I appeared on Kevin McCullough’s radio show yesterday afternoon to talk about my blog and the election. While discussing the moral divide, I suddenly remembered something Star Parker told me: Republicans can make inroads into the black community through the evangelical churches.
I didn’t give it much thought at the time because I don’t like skin color targeting. But I was looking at it the wrong way. If Republicans concentrated on evangelicals, who come in all colors, they may be able to appeal to more of the evangelicals who happen to be black.
This morning, coincidentally (no such thing, of course), I saw Gregory Kane’s latest column (reg. req. — use member name: bugmenot; password: startribune). He writes about this very issue:
The first inkling I had that Sen. John Kerry would lose the election came exactly a week before, when I participated in a telephone conference call that the Massachusetts senator had with about 350 black clergy.After former President Bill Clinton introduced him, Kerry told the group that the issue of gay marriage was a red herring.
“I ask you not to be diverted from the real issue in this case,” Kerry told the ministers. “Fifty percent of the African-American men in New York City are unemployed. There are more black men in prison than in college.”
As if blowing off the moral issue that would eventually cost him the election weren’t enough, we have to look at what else was wrong with the picture: When you’re telling clergy that things many Christians regard as sins don’t matter, you might not want an admitted philanderer to introduce you.
Earlier in the campaign, Kerry shared a stage with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another fella not yet bitten by the monogamy bug, who said moral issues were a diversion.
While I blame Kerry, a supposed Christian, for downplaying morality for the sake of politics, the fault lies with Christians in these churches who were persuaded by his racially-charged rhetoric. Last month I briefly discussed this issue in John Kerry and Jeremiah.
I wrote:
“John Kerry “preached” in another black church yesterday and pandered about jobs and healthcare.Tell me, what reasonable person isn’t concerned about his livelihood and his health? Even pagans are concerned about those things. But the Christian should be focused on so much more.
Despite the fact that some black churches are ignorant of why they are exempted from paying taxes, it is doubly sad that most black churchgoers will be voting for an irreverent huckster like Kerry while lending an ear to his discredited sidekick, Jesse Jackson.
Kerry, who stood before these men and women as a wolf while the “shepherd” watched, told them to cast off (their sins?) concerns about the degradation of the culture and vote for him so they could have someone-else-pays-for-it healthcare. Instead of kicking Kerry out on his rear end, Pastor Smith follows up with this…
My ire was raised because instead of hearing a sermon about how to avoid sin, Pastor Smith’s “sheep” got to listen to Kerry assert that socialized medicine and oppressive taxes on other people were much more important to them. If I ever meet Pastor Smith, Kerry’s “sermon” will be the topic of conversation unless he changes the subject or ignores me altogether.
Check out the whole Scary Kerry category in the archives, by the way. I’m thinking of changing the name to “Liberals” now that Kerry’s been kicked to the curb.
Back to Kane. He mentions Kerry’s “more black men in prison than college” campaign tactic, breaks it down and places it in proper context — morality — something liberals hate to do:
And how, exactly, do we separate that disproportionate number of black men in prison from the moral issues of our time?Aren’t most of the black juveniles committing crimes — who will go on to become those black men filling our prisons — from single-parent households where the mother is too poor and too young to raise children? How is that not a moral issue? What Christian church shouts “amen!” to poverty-stricken teen mothers having children out of wedlock?
That was a no-no in the Roman Catholic Church I grew up in, as were abortion, adultery, “living in sin,” drug use, prostitution (either on the consumer or provider side) and, at the risk of sounding homophobic and woefully out of step with political correctness, homosexuality.
As Kane notes, it also didn’t help that Kerry had a couple of adulterers (one with an out-of-wedlock child) trying to get him elected.
One issue that didn’t get much play during Kerry’s campaign was the fact he had his 18-year marriage to the mother of his children annulled! (See Kerry’s “Immaculate Deception”) Is there any other word besides “despicable” that comes to mind? Why Christians, black or white, would vote for a man of such low character…well, he’s gone for now so I won’t expend energy complaining.
Back to my original point. As a Christian I believe I have a duty to reach out to other Christians who fail to comprehend the importance or morality over any other issue, including healthcare, unemployment, prison or anything else. By ignoring morality or relegating it to the sidelines, these other things flow. For instance, loose or reckless living can lead to poor health. Pride (too good for that job), laziness, anger, etc., can lead to unemployment or more precisely, being unemployable. Prison is the result of criminal behavior. It all comes down to right or wrong living.
Stressing the importance of morality in the black community just might benefit Republicans and harm Democrats in upcoming elections. Republicans won’t have to resort to pandering about “black issues.” Leave that to Democrats, who do it very well. Morality is universal.
I feel a renewed sense of mission, and I have liberals and their homosexuality-is-normal mantra to thank for it. God really does work in mysterious ways!
Addendum: Star Parker has new indepth policy reports available for purchase: The Effects of Abortion in the Black Community, Economic State of Black America: 2004 and Social Security Reform.
You also might be interested in A Cultural Wasteland.
