOS]

“It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.”
Robert E. Lee

“I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower


My son Timothy alerted me last week to this blog, the LiveJournal of Ilya Plekhanov, editor of military and literary almanac, The Art of War. These sites are in Russian some of which Chrome will translate into English. (See also Plekhanov on the Russian edition of Forbes.) All of the photos below are from the collection on the LiveJournal blog.

While viewing the photos I was reminded of the hell of war. I also question why so many who follow Christ seem given over to it, at times with virtual bloodlust. For people who follow the Prince of Peace, who often made fun of the “peace-niks” of the 60s, we should be reminded yet again that Jesus words, “There will be wars and rumors of wars,” was not intended to be a foreign policy statement.

What questions should Kingdom residents ask? Is the violence in Syria merely a civil war? How are we involved behind the scenes? Is this all about installing a democracy friendly to U.S. interests? Passive toward Israel?

How many of the people in the pictures below do not or did not know Christ? How many have never or had never heard a clear presentation of the gospel? How many are now or soon will be in a Christ-less eternity?

In the below photo gallery, compiled during October and the first of November 2012, the struggles of Syria are chronicled. There is a warning before the more graphic ones. But I encourage you to look unless you absolutely cannot. Be reminded. War is hell. People die. Eternity never ends.

When is it worth it? When is it not?

syria
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria buildings
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria people
war in syria people
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria fighters
war in Syria bullet holes
war in Syria rifle scope


WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS INCLUDE SCENES OF INDIVIDUAL VIOLENCE, BLOOD AND SOME GORE


war in Syria gore killing

Two men with guns accost an apparently unarmed man.


war in Syria gore killing

The unarmed man appears to be attempting evasive action.


war in Syria gore killing

The unarmed man lies dead from a bullet to the head.


war in Syria
war in Syria gore killing
war in Syria gore killing
war in Syria gore killing

A man appears to be running for cover.


war in Syria gore killing

Apparently the man has been wounded.


war in Syria gore killing
war in Syria gore killing

As someone extends help to the man in the street, I wondered if the man laying wounded or dead on the sidewalk is the man who was in the foreground in the first picture of this series.


war in Syria gore shoes
war in Syria Mom child

People are people. Nobody wants their child to die.

Food stamps and voting: What do the maps show?

Before the election much hubbub was made about the numbers of people being added as recipients to the SNAP (food stamp) program. Some wondered at the possibility of those being bought votes. In the form of a question, did the Obama administration recruit people to the assistance program to ensure a re-election victory? In the mean time, people wondered, were we being bled dry be a bunch of lazy, shiftless, good for nothings who are just taking advantage of the governmental teat?

According to the Wall Street Journal the average food stamp family in 2010 had $731 per month in gross income. They received just $287 per month from SNAP. The Journal also reported

Nearly 21% of households on food stamps also received Supplemental Security Income, assistance for the aged and blind. Some 21.4% received Social Security benefits. Just 8% of households also received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the cash welfare program.

But some 20% of households had no cash income of any kind last year, up from 15% in 2007, the year the recession began, and up from 7% in 1990.

That’s partly because most household heads who were receiving food stamps were also out of work. Just 21.8% of them had jobs in 2010, while 19.8% were jobless and looking for work.

More than half of household heads who received food stamps, 51.1%, weren’t in the labor force and weren’t searching for work. Labor-force dropouts have been a particular concern for economists, who worry their lost potential damages economic output. Those who drop out of the work force often turn to other government programs, such as Social Security disability, which is costly.

[…]

Just 6.7% of households who received food stamps were getting jobless benefits.

Nearly half of all food-stamp recipients, 47%, were children under the age of 18. Another 8% of recipients were age 60 or older.

Whites made up the largest share of food stamp households, 35.7%. Some 22% of households receiving food stamps were counted as African American and 10% were Hispanic.

U.S. born citizens made up the majority, 94%, of food stamp households.

