|
| Racial Paradox of Reagan Presidency
Earl Ofari Hutchinson
The great myth is that former President Ronald Reagan did more damage to
civil rights and social programs than any other modern day president. Reagan’s
occasional digs at civil rights leaders, and his unabashed tout of states rights,
and the conservative social agenda, fueled expectations among many
conservatives that Reagan would scrap welfare, dismantle Great Society social programs,
and most importantly torpedo affirmative action. At his first press conference
the week after his inauguration, Reagan told reporters, “I’m old enough to
remember when quotas existed in the United States for purposes of
discrimination and I don’t want to see that again.” Reagan’s Justice Department promptly filed dozens of lawsuits to overturn affirmative action plans negotiated with police and fire departments. Some of the court challenges succeeded, some didn’t. But the Reagan administration did
not mount a vigorous, and sustained legal challenge to affirmative action
programs, or whittle away regulations mandating diversity in government hiring,
promotions, and contracting programs that conservatives demanded. President
Clinton, a centrist Democrat did. He pared away many government affirmative action
programs, and the successful court overhaul of anti-affirmative action
admission programs came on his presidential watch. Reagan’s ambivalence on civil rights especially enraged conservatives in the Bob Jones University case in 1982. At first he backed the decision by the Justice Department to overturn an IRS decision denying a tax exemption to Bob
Jones which banned interracial student dating. When civil rights leaders denounced
the decision, Reagan quickly reversed gears, and dropped the issue. Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the IRS. At the end of Reagan’s first term in 1984, his Justice Department brought
fewer civil rights suits in housing, education and voter discrimination cases
than during President Jimmy Carter’s first term. Yet, at a press conference, a def
ensive Reagan declared that “he felt no higher duty than to defend the civil
rights of all Americans.” Though civil rights leaders mocked him and ridiculed
his claim, Reagan’s Justice Department was far more aggressive in prosecuting, and getting convictions, in high profile police abuse and racially motivated murder cases than the Carter administration. Reagan continued to be especially sensitive, and on occasion speak out, on the issue of racially motivated violence. In his last message to Congress before departing the White House in 1988, Reagan claimed that his Justice Department had prosecuted more criminal civil
rights cases than any other administration in American history. Though civil
rights leaders continued to assail Reagan’s record on civil rights enforcement,
Reagan’s Justice Department had taken a genuine activist role in criminal civil
rights enforcement. That exemplary record was due in part to the diligence of
federal prosecutors, and, despite popular belief, to the weak history of
criminal civil rights enforcement during the administrations of moderate and
liberal Democrats, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. Civil rights leaders also worried that Reagan would dump the 1965 Voting Rights Act enacted During Johnson’s administration. Reagan gave every appearance that he would do just that. During the 1980 presidential campaign, he publicly
branded the voting rights act “humiliating to the South.” This delighted
white Southerners. But once in office Reagan promptly did a volt face. In 1982, he
approved a 25-year extension of the Act. This insured that black voting rolls
would continue to rise, the number of black elected officials would continue
to surge, and that the Democratic Party would remain competitive in local
races in the South. Then there was the King holiday. The instant that King was gunned down in
Memphis in 1968, civil rights and black congressional Democrats demanded the
Congress make King’s birthday a federal holiday. For a decade and a half, the
bill languished in Congress, and the attacks on King’s character and radical
politics grew more intense. Eventually, mass black pressure, and the relentless
lobbying efforts of liberal Democrats, and moderate Republicans paid off.
Congress passed the King holiday bill in October 1983. Despite massive pressure from
North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, and King critics, and Reagan’s deep
personal misgivings about the King bill and King, he signed the bill a month later.
