In the letter from the CBS official to the United Church of Christ, the network said it refuses advertising that “touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance.”

Now, the news comes out that CBS will be airing an ad from Focus on the Family featuring Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother with an anti-abortion message – during the Super Bowl, the most prominent television advertising event of the year. Certainly, Focus on the Family will be “touch[ing] on and/or tak[ing] a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance,” no?

Why reject the UCC’s ad, and accept Focus on the Family’s?

The rational reader is left to conclude one of two things: either (a) CBS doesn’t consider an anti-abortion ad from a right-wing political/religious group to be sufficiently controversial, or (b) they’ve changed their policy on controversial ads.

We need to demand accountability from CBS: Either reject Focus on the Family’s ad under their “controversial ad” policy, or give the United Church of Christ an equal opportunity to air their ad during the Super Bowl. This hypocrisy – where an ad taking a right-wing position on perhaps the most controversial issue of our time is accepted, while an ad hinting at a liberal position on an issue of less controversy is rejected – shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

This isn’t about abortion – people on both sides of that issue should be equally incensed that one side’s messages are allowed to get through, while other viewpoints aren’t. This is about basic fairness, about giving the citizens of a democracy the chance to hear all viewpoints rather than just one group’s opinion. Regardless of our disagreements on abortion – and I know we have quite a few – this is something we should all be able to get behind.

If we allow this hypocrisy to stand, in which any moderate or progressive message is deemed “too controversial for TV” while a conservative message is judged to be acceptable, we cede yet more ground to the right-wingers. We can’t let them dominate the broadcast airwaves without having a chance to respond in kind; it’s a matter of basic fairness, of giving the American people the chance to see all sides of the issue rather than just the conservative viewpoint.

I emailed WUSA 9 – my local CBS affiliate – and received a response from their Vice President for Community Relations, who forwarded me this response from CBS:

“Our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a policy that ensures all ads — on all sides of an issue — are appropriate for air.”

That isn’t what they said five years ago. Five years ago, they said that no ad taking a side on an issue was appropriate for their airwaves. Has their policy changed?

Thus, we need to call on CBS to either reject Focus on the Family’s ad, or publicly offer the United Church of Christ the opportunity to air their ad during the Super Bowl as well and make it clear that all viewpoints have an equal opportunity to make their voices heard on CBS’s airwaves.

We need to take action – and here’s how to do it:

1. Contact CBS: Use the feedback forms for CBS Sports and CBS TV, send an email to CBS audience services (audsvcs@cbs.com) and call CBS Sports at (954) 351-2120 demanding that they reject FOTF’s ad or accept the UCC’s.
2. Contact your local affiliate with the same message. Local affiliates will be able to pass messages up the chain in a way we as normal citizens can’t. Click here to find your local affiliate and use their contact options to send them a message.
3. Sign the petition. One of our Facebook friends, Michael Jones, set up a petition on change.org calling on CBS to make its views consistent. Please sign it and share it on Facebook and Twitter.
4. Spread the word about this movement. We’ve got a Facebook group set up for this movement – please join and urge your friends and family to join as well. If this movement goes viral, we can turn a lot of heads.

Together, we can make a difference. Please join us in calling CBS to air all viewpoints or none.

The last time I checked, spending lots of money at christmas wasn’t a big priority of Christ. Neither was all of the hoohaw about saying/doing/looking holy from the “religious” people in his day. Christ cared a lot about the oppressed, poor, neglected, and rejected. He didn’t give a %^&* what the most religious people of the day said was important; in fact, he called them a bunch of hypocrites (and got killed for it). [ . . . ]

You know what offends me? It’s not whether someone says “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas”. It’s when I read that L.L. Bean, Pier 1, and Walmart are known to be actively and intentionally using slave labor in their products. I don’t give a $%^& how many “Merry Christmas” signs they have in their store, as if that makes one flying $%^&’s worth of difference when they are participating in the enslavement of women, men, and children who are created in the image of God. Focus on the Family gives them 12-14% offensive ratings, and 52-71% friendly ratings. No mention of child slavery. No mention of beating or firing workers trying to unionize to protect themselves. No mention of the workers who have died at the factory making the cheap furniture you bought at Ikea. How does “Standing for Christmas” have ANYTHING to do with Christ?