While it is true SNAP users have increased dramatically under the Obama administration a substantial increase had already begun under the Bush 43 administration. The extent of the economic downturn between the fall of 2007 and 2011 would likely have seen a continued increase if there had been a third Bush term. (Only Clinton at -8.2% and Reagan at -2.4% have overseen declines in the last eight presidencies.)

So what about the votes? Below are four national county maps. The first is voting by county for the 2008 election. Then the amount of county-by-county increase in food stamps recipients between 2007-2009. Beneath that is the percentage of residents on food stamps in each county nationally in 2009. Finally, a county-by-county voting map of the 2012 election.

I am neither a cartographer, a politician nor the son of either. However, it looks like an awful lot of counties with high concentrations of food stamp recipients voted Red (ie, GOP). It is true that the highest numbers of recipients are in Blue (Dem) areas, but I think it is too strong a suggestion to say all food stamp recipients voted Democratic. It is also too strong to say Obama carried the day because of that vote. Since 18M people been added since Obama took office and he won by less than 3M votes, and since he garnered 9M more votes in 2008, it seems hard to argue that SNAP recipients contributed meaningfully to his victory.
2008 election map

u.s. county map food stamp growth

2009 u.s. county map food stamps

2012 election u.s. county map

Thoughts?

New Les Miserables long trailer out now [VIDEO]

A new long trailer has been released for the soon to be released cinematic musical version of Les Miserables.

les miserable hugh jackman

A scene from Les Miserables [Image credit]


It looks and sounds fantastic. The primaries appear to be amazing–save Russell Crowe singing–and I am guessing the casting of Sacha Baron Cohen will prove a stroke of genius.

Christmas Day.

(HT: Steve McCoy)

Friedersdorf on the abject failure of conservative media

Rush Limbaugh

Conservative radio theater host, Rush Limbaugh [Image credit]

Over the last few weeks I have come to appreciate the writings of Conor Friedersdorf, columnist for The Atlantic. Following last night’s election results he addressed the failure of the conservative media to see the big pre-election stories, opting instead for conspiracy theories, and faux news.

The losers, according to Friedersdorf, were the “rank-and-file” conservatives who took Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, as authoritative and truthful casting a wary eye at all other outlets.

From the article:

Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike 4 years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday’s result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout — Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that the election was anything other than a toss-up. Peggy Noonan insisted that those predicting an Obama victory were ignoring the world around them. Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.

Those audiences were misinformed.

Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election ’08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected. Other experts echoed his findings. Readers of The New York Times, The Atlantic, and other “mainstream media” sites besides knew the expert predictions, which have been largely born out. The conclusions of experts are not sacrosanct. But Silver’s expertise was always a better bet than relying on ideological hacks like Morris or the anecdotal impressions of Noonan. Sure, Silver could’ve wound up wrong, but people who rejected the possibility of his being right?

They were operating at a self-imposed information disadvantage.

[…]

You haven’t just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven’t tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they’ve done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.

Why do you keep putting up with it?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because Romney supporters like Jennifer Rubin and Hugh Hewitt saw it as their duty to spin constantly for their favored candidate rather than being frank about his strengths and weaknesses. What conservative Washington Post readers got, when they traded in Dave Weigel for Rubin, was a lot more hackery and a lot less informed about the presidential election.

Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. World Net Daily brought you Birtherism. Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemy in a “Grand Jihad” against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pander in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they’re plausible presidents, rather than national jokes who’d lose worse than George McGovern.

I encourage you to read the entire piece.

I’m sure some will say, “But what about Benghazi? What about Fast and Furious? What about socialism? What about Obamacare?”

To which I answer, “What about the boy who cried wolf?” As conservative media beats the birther drum, the Obama 2016 drum, and every other drum of suspiciousness, why should conservatives be surprised to find the wolf soundly dismissed even when loudly announced?

Conservative media, like liberal media, does not exist to tell the truth. It exists to relate a narrative. Each narrative fulfills–they hope–two functions: to sell ads and to make money. I really do not see this as cynicism. This is just reality.

The air inside any bubble eventually becomes toxic.