This made him the first and likely the last American history to sign a bill
commemorating an African-American with a national holiday. At a King
observance, the year after the holiday officially was celebrated in 1986, Reagan
denounced racial bigotry and discrimination. Reagan, in effect, wrapped himself in
King’s mantle. Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush junior have followed that precedent
and on every King holiday evoke his name and speak out against racial
discrimination. Civil rights leaders still tag the Reagan presidency the single worst period
for racial progress in recent U.S. history. But despite black fears, and to
the bitter disappointment of many conservatives, Reagan did not end affirmative
action, dismantle welfare or totally gut social programs. Reagan’s White House
years were marked by ambivalence, hesitancy, and conciliation, not the all
out assault on civil rights that blacks feared and Reagan boosters expected. And
that perhaps is one of the greatest paradoxes of the Reagan presidency.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. Visit his news and
opinion website: www.thehutchinsonreport.com He is the author of The Crisis in
Black and Black (Middle Passage Press).
| | |
| Euphemisms Tempt Christians to Conveniently Shed Guilt of Sin
'Intelligent, educated, religious people embrace illogical absurdities, set aside God's truth, and the well-being of others,' when immoral actions are not defined as sin.
By JOHN W. KENNEDY
Certainly the notion of sin isn't discussed much in society anymore. But now the very terms for sinful activities, much of them involving sexual immorality, are disappearing from common language.
Pornography? That's "adult" entertainment.
Abortion? It's really about "choice."
Adultery? "Affair" sounds more exotic.
Fornication has long been treated as an outdated term in modern language, but for many people the very concept of premarital sex is somewhat vague. If there's a news story on teenagers and sex, usually the qualifying word mentioned is "unprotected."
How do such euphemisms affect Christians? Gary R. Allen, Ministerial Enrichment national coordinator for the Assemblies of God, says wider acceptance is the result when Christians don't define immorality as sinful.
"When cultures and fads change, we mislabel the core of deadly sin," says Allen, 58. "If you take the barbs off barbed wire, eventually it doesn't hurt to go through the fence."
At the same time as biblical notions of sin have been altered, God is being removed from the public square, both legally and metaphorically. Recently, numerous Ten Commandments displays have been dismantled from in front of county courthouses and crèches removed from city parks.
Christmas vacation at public schools is now referred to as winter break. During the Christmas shopping season last year, a growing list of retailers -- including Macy's, Bloomingdale's and Home Depot -- advised employees to offer customers a happy holiday rather than a merry Christmas.
Charlie Self of Bethel Church of San Jose, California, sees a danger of such amended language causing a society to forget God and to lapse into moral degeneracy as described in Romans 1:18-32. "By the end of the process, people actually are advocating what they know is contrary to the original version of truth," says Self, 45, education pastor at the Assemblies of God church.
Self cites Playboy founder Hugh Hefner as a ringleader in transforming the nation's thought processes. Half a century ago, Hefner found a new name, sexual liberation, for an old sin pattern -- lust. While initially denounced as a degenerate rebel, Hefner in many quarters now is revered as a visionary pioneer. In fact, those who hold to the traditional sanctity of marriage are often berated for being intolerant.
The same pattern is evident this year with the homosexual marriage trend. Those standing up for moral absolutes are criticized as repressive, as if a union between a man and woman is somehow outdated.
While Christians should avoid language that whitewashes sinful behavior, Allen and Self say believers need to avoid inflammatory statements as well when debating non-Christians. "Christians shouldn't go out of their way to be hostile," Self says. "If you call two homosexuals who are living together 'sodomites,' it builds a barrier." Likewise, rather than "baby killer," some advise Christians to use the neutral term: abortionist.
Perhaps more than any other behavior, the rhetoric of abortion since its legalization 31 years ago has been an agent for changing perceptions.
Some Christians have been convinced that a compassionate position is to say they wouldn't have an abortion personally, but they support the right of others to choose for themselves.
"This generation of Christians is the first to find something good in what God has condemned," says author-lecturer Jean Staker Garton of Benton, Arkansas. "Scripture is clear. Church history is clear. The taking of innocent, unborn life is an abomination to God.