Update: I don’t want the divorced/annulment issue to obscure the point I’m trying to make, so I’m opting not to post comments taking me to task for being “anti-Catholic” or even implying it. Regardless of those teachings, I believe declaring a marriage null and void, especially one that produced children, so that one can marry again in the church is…confusing, to put it in politically correct terms. That’s all I’ll say about it today. If you insist on discussing it, please e-mail me.
————————–
Links: Joe Carter’s Evangelicals in America, Part II
‘One issue that didn’t get much play during Kerry’s campaign was the fact he had his 18-year marriage to the mother of his children annulled!’
There’s a lot of divorced people in politics. On both sides of the ailse. Guess who was the first divorced president?
Comment by actus — 11.12.04 @ 9:20 am
Being divorced, as bad enough as that may be, is not even close to having your 18-year marriage (which produced children) declared null and void!
Be warned, actus, if this kind of stuff is all you have to contribute to the post, that comment will be your first and last for the day.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.12.04 @ 9:24 am
La Shawn your post was great.
Thanks for all you do in the “good fight”.
Comment by Joshua — 11.12.04 @ 10:26 am
A dear (Caucasian) friend’s child was recently released from prison after servering time for a felony conviction. This person is having a *very* difficult time finding employment. The matter has *nothing* to do with skin color, but with the life history of the person (violent offense). The person has received Christ and I see clear evidence of the redeeming work of the Holy Spirit, but the problem remains. A conviction and prison time makes one almost unemployable, skin color aside.
What is it about embracing Christian morality that is so terrible. Let’s see… If I embrace Christian morality, I should be a person if integrity, if I make a commitment, I keep it. I should be kind to those around me and should help those who need help. (See the Generosity Index elsewhere) The list goes on…
Is this Christian morality perfect? As it’s worked out by imperfect people, hardly. But we have another part of the morality, Grace, which we will claim for ourselves and so must extend to others.
Comment by Dan — 11.12.04 @ 10:27 am
I was persuaded to become a Conservative by someone who took the time to point out to me that being a Conservative was much more in line with my Christian values. Unfortunately for many people, the “separation between ‘church and state’” apparently means that their personal politics should be separated from their religious beliefs. A female acquaintance of mine reads her Bible daily and, socially, is very Conservative. Yet, to my knowledge, she has voted exclusively for candidates who support unlimited access to abortion. Actually, I think she would vote for a male homosexual abortion doctor whose lover wore evening gowns to grocery shopping, if as a candidate, said doctor would promise her $5.00 more each month on her Social Security check. What drives me crazy is that once the election is over and the sweet promises have been made, she never checks up to see whether the promises are kept. What shall it profit a nation if it gains unlimited economic success but it loses its soul?
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 11.12.04 @ 10:29 am
Amen La Shawn. Your post indeed projects your sense of a renewed misson.
So, when are you going to start hosting your radio show? You’ve got the voice for it. I guess the first step would be getting a spot as a regular guest host, a la Williams on Rush. Hmmm, who should we target to get you that guest spot?
Comment by Andy — 11.12.04 @ 10:55 am
La Shawn, one more comment (please!) on the annulment issue. You are absolutely right as usual. The annulment has nothing to do with divorce - they’re two different things. And, the annulment means that both of Kerry’s children were born out of wedlock since the marriage “never happened.”
I love your blog, don’t ever stop!
Comment by Greg — 11.12.04 @ 11:05 am
Excellent commentary! Morality is not something one can don like a coat and hat, it is an action not an object.
Comment by Kathy — 11.12.04 @ 11:16 am
Thanks for commenting and reading the blog, everyone!
Andy - I wouldn’t mind guest hosting a show. In fact, my friend and fellow conservative Mychal Massie has a new Internet radio show, and he wants me to be part of his stable of guests. Who knows here it could lead? But a guest spot on Rush would be a career-maker.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.12.04 @ 11:35 am
We Christians need to keep politics at arms’ length. By all means vote, but do so humbly and with the knowledge that because God setup a federal republic in this country, the “government” we read about in the Scriptures is you and it’s me. In a way, that makes us the very Caesar we are supposed to render the things of Caesar to, while also rendering unto God. That’s a tenuous position to be in and one that is sobering.
Sadly, because we Christians continue to carry on a love affair with politics, we will reap the whirlwind of that fascination one day. It may even catch us by surprise when it finally bites us. That we even invite political figures to speak in our churches is a mistake that gives the “separation of church and state” crowd power against us. We don’t need that kind of bad press; we get enough as it is.
It is convenient for too many people who claim to be Christians to come out to a voting booth on moral issues while subsequently failing to actually get out and do any of the things Jesus asked us to do (like feed the poor, take care of the fatherless and widows, preach slavation, clothe the naked, stand up for the oppressed, and such.) In a way, by taking a moral stand, we are doing the absolute minimum. Too many are satisfied with that. If we took the amount of money and energy we Christians spent on politics and turned it into money and energy for actually making deep disciples, perhaps we would not have to spend so much time and effort trying to create a moral state via political means.
Comment by DLE — 11.12.04 @ 11:39 am
Excellent points as usual La Shawn!