As long as Americans–conservative and liberal, Right and Left–eat pablum like it is a 5-star breakfast and drink muddy water like Italian roast, media sources will be content to serve it up as a never ending feast.

For Election Day: Malcolm X on blind party allegiance [AUDIO]

Before you start down that path, understand I am not defending, promoting or worshiping Malcolm X. From his bio on Wikipedia:

Malcolm X ( /ˈmælkəm ˈɛks/; May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), born Malcolm Little and also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz[1] (Arabic: الحاجّ مالك الشباز‎), was an African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist. To his admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. Detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy, and violence. He has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history.

Malcom X in 1964


Malcolm X’s father died—killed by white supremacists, it was rumored—when he was young, and at least one of his uncles was lynched. When he was thirteen, his mother was placed in a mental hospital, and he was placed in a series of foster homes. In 1946, at age 20, he went to prison for breaking and entering.

In prison Malcolm X became a member of the Nation of Islam and after his parole in 1952 he quickly rose to become one of its leaders. For a dozen years Malcolm X was the public face of the controversial group, but disillusionment with Nation of Islam head Elijah Muhammad led him to leave the Nation in March 1964. After a period of travel in Africa and the Middle East, he returned to the United States, where he founded Muslim Mosque, Inc. and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. In February 1965, less than a year after leaving the Nation of Islam, he was assassinated by three members of the group.

Malcolm X’s expressed beliefs changed substantially over time. As a spokesman for the Nation of Islam he taught black supremacy and advocated separation of black and white Americans—in contrast to the civil rights movement’s emphasis on integration. After breaking with the Nation of Islam in 1964—saying of his association with it, “I was a zombie then … pointed in a certain direction and told to march”—and becoming a Sunni Muslim, he disavowed racism and expressed willingness to work with civil rights leaders, though still emphasizing black self-determination and self-defense.

Below is the audio from a speech to a group of African Americans. Though Malcolm X is deriding them unceasingly for their support of the Democratic party, his observations about party loyalty are true across the board. The last build-up and closing sentence are the stuff of a speaker’s dreams.

If you are heading to the polls today, I encourage you to give a listen to this four minutes and think about how these words apply to what we as a nation continue to experience as a result of blind party loyalty.

Six reasons to consider voting third party

Throughout this election season, as in the last one, I have written and discussed here and on Facebook about the need to break the two party, Democrat-Republican dominated political system in the United States. The adversarial aspect of this system has led to a stymied congress, lies, deceit, and an ongoing “lesser of two evils” approach to voting.

voting boothThe election tomorrow seems to be potentially as close as any since Bush-Gore in 2000. Some have even speculated of an Electoral College tie between president Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Some of my friends have made the informed decision not to vote–and have been castigated for it.

The objection I normally face has been that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Barack Obama (if the objection is coming from a conservative) or a vote for Mitt Romney (if coming from a liberal). I reject this reductionistic approach as inaccurate and illogical. Others say a vote for a third party candidate is akin to throwing away one’s vote. On the contrary, I say voting for someone who does not best represent your principles and philosophy of government is throwing away your vote.

Considering such dominance from the Democratic and Republican parties when should you vote for a national candidate not among the two major parties?

1. When you would have to violate your conscience to do so. If an issues or issues important to you are ignored by the most well known candidates do not cast a vote for them.

2. If neither candidate has earned your vote. I do not look at my vote as something I give to a candidate. It is something they must earn. If he or she does not earn it, they do not get it.

3. If your state is polling overwhelmingly toward one candidate or the other. My state, Tennessee, has been Republican since before Obama was elected. It is not about to change; polling is not close to the margin of error. Because of the Electoral College, every single vote truly does not matter; only the total number of votes matter. For that reason you can confidently vote for the candidate your prefer with no concern you might rip the space time election continuum.

4. If you consider the lesser of two evils argument to be abhorrent. Some Christians will make the argument that we will never have a perfect candidate, so every choice is a lesser of two evils. I find this to be thoroughly unpersuasive. First because the “two evils” necessarily eliminates other, better choices. Second because the lack of perfection does not equate to evil. (Try that on your wife: “No, she’s not perfect. In fact, you might as well say she’s evil.” Good luck with that one.)