"Intelligent, educated, religious people embrace illogical absurdities that set aside not only God's truth, but also our responsibility for the well-being of others," Garton, 75, said. "When you shine the light of common sense on deceptive language couched in medical, philosophical or intellectual terms, the logic evaporates. Moral choices require that we use language to describe reality."
Garton fell into believing the false messages in 1969, when, pregnant with her fourth child, she decided to obtain an abortion. She accepted such feminist concepts as every child should be a wanted child and every woman should have a right to choose. But back then, before Roe v. Wade, she couldn't find an abortionist. Garton had the baby, but also joined an abortion-rights group. There she learned doublespeak, to never give any humanity to the baby in the womb.
Concerned, Garton -- who at the time taught college students the power of political and advertising rhetoric -- did a systematic search to see what Scripture says about unborn life. She repeatedly found in the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Paul's epistles that God's personal call happened before birth.
"When words are warped and twisted perversely, they're eventually emptied of their true meaning," Garton says. She asked the Lord's forgiveness, and became an outspoken critic of Roe v. Wade in an era when few Protestant churches paid much attention to the issue.
Garton co-founded Lutherans for Life and in 1979 wrote "Who Broke the Baby?," which describes the deceptive language used in the abortion movement. A 1998 update of the book discussed new catchphrases such as "Abortion is a private matter" or "Abortion is between a woman and her God."
"The euphemisms haven't changed that much," Garton says. "We think we're tolerant by not imposing our morality on others. But by believing it's a woman's choice we're abdicating any personal responsibility."
Euphemisms do affect how Christians react to sin. Long before "wardrobe malfunction" entered the American lexicon at this year's Super Bowl, groups began replacing terms for what the Bible denounces as sexual perversion.
Particularly while trying to legitimize sexual sin, businesses go overboard in obscuring reality. Strippers are now called exotic dancers. The seedy connotation of strip joints has been replaced with the upwardly mobile gentleman's clubs.
Taken to a ludicrous extreme, pedophiles, in an effort to decriminalize their behavior, now substitute the phrase intergenerational intimacy.
Advocacy groups choose acronyms that belie their meaning. For instance, GLAD stands for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders while NORML represents the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
"Such euphemisms lead us to a form of intellectual suicide about which the Scriptures speak," Garton says. "Paul admonishes us to guard the truth and hold fast to words which are sound" (2 Timothy 1:13,14).
Watering down language has a tremendous impact on the attitudes of the next generation, according to Allen. "As Christians, do we still flinch at foul language, or has it become familiar and acceptable?"
Self agrees. "The fastest way to clean up the public square is to have people who profess moral and religious values actually live that way," Self says. "We have to again become powerful persuasion evangelists of the truth."
Source: Today's Pentecostal Evangel | | |
| 'Saved!' Brings Down Wrath of Some Christians
By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page C01
LOS ANGELES -- Jesus is back at the multiplex. Following the 50-foot wave left behind by Mel Gibson's dark and somber "The Passion of the Christ" comes "Saved!," a frothy teen comedy set at an evangelical high school. The film is stirring up Christian audiences and commentators, who seem torn.
Jerry Falwell, saying he had not seen the film, predicted on CNN that the movie would "crash and burn" at the box office -- as he clearly hoped it would. Falwell told Dannelly that the movie sounded like a broadside from Hollywood liberals at born-again Christians, the kind of satire that would not be socially acceptable, Falwell says, if directed at Jews, blacks or Muslims.
Dannelly says that "Saved!" is actually doing quite well, thank you very much, for a small $5 million film; it opened last week on 20 screens and, based on generally positive reviews in the mainstream media and audience interest, is now heading into wider release in 500 theaters.
"So the Reverend Falwell is wrong -- again," Dannelly says. This evening he is dressed in a crisp pink shirt and a rumpled khaki suit. He's 40 years old, lives with his dog in a self-described "crummy apartment" and drives a Mazda compact, "which is basically a Ford Fiesta."
