you were promised ideas, here's the middle (part two)

Continuing from this entry, I bring you parts two and three of my four-point plan to creating an effective religious left group for all involved.

2) Get the word out...to no one in particular

So we have our values down, but we're still far from taking our list to Washington and demanding results. The next step is presenting the ideas and values we've decided we're for to the world-at-large.

If the goal is to create a place where liberal Christians can have a dialogue, then the best thing we can do is open that dialogue to as many people as possible. If the goal is to state plainly that the Church as a whole has not abandoned everyone but the fundies, crazies, and crazy fundies; then the best thing we can do is create a place where people who are struggling with what the Church has become don't feel abandoned. If the goal is to eventually affect policy in this country, then the best thing to do is build up a large number to demonstrate that we vote on our values.

No matter what we want to achieve, the best thing to do is get as many people on board as want to be on board.

3) Let them come to us

Jim Wallis is fond of pointing out in books and interviews that Martin Luther King, Jr. never endorsed a politician. He made politicians endorse his agenda. If someone with legislative clout looks at what we're doing and says "I'd better get behind that," that's fantastic.

We won't get into the habit of endorsing politicians, though. To endorse, say, a Pennsylvania Democrat because that Democrat is with us on initiatives which address poverty could very well hitch us to that Democrat's anti-choice stance that was necessary to remain politically viable in that state (or commonwealth, if you want to be accurate). There's a better than average chance that this thing we're building wouldn't want to be attached to that. If that same Democrat wanted to point to what we have to say about the treatment of those who are struggling? We couldn't stop that from happening.

There should be a very clear difference between "The Senator is with us" and "We're with the Senator." And we should always be on the correct side of that difference.

To be concluded...

more thoughts on something you're tired of hearing people think about

It's August. Steve Smith is punching teammates. It must be time to preview the upcoming NFL season. But I can't. Not yet. Because we don't know where Brett Favre will land. It looks like the deal right now, unless a deal can be made in the next 12 hours or so, is that Favre will show up to Packers camp and compete for the job he abandoned a few months ago while weeping like the 1998 ladies of Camp Rockfish during Armageddon(and, knowing what we know now, with about as good a reason).

If Favre stays in Green Bay, that really only messes with Green Bay. Even the most mature of players will have, at some level, taken a side. Either with Rodgers (he doesn't deserve to be jerked around like this because some dude didn't think he had the guts for training camp last winter) or with Favre (he's Brett Favre). I'm more interested in what happens to Green Bay if Favre is traded. If Aaron Rodgers plays reasonably well(not great, but not badly...perhaps someone refers to him as a "game manager") after this supposed trade, I see one of two scenarios playing out.

1) The team is galvanized. They get together, say "it's behind us now," rally around Aaron Rodgers, and continue where they left off last season as a contender in the NFC.

2) The legend of Brett Favre haunts the team. This is already going to happen with the fans. If Favre is elsewhere, the fans in the stands will compare every move to their version of Brett Favre, who suddenly will never have thrown an incompletion, an interception (Hah!), or even had to toss a pass to a check-down receiver. They'll say that every Aaron Rodgers incompletion would have been a Favre completion. Every Rodgers interception would have been 5 Favre touchdowns. That's what Packers fans are going to do. There's a chance that the team might fall into that trap, too. And that makes for disgruntled players who don't believe in their quarterback, even if he's doing pretty well for himself.

Now, if Favre is shipped out of town and Rodgers isn't cut out to be an NFL starter after all? The Packers franchise will go into a tailspin and be unable to recover for at least four seasons. The young talent will start demanding to get out of town because no one will be on the same page with the coaching staff or management. The fanbase will be crushed, and forced to buy Bart Starr throwback jerseys. The Bears, Lions, and Vikings get two free games per season.

All of this is completely independent of what Favre would do on another team. If Rodgers isn't up to the task, it just won't matter. If Favre is great for the Vikings and takes them to a Super Bowl? Of course Wisconsin will weep. Even if he's terrible for the Bucs, though, and ends up losing his starting job to one of their other six quarterbacks; the word from Green Bay will be that Favre would have thrived on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field.

So let me reiterate: I have loved every second of Favre and the Packers organization playing "douchebag chicken" with each other. But I will not make my (often inaccurate) NFL predictions until Favre and his interception count have found a home.

i promised you ideas, so here are my ideas (part one)

The following is based on a promise I made.

I talked with members of ResCom at ACS. I read Jesus for President. I'm reading Thinking Points (one chapter at a time, because there are so many ideas per chapter that you really need to take the time to digest them before pressing on). What I keep coming to is that, in spite of what Jim Wallis says, someone needs to organize the religious left. If it were going to be me, here's what my four-point plan would look like:

1. Values, not endorsements

The Matthew 25 Network is a PAC that endorses candidates and makes radio ads in support of those candidates. I did not know this when I first heard about it. So when I went to their website - which at the time contained a place to sign up for emails, a giant endorsement for Barak Obama, and nothing more - I was deflated instantly.

It's not that I disagree with an endorsement of Barak Obama. As a matter of fact, I fully plan to vote for him in November. The problem is that I didn't yet know that this was a PAC. It was pitched to me as a place where liberal Christians could come together and share ideas. We need this more than we need a group buying radio time in a desperate attempt to counter-message the religious right's statements(if you've read any George Lakoff, you know that this is wasted effort anyway).

The other problem is that there was no statement about why The Matthew 25 Network was endorsing Barak Obama. Is it because McCain is unacceptable? Is it because they think Obama is the Jesusiest? Is it based on his stance on one single issue? Who knows? There is no values statement other than whatever you can glean from reading Matthew 25. You might think that's a no-brainer, but I've seen some wacky interpretations of that passage.

By just showing a picture of Obama with "endorsement" slapped across it, you're aligning yourself with everything about the candidate, whether you believe in every part of their platform or not.

What we need is a list of values. Just a list of the things we believe in, and why we believe them. We need this list to be created independently of political frames. No politicians. No political language. This will not always be easy. It's hard to approach an issue such as abortion without having to weed through all of the frames that have been generated by each side of the debate on this issue. I do think, though, that in this initial stage it is important to try.

By having a list of values rather than a list of politicians, we are leaving no ambiguity about what it is we stand for. By not miring it in political language, we are setting ourselves up as having an agenda larger than politics. In the end, it should never be about getting "our people" in power, just showing what we think those we trust with our votes should be made of.

To be continued...

i can't decide which hashbrown preparation method would make the best wedding night joke. chunked and covered, maybe?

Andi, my dear, you dodged a bullet. Had I known that a Waffle House wedding was even a possibility, I would have spent the entirety of our engagement lobbying for our nuptials to happen at the Hillsborough St. Waffle House in Raleigh. Futhermore, I would have pushed for Ms Betty to get one of those internet church ordinations so she could have been our officiant. Readers, feel my loving wife's sigh of relief.

Since Laul Peeland sent this link to me, I'm simply going to assume that this is his way of announcing that his upcoming wedding has been moved from a classy downtown Raleigh church to one of the triangle area's even classier Waffle Houses. Laul, please let me know which location I'll need to show up to and whether a tuxedo is still necessary(or if we're just going to go with any of the t-shirts in the slideshow).

By the way, Scott, I know that you're super excited about getting your wedding on in an ultrawesome spot that I couldn't recommend more if I tried, but there are many different WaHo's in the area and I would completely understand if you wanted to change up themes.