I didn’t get to hear you yesterday, but if you speak as well as you write, you NEED to be on air!
I truly enjoy reading your pieces each morning!
Comment by mel — 11.12.04 @ 11:44 am
I agree, DLE, and I believe many Christians not only stand up for morality but give money, time and effort to helping those in need. The difference is that we don’t do it in the public limelight the way politicians do. For instance, liberals think they own the feed-the-poor line (hence, “Jesus was a liberal” remarks) but Christians have been feeding the poor individually and through their churches for centuries. These things don’t make the news cycles because the media couldn’t care less about Christians. And we don’t do these things for public recognition; we do so because we are commanded and it demonstrates our love for Christ. It’s an erroneous perception that Christians are all (moral) talk and no action.
One of “public” things I do is run this blog. I provide commentary on politics from a Christian point of view because I believe it’s important for Christians to know how to apply their faith to every area of their lives, including government. That goes for poor Christians, rich ones, and those in between. I have a lot to learn as I grow spiritually, and I try be open to biblical correction. But the correction must be biblical, or else it’s just one person’s opinion or philosophical argument verses another’s.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.12.04 @ 11:48 am
La Shawn-
This hit home for me because I’ve had this very discussion with a close friend of mine who professes to be a Christian yet feels that economic issues and government funded programs for the poor take precedence over morality. I also reminded her that Proverbs teaches us..if you don’t work, you don’t eat.
I enjoy your commentary and look forward to your posting every morning. I certainly hope you get a shot on Rush, you would be spectacular!
Comment by D. Dean — 11.12.04 @ 12:53 pm
A well said post. Why I keep coming back.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Comment by Rod Stanton — 11.12.04 @ 1:12 pm
Speaking as a Catholic (and if only a lax one), I cannot understand how the Church was willing to give him an anullment in his situation. 2 children, and no evidence (that is public, at least) that either spouse had committed sin, fraud or broken from the Church, etc… doesn’t meet the bar as I’ve understood it my whole life.
Granted, the Archdiocese in Boston is an embarrassment to the entire Church… the same folks that hid HOW many pedophiles for HOW many years?!? It shouldn’t be a shock to me that they would grant Kerry a politically expedient anullment. I just wish it did.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.12.04 @ 1:25 pm
La Shawn, as usual you have written another excellent post. Your response to DLE was right on target.
Just a thought…the major problem with many professing Christians is that the Word of God is NOT their authority or standard. The issue is not whether we are moral or even have “Christian” morals, but whether we are BIBLICAL in our beliefs and morals. Morals must be derived from and built on the Word of God, NOT from society.
Christians must seek first the Kingdom of God [a spiritual life and relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and doing His will as set forth in Scripture] and God will resolve all else in the life that seeks Him first.
Believing and submitting to God’s Word makes life so much easier. The FEAR of God is the BEGINNING of wisdom and the BEGINNING of knowledge. Isn’t that a blow to todays liberal academia.
Comment by JMWRomania — 11.12.04 @ 1:38 pm
La Shawn,
Amen! Amen! Amen! Just last night my son (he’s 16) and I discussed the importance of honesty - of being transparent and authentic with one’s words. We talked about how the patterns and choices he makes today will affect him five, ten and even 15 years from now. If he develops a habit of ‘massaging’ words to make things sound better or different than they really are, in time, people will approach him with hesitancy and mistrust.
Honesty is only one aspect of a morality based world view. But I don’t expect my government, social programs or the schools to do the heavy-lifting when it comes to teaching and exemplifying such things to my child.
We get so impatient and lazy as Americans (I know - a huge generalization). We expect someone else (or a government program) to fix things for us in 7-days with a money-back guarantee.
In reality, great changes start with one individual at a time, one family at a time. I hope my son will pass faith and strong values to his children. And maybe, in a few generations, the seeds my parents planted in me may bear fruit in my great-grandchildren.
Comment by Lisa M — 11.12.04 @ 1:54 pm
Lisa - I’m sure your son’s future wife will thank you for having such important discussions!
Comment by LawWife — 11.12.04 @ 3:03 pm
Kerry states, “Fifty percent of the African-American men in New York City are unemployed”. They also said that 35% of people were unemployed in Cleveland. I don’t know about the rest of you, but those numbers seem highly exaggerated to me. Has anyone fact checked these statistics? Also would these numbers include housewives, children, disabled. I am really curious as to how they got those numbers. Maybe they did it a la’ Zogby.
Comment by Kiki B. — 11.13.04 @ 2:21 am
50% of Black men under 22, I believe, are unemployed in NYC.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.13.04 @ 1:03 pm
Well, seeing how NYC is a “World Capital”, that means its economy is driven by international trade, if you will, a hyper economy. That means on a per capital basis, empolyees earn a higher percentage of revenue for their employers.
If Johnny can’t bring reading, math or writing/speaking skills and apply critical analysis to the marketplace, he’s got nada.
The blame for 50% of black men under 22 is their miseducation by the high priests of public education and support by the MSM to keep ‘em dumb, pliable aod down on the Donk plantation.
Comment by Andy — 11.14.04 @ 12:35 pm