As he struggled to get his film made, Dannelly says, he painted houses and toiled in telemarketing. He grew up in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. Raised Catholic, he attended parochial school in the first grade but was expelled for "hitting a nun. But it wasn't as bad as it sounds," he says.
For two years he went to a Christian high school, Arlington Baptist, where he says he was personally "saved" by publicly accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. But again he was bounced from school, this time for excessive demerits -- "though you could get a demerit for not bringing a red pen to math class."
To round it out, Dannelly also did Jewish summer camp, returning as a camp counselor to ride herd over his charges in "Bunk Hertzel." "I learned all the Hebrew songs," he remembers. He describes his current religion as "an ongoing journey."
As a first-time director, who also wrote the screenplay with Michael Urban, Dannelly confesses that he goes onto the Internet obsessively to monitor the buzz about his film. He also sneaks into screenings to listen to the audience.
"I think I made a balanced movie," he says. "It could have gone in a lot of different ways. I don't really see it as a satire. It's more subversive. But it's still a teen comedy -- the teens just happen to be fundamentalists."
The movie is set in Blandsville, USA, at the American Eagle Christian High School, senior year. It stars Mandy Moore as Hilary Faye, the Little Miss Popular who rules over a girl-clique and pop band known as the "Christian Jewels," and who punctuates her sentences with "praise Jesus" the way Valley Girls used to say "like totally." Hilary Faye is a zealot and a comedic stereotype. Interestingly, Moore was previously embraced by Christian audiences for her role in 2002's "A Walk to Remember," when she played a serious daughter of a town minister who helps steer a wayward boy toward good.
Her gal pal is Mary (played by Jena Malone), a much more nuanced role. She learns that her boyfriend, Dean, is gay and so she sleeps with him to save him -- after having a vision of the pool boy as Jesus Christ. Mary gets pregnant.
Supporting characters include an older Macaulay Culkin as a paraplegic cynic; Eva Amurri (Susan Sarandon's daughter) as the school's lone Jew and wiseacre who interrupts a pep rally by pretending to speak in tongues; and Martin Donovan as the flippy-dippy "Pastor Skip," who asks the students, "Are you ready to get your Jesus on?"
There has been plenty of negative reaction. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office of Film and Broadcasting rated the movie "L" -- the rating given to films "whose problematic content many adults would find troubling." The Catholic film office said "Saved!" included "religious stereotypes, an implied teen sexual encounter, homosexual references, recurring rough and crude language, profanity and several blasphemous jokes."
Ted Baehr, founder of the Christian Film & Television Commission, called it "a sad, bigoted, anti-Christian movie that mocks the Christian faith."
Dannelly says he expected a strong reaction. Just before filming began, the popular Christian rock group the Elms, who were going to perform in the movie, backed out.
Dannelly defends his work as "ultimately a very loving film, not against Christianity, but against extremism, which is very different." He says what is most gratifying to him are the religious viewers "who get it." And there have been many expressions of support.
A typical positive posting on ChristianAnswers.net came from Kelly, age 19, who wrote: "I thought Saved! was fantastic. Yes, it is a satirical look at a group of popular teenagers at a Christian high school struggling with some major choices, and that will freak some people out. And most of the characters call into question their faith, but by the end EVERY character is strengthened by their experiences and renews their commitment to Christ."