The entire entry’s worth a read.

I’ll be posting another entry in my series on Christmas in the next few days or so.

8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership. (NIV)

Okay, cute, right? They want someone else to be President. How amusing. Whatever.

Except that the Psalm doesn’t stop there. It goes on to say:

9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.

10 May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.

Aaaaaaaand now we’re getting into the territory where things turn decidedly un-Christian.

It’s pretty clear to me that this imprecatory psalm isn’t innocuous; at the very least, the person praying this psalm is praying for the death of the President. If one considers the link between violent language and violent deeds – a link we’ve talked about before – it becomes pretty clear that this could be seen as a clarion call to assassination.

Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Schaeffer) makes this point succinctly in his interview with Rachel Maddow about this phenomenon:

“But now it turns out [in right-wing rhetoric] that he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed, who should be slaughtered if not by God then by just men [. . .] Really, this is trawling for assassins, and this is serious business.”

I’d like to echo what Schaeffer said right there: This is serious business. Words do things; violent rhetoric breeds violent actions. When someone is praying for the President to be struck down by God, it’s only one step further for that person to decide that he or she is God’s instrument to carry out what he or she sees as God’s justice. This is scary stuff here – and it’s only being compounded (again, as Schaeffer points out) by the Manichaean, apocalyptic worldview many evangelical Christians are succumbing to.

But of course, we Christians know that many of the people who would pray this psalm don’t really want to see President Obama struck down – they just want him voted out of office in 2012. Fine. But that’s not what this psalm says, and if we’re nothing else in this world, we should be honest. Praying for God to strike down political leaders we disagree with is not Christian – and those who display bumper stickers, or T-shirts, or coffee mugs bearing a Bible reference that calls for Michelle Obama to be made a widow and Sasha and Malia to be “fatherless” and “wandering beggars” soil the name of Christ in this world. They give all Christians a bad name with their implication that such thinking is in any way in line with Christian morality or values.

In other words – all Christians should stand side-by-side against such thinking. There’s nothing “cute” or “amusing” about a bumper sticker or a T-shirt that calls for the President of the United States to be killed, whether that be by God’s hand or man’s. For the sake of the Gospel, for the sake of Christianity’s reputation in a skeptical world, we must stand against this phenomenon and be vocal about our stance. We must make it clear that such rhetoric is in no way Christian, and that those who would pray such a thing are not praying in the Holy Spirit.

The upshot of this is clear: If you’re a Christian, and someone you know has one of these bumper-stickers, you have a responsibility to say something to them – particularly if they’re part of your church. If responsible Christians don’t stand up against hateful and violent language among us, we shouldn’t be surprised when the world thinks we’re hateful and violent. We need to stand up to our fellow Christians and let them know that things like this bumper-sticker are not of Christ, and tell them in the name of Jesus that they need to stop using violent and hateful language.

And we need to pray for President Obama, whether or not we agree with his politics, as Paul says in 1 Timothy:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

May we continue to hold up our President and all our leaders in prayer during these troubling times.

In other words, sin–the “powers” are both. They exist in the malformed soul and are intrinsically tied up in the ways in which the world and culture are structured. Everything–and everybody–has both good and evil within.

This integrated understanding of sin goes a long way to help understand Von Brunn, where inner and outer “powers” combined to push him toward a form of racial idolatry and personal wickedness that resulted in killing another person. But an integrated understanding of sin also begs the question: Where was I in this story? What do I do to resist these dehumanizing powers? What systems and structures that I am part of perpetuate the evil from which Von Brunn acted? (Talk radio hosts, take note….) . . .

Progressive Christianity is in no way a morally relativistic vision; instead, it is emerging as a morally integrated theology. We need to examine all the powers-at-play in Von Brunn’s reprehensive moral act–to name and resist the Powers is one way to transformation. It is wrong–in every case, everywhere, for everyone, and every institution–to target people and deny them basic human dignity because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, and sexual identity. And equally wrong to let the “little” sins that contribute to the bigger evils to pass unchallenged.

The sum: I don’t know what Glenn Beck actually believes about the book of Revelation (for what it’s worth, I happen to think it’s an amazing book of metaphorical prose offering comfort to people being persecuted and naming the metaphysical core of the universe: that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it, rather than a dimestore almanac of future events), but he’s certainly happy not to challenge his listeners when they suggest that President Obama is in league with Satan. I know many of us feel like we say this every day: We need a better conversation in this country.