5. If you are more concerned about being the cure than spreading the cancer. Our political system, while functional, spews a dangerous toxicity. Abuses of power, mindless spending and selfish gain seem to be the norm on The Hill.

6. If neither major party candidate even begins to address issues of vital importance to justice. Most on the Right have reduced the idea of justice to abortion, while most on the Left have similarly reduced it to taking care of the poor. Where, in three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debates, were discussions about our unjust justice system, the unjust “War” on Drugs, concerns to address human trafficking, the NDAA, the unjust drone war? They were nowhere to be found. A candidate who thinks these major issues not worth a mention does not even qualify for the office.

Can you think of any other reasons to consider voting for a third (or “minor”) party candidate?

The real issue with abortion and the DNC

The closer the presidential election draws the more attentions return to the issue of abortion. Those on the left cry “women’s rights” while those on the right plead “right to life.” Both sides are passionate, and often enflamed in their attempts to solidify or overturn–respectively–Roe v Wade.

In early September 2012 the Democratic National Convention met in North Carolina. Amidst the debacle over “God” and “Jerusalem” the Democratic Party passed as strong a pro-abortion plank as has been ever hammered into a platform.

In the days following the DNC meeting ABC’s Cokie Roberts said

I think this Democratic Convention was really over-the-top in terms of abortion. Every single speaker talked about abortion. At some point, you start to alienate people. Thirty percent of Democrats are pro-life.

On the same program Roberts challenged Newark, New Jersey mayor Cory Booker

on why the platform committee removed the phrase saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” which had been in the platform since Bill Clinton ran on that platform in 1992.

Below is the abortion plank from the 2012 Democratic National Platform called Moving America Forward. Read it carefully.

Protecting A

Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs. (2012 DNC Platform, pg. 18)

Here is the thing implicit in the DNC platform: abortion and adoption are moral equivalents. This is the real issue with abortion and the Democratic National Convention.

That Democrats affirm the legality of abortion from conception to birth for any reason or no reason is self-evident and has been for decades. But it is startling they cannot even bring themselves to recommend adoption over abortion. This is slavish adherence to ideology at the expense of civilized thinking.

Perhaps pro-life Democrats should be added to the endangered species list.

The moral and ethical position of the DNC is abortion = birth = adoption. Whether a woman aborts a child, keeps a child, or gives the child to adoptive parents it is a morally equivalent decision. No recommendation is made for a preferred end. They “strongly and unequivocally support” all options. Dismembering a child in the womb is given no moral difference from one delivered healthy into the arms of its mother.

Author Steven Waldman noticed this very thing,

[T]he 2004 platform said abortion “should be safe, legal and rare” – language that’s [sic] casts abortion reduction as morally preferable, something this platform does not. [Emphasis added.]

Unfortunately, the DNC does seem to have a moral preference in the matter though unstated. This can be derived from the statistics of the DNC’s preferred provider of abortion, pre-natal care and adoption referrals, Planned Parenthood. In 2010 Planned Parenthood (who, as seen above in the Booker link, was a prominent player at the 2012 DNC) reported the following:

Planned Parenthood did 329,445 abortions while it provided prenatal care to 31,098 women (90% less) and referred only 841 women to adoption agencies.

The number of women receiving prenatal care dropped significantly from 2009 to 2010, as the abortion business helped 40,489 women in 2009 — meaning almost 10,000 fewer women received prenatal support from Planned Parenthood last year than the year prior, or a drop of almost 25 percent.

The number of women getting adoption referrals also declined — from a low 977 in 2009 to 841 last year, or a decline of 14 percent.

Examined another way Planned Parenthood does 391 abortions for every adoption referral it makes and almost 11 abortions for every woman it helps with prenatal care.

The direction the DNC has taken this year is indeed tragic. They have increased their strident support for Roe v Wade to a philosophical landfill in which good and evil are comparable. To quote Javert, “The world is inside out. The world is upside down.”