Todd Hertz, a reviewer for Christianity Today's Web site, writes, "The movie is ultimately pro-faith and does make some perceptive criticisms of evangelicals." Hertz points out the movie seeks to explore and satirize "the sometimes hateful and hypocritical ways some Christians treat homosexuals and anyone with apparent sin. In addition, Saved! pokes fun at the Christian bubble evangelicals can live in -- presenting their own awards like 'Best Christian Interior Decorator.' These criticisms are valid and could make some of us think about our behaviors -- and that 'bubble.' "
Dannelly says that was his point. He says he assumes he may spend the rest of the summer sitting on panels discussing the controversy over his movie. "And that's okay. I'm really happy to have it out there in the world. The fact that people are seeing it, that's a nice thing."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
| | |
| Evangelicals, Jewish community reach accord
Palm Beach Daily News (USA), Dec. 18, 2003
http://www.palmbeachpost.com
By Antigone Barton, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Two years ago, when local Jews wrote "return to sender" on unsolicited videotapes about the life of Christ while local evangelical Christians spread their message " to the Jews first," religious leaders noticed that talk about faith was getting ugly in Palm Beach County. So a handful of rabbis, ministers and laymen began to talk to each other. On Wednesday they released the results of their meetings, a statement "Calling for Evangelical Jewish Understanding." The statement, which calls upon Christians to "be honest, open, and aboveboard" and to not single out Jews when spreading word of their faith, is signed by four Evangelical ministers, five rabbis and two Jewish community leaders. It is, "if not historic, certainly unusual," one rabbi said. And, those involved said, the statement amounts to more than words. It comes as Christians and Jews brace for a fresh wave of conflict, as the group called " Jews for Jesus" undertakes an unprecedented campaign through the county. The group often is supported by churches and is consistently spurned by Jewish religious leaders who say it relies on deception to win converts. Two years ago, Christ Fellowship joined other Christian organizations, including Jews for Jesus, in mailing Jesus videotapes to homes throughout the county and in a conference called "To the Jews First in the New Millennium." The goal, organizers said, was to follow God's biblical instructions to " witness" -- proselytize -- to Jews. This year however, Christ Fellowship will not support activities planned in the Jews for Jesus campaign, said the Rev. Dan Light, the Palm Beach Gardens ministry's pastor. "We had to make the choice not to provide active support, including financial," Light said. The lack of participation is not intended to indicate opposition to the group, he added. It does reflect, he said, "that Christ Fellowship has chosen to develop a relationship with the Jewish community and to witness to all people." The relationship grew as a group of rabbis and ministers met monthly in 2001 to explain their faiths to each other, said Bill Gralnick, regional director of the American Jewish Committee. Gralnick pulled the group together, he said, because "there had to be a better way than shouting at each other across the headlines of newspapers." Six months ago, when Jewish leaders learned of the planned "Jews for Jesus" campaign, the dialogue deepened. To Jews, who do not proselytize and who have seen their numbers dwindle as young people drift from their faith, being targeted by Christian proselytizers was deeply offensive, said Gralnick, who called it a "core" issue. Evangelicals, whose faith is based around "witnessing," found that hard to understand, he said. That a level of understanding already had been reached, however, was clear in the response of one Evangelical Christian in the group, who explained that "Witnessing is the mother of all Christian mitzvoth." Mitzvoth in Judaism is a profound religious obligation. The statement released Wednesday calls on Evangelicals to accept "no" as a response from those to whom they try to spread their faith. "It is the result of two years of quiet meetings between rabbis and ministers who have come to know one another and like one another," said Rabbi Stephen Pinsky of Temple Beth Torah in Wellington. The agreement is not a compromise, both say. "The issue that has become important to us is the way that we witness, to do so in an inoffensive way," he said. "Simply telling the message without living the message is counterproductive." | | |
| Pro-Lifers Say OTC Morning-After Pill Would Have Disastrous Results
By Jenni Parker and Bill Fancher
December 17, 2003 (AgapePress) - As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers approving the over-the-counter sale of an emergency contraceptive known as "the morning-after pill," pro-life and pro-family advocates warn that making the drug available without a prescription will have devastating consequences.
In a Tuesday hearing, the FDA heard advice from a panel of 28 gynecologists and pharmacists on whether the agency should approve the over-the-counter (OTC) sale of Plan B, a morning-after pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Since Plan B is most effective if taken within 24 hours, its proponents contend that it should be available without a prescription to give women faster, easier access to it.