Absolutely. I’d also add that the things Beck’s caller sees as signs that Obama is the Antichrist – raising taxes on the rich, exercising oversight over troubled industries, working toward a more cooperative foreign policy – are utterly banal, and point to a recurring problem in the discourse of the Christian Right. When you’re doing everything in your power to cultivate a Manichaean worldview among your audience, they’ll be inclined to see the most small and normal things – like differences in opinion on tax policy, for example – as the surface elements of a deep and conspiratorial struggle between Good and Evil. If everything is viewed in the light of a dispensational eschatology, a battle between the divine conspiracy and the demonic conspiracy, then everything one disagrees with is a sign of the demonic conspiracy – it can be no other way. A charismatic figure who wants to enact progressive policies can’t just be someone with different opinions; he must be the Antichrist.

This idea severely poisons our politics, which rests on the idea that people with just and good intentions can and will disagree on public policy matters – in fact, the system is designed for them to disagree and come to reasonable compromises. If every matter of public policy is another battleground in the ultimate war between Good and Evil, then compromise anywhere, on any matter, is sin. This not only leads to people thinking along the lines of the Glenn Beck caller described by Mr. Higgins, but also to things like the decline of the moderate wing of the Republican Party (as evidenced by the recent departure of Arlen Specter from that caucus in the face of a radical right-wing primary challenge) – which leads to an inability to get things done in the halls of our state and federal legislatures. If politicians can’t compromise for fear of getting booted by their own party for being a [D/R]INO*, then they can’t be effective legislators – because our entire system is built on compromise.

Anyway, Mr. Higgins’s whole post is well worth the read. Take a look and join in the conversation – either on the Sojourners blog or over here.

* [Democrat or Republican] In Name Only

Evangelical author and radio host James Dobson said that he is “disappointed” that for the first time in nearly two decades there was no representative from the White House during the National Day of Prayer event. . . .

Dobson and his wife were organizers of a four-hour program on Capitol Hill marking the nationwide day designated by Congress as a day of prayer, which brought together members of Congress, military leaders, ministers and an NFL star.

Now, first off, let’s ask exactly who gave James and Shirley Dobson the authority to declare any “official” event for the National Day of Prayer. Dobson has long been known as a member of the hard-line reactionary Christian Right movement; wouldn’t any event that wants to be bipartisan and inclusive – as this event claims to be – pick someone a little less openly allied with the extreme Right as their figurehead?

Second, there’s this little tidbit from the very end:

However, a White House source with direct knowledge of the situation, said event organizers placed restrictions on potential speakers saying that they had to be “pro-life” and the only person officially invited from the administration was Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican.

This lays bare the very heart of the problem with the extreme Christian Right as represented by Dobson. To suggest that only people who favor the criminalization of abortion are acceptable as representatives of the administration at this event – which is supposed to be inclusive of all faiths – is to suggest that religion is synonymous with being pro-criminalization on the abortion issue. It sends a message of exclusion to anyone who has an opinion that differs from the pro-criminalization party line of the Christian Right.

In addition, why is being pro-criminalization their litmus test – especially given that Jesus Christ said a heck of a lot more about the way we order our money than the absolutely nothing He said about abortion? If we’re going to have a national display of piety, and we’re going to be deciding who is and isn’t acceptable based on political positions, why is abortion the issue? Why not ask representatives to take a stand against torture, against preemptive war, against wealth inequality, against our country’s pandemic of hate?

If anything’s clear from this, it’s that James Dobson wasn’t ever really interested in having a bipartisan and inclusive National Day of Prayer. He was just interested in getting another chance to further his reactionary right-wing agenda and stick it to the Obama administration by any means necessary, including by politically hijacking a day when people of faith should be coming together in goodwill.

If using a day of prayer in a pathetic attempt to score cheap political points isn’t taking the Lord’s name in vain, then the Third Commandment has no meaning at all.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of Bible verses Dr. Dobson should review, here’s another:

[Jesus said:] “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

Matthew 6:5-6

But of course, that would question the very notion of a National Day of Prayer…

All the while, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest disavow their role in the uptick in sheer lunacy going on in America. They can’t fathom that their daily rants against a democratically-elected president could have any effect on anyone in America. If that’s the case, it would seem pretty pointless for them to take to the air if they didn’t believe their words had power or influence. But, their words matter and their words do influence people—and what’s more, their theology matters and carries influence.

The theology they espouse is not one Jesus would recognize. It’s true, Jesus talked about apocalyptic visions—but his visions were nothing like what the religious right spouts today. What they teach is a fairly recent aberration in theology with tenuous biblical grounding. . . .

In his book The Meaning of Jesus, writer and theologian Marcus Borg puts Revelation in its proper perspective reminding us of the central theme of the book:

“the conflict between the lordship of Christ and the lordship of empire, a conflict that continues to this day. Its central message is that the lords of this world do not have the final answer: therefore, take heart, have courage, be faithful.” (p. 195)

In the end, Revelation is not a book about end time despair, but a book about hope. God comes to dwell with humanity—wiping away our tears, ending all of our pain.

Her argument is that we should look for Christ’s return every day – not in the flash of lightning and the blast of trumpets, but in the faces of the tortured, the poor, the oppressed. While that might not be as photogenic as the bad theology of the right-wing fearmongers, it’s much more in line with what Jesus talks about in the Gospels, and an excellent charge to His followers on this holy weekend.

Not only does she claim that Sebelius is a “dangerous choice” based on the (false) accusation that Sebelius has ties to George Tiller (Alan Boswell has debunked this false charge below) but she actually claims that abortions have  increased in Kansas under Sebelius’ term (which is also debunked below by Boswell).

I do not know where Wright gets her figures.  She cites no evidence to support her statements.  As far as I can tell, this is indicative of the utter lack of respect for people and, above all, facts by some who claim to be Christian!

Are we to presume that the pro-life movement cares nothing about the actual reduction of abortions and more about slandering those who are associated with Obama?

I guess so.

A communism-Antichrist link seems nuts today.  But only 20 years ago it was a fairly widely held opinion.

Mr. Wilson and The Hill editorial staff,

Your article entitled “Sebelius to face questions over abortion” contains a number of shortcomings I would like to address. Namely, it seems that you have published a hard Christian Right opposition research dump with only nominal balance countering those views.

Kathleen Sebelius has been one of the nation’s lead proponents of abortion reduction throughout her tenure as Governor. Her policies have dropped the abortion rate, dropped the teen pregnancy rate, and raised the number of adoptions in Kansas well beyond the national trends. Your piece amplifies the message of the Christian community’s most extreme Right leaders, while failing to recognize that Sebelius has the support of many of the more reasonable pro-life advocates. Your piece even seems to suggest, perhaps due to strange syntax, that Catholics United is a “pro-abortion rights” group — they are not. The fact that even the Senate’s number one trumpeter of a “pro-life” agenda, Sen. Sam Brownback, has come out in support of Sebelius shows how far on the extremes of the pro-life community her opposition is coming from.

Kansas Republicans are not commenting on her abortion record because they know the actual record. I don’t know how a piece that concentrates so much on the Dr. George Tiller story cannot mention the fact that Sebelius’ Attorney General prosecuted Dr. Tiller. Or, for that matter, fail to mention the hard facts surrounding her abortion reduction policies.

Tony Perkins, Patrick Mahoney, and Troy Newman speak for a small but vocal Christian minority. Simply look at last year’s exit polls as evidence for the dwindling of their political clout. They have lost much of their political voice in recent years by trumpeting mis-truths or half-truths, as is the case in this story. Christians, across denominational lines, are coming together – as Kathleen Sebelius has done in Kansas – to end these useless culture wars by reaching common, practical ground in facing our nation’s unwanted pregnancy issues. I hope The Hill will not simply rely on these outlying “leaders” in the future for your information or commentary.

Sincerely,

Grant Brooke
The Matthew 25 Network
Executive Director
www.Matthew25.org

M25 and our allies made a lot of progress last year in challenging the idea the the Christian Right should be the go-to commentators for faith and politics news.  Examples like this are why we need to stay on the ball.

Update:  The author of this piece in The Hill sent back a very pleasant note.  And hopefully they include religious progressive voices in future pieces touching on faith and politics.  I owe them props for a quick and reasoned response.