The majority of the panelists said the powerful contraceptive is safe and women and girls could figure out for themselves if and when they should take it. The panel voted overwhelmingly (23-4) that the morning-after pill should be approved for sale without a prescription.
After discussing medical and scientific issues, the FDA opened the meeting to the public, and several speakers raised concerns. About two-thirds of them, including several from the National Organization for Women, favored making Plan B a nonprescription drug. But some opponents questioned the pill's safety and its potential effect on abstinence rates and other contraceptive use. And others brought up ethical issues, including whether the way the drug works, whether by preventing ovulation or implantation, would be tantamount to abortion.
Judie Brown |
| The Dangers of Plan B
Testifying against the plan to make the morning-after pill a nonprescription drug was American Life League director Judie Brown. She insists that Plan B is dangerous and that the multi-pill regimen takes the life of a newly conceived baby. The pro-life advocate feels the FDA should never have approved the morning-after pill in the first place. "Our federal government should never sanction abortion in any form," Brown says, "whether the means of death are chemical or surgical."
In addition to Plan B's potential abortion-producing effect, Brown says it poses serious health risks to the woman or girl taking it as directed. As she testified at the hearing, the drug contains a chemical that can contribute to heart problems, circulatory problems, blood clots, ectopic pregnancies, and other serious and life-threatening problems.
Brown also pointed out that doctors ordinarily take a complete medical history of a patient before dispensing birth-control pills because prescribing them can be dangerous or lethal without access to that information -- a safeguard that would be removed if Plan B is given over-the-counter status.
Another concern is that having such ready access to Plan B would make it possible for minors to purchase the dangerous drug and take it without their parents' knowledge or consent. Brown says parents should be the ones to decide what type of drugs their children will take and when. "To further erode this natural parental role in our society is to drive another nail into the family coffin," she says.
The Push from Pro-Abortion Forces
The FDA does not have to follow the recommendation of the panel, but Brown and other pro-life advocates are concerned that the federal agency is being pushed in that direction by some powerful forces.
| |
Tony Perkins | Family Research Council president Tony Perkins suspects that the nation's largest abortion-provider is among these forces. "Only an adherence to a pro-abortion ideology would explain any decision to make the morning-after pill as easy as baby aspirin for uninformed young girls to purchase," he says.
FRC's president asserts that in the Plan B debate, "just as in the swift and politically-motivated approval of the abortion drug RU-486, the FDA has paid more attention to Planned Parenthood than to the real needs of American women and girls."
Perkins hopes the FDA will reverse its course and keep the morning-after pill off pharmacy shelves. "The FDA must put the safety of American women and girls above the wishes of the pro-abortion lobby. They must not allow this drug to go over-the-counter," he says.
Contraception Cover-Up?
Brown suggests that some of the support for the over-the-counter sale of Plan B is the result of an uninformed public. But she doubts that the truth about the medically documented dangers of the morning-after pill and other contraceptives will be widely disseminated because that news is not considered "politically correct."
In fact, ALL's director is predicting the media will try to bury recent warnings regarding the use of birth-control pills. A new medical report has revealed that women on birth control pills are at risk of developing dangerous blood clots during extended airline flights.
Brown says the news is not surprising. "There has never been any doubt in the minds of honest people that the pill was very dangerous for women" she says, "because any time you have a female body producing its own hormones, and then additional hormones of an artificial nature are added, there are bound to be problems.
According to Brown, the media has a history of ignoring information that is not considered politically correct. "I think this latest study is just another example of the truth not being told," she says.
In the past, Brown has been among those pro-life activists who chastised the media for not reporting other important stories such as the medically documented link between breast cancer and abortion. She says such oversights are no accident.
"Of course the media is culpable," Brown says, "because the information isn't under a rock somewhere, difficult to find. There are plenty of very credible, scientific pro-life websites today. The problem is not that the correct information is not available. It's that reporters choose not to report on it."
© 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved | | |
|
|
!
Lifetime