A friend’s blog is getting into a pretty heady spiritual-political discussion, and it’s making me think.

Republicans and Democrats are so weird when it comes to Christianity.

Republicans want to legislate moral issues, government imposed restrictions on abortion or gay marriage. The Bible says it’s wrong, so we make it illegal. Democrats, on the other hand, want to leave those moral choices to the people.

Democrats want to legislate social justice issues, government imposed help for the poor and the oppressed. The Bible says to help the poor, so we make a welfare system. Republicans, on the other hand, want to leave helping the poor up to the people.

Is it just me, or are those two stances really contradictory and just plain odd? Maybe I should have just gone to bed a long time ago.

Update: More than four years after writing this post I wrote another post about disagreeing well. That post linked to a survey that asks you questions and tells you where you stand politically. I think taking that test and understanding where you and those you disagree with stand can go along way towards disagreeing well. For me, it helps explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

At a recent media dinner President George W. Bush gave a speech laced with laughter. I know — quite a shock. The speech included the White House Election Year Photo Album — basically a bunch of candid photos backed with quips from Bush.

The best one has to be a picture of Bush looking under a chair, which he narrated with the comment, “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.”

As sad as it is to say this because of what it means about American politics, it’s humor like this that could really give Bush an edge. I’m not exactly a big Bush fan, but this is a side of him I haven’t seen before. The ability to poke fun at himself tells me he’s a bit more human than I thought. Humor can be powerful.

Now if the Bush team is really smart, they’ll release this speach and slideshow in some web-friendly, viral format.

You know what’s scary? Looking up who’s donating money to which presidential candidate. You can search by name or address and find out who’s giving cash.

Kottke first brought this to my attention, and he points out that it’s information that’s been available before, but is much more accessible thanks to the Internet.

It’s especially fun to search for your friends or famous people.

“The Next Best Thing to Being President”, a New York Times editorial (registration required), ponders the possibility of a John Kerry/Bill Clinton democratic ticket.

The exact constitutional language forbidding Clinton from being president again says nothing about him being vice president, nor does it forbid a former president from succeeding his way to the top again (the 22nd Amendment forbids being “elected to the office of the president more than twice.”).

Not sure what I think about that, but it’s one of those funny ‘what if’ situations to ponder. Of course if Clinton could legally become president again, unleash the conspiracy theories and watch out John Kerry.

Considering some of the comments of late, I have a hard time not commenting on tonight’s State of the Union address by President George W. Bush.

Thinking my wife would be watching the latest episode of America’s Next Top Model, I tried to watch the speech online. Apparently the Whitehouse web site was going to webcast the speech. Two minutes before the speech began I couldn’t find any indication on the site of how or where to access the webcast. Thankfully, even UPN opted to cover the speech, so I was able to watch it on old fashioned TV. Now that the speech is over, I see two little Real and Win icons which launch the webcast, though no text to indicate as much. Did anybody else try to watch the speech online? Any success?

Aside from the technical hurtles, I found the speech mildly entertaining. My favorite part was when Bush said, “Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year,” and the Democrat side of Congress erupted in applause. Not to be outdone, the Republicans cheered as Bush finished his statement, “The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule,” with an additional scowl to the Democrats. I don’t know enough about the Patriot Act to take a side, I just thought the reactions were funny. It’s almost as good as reality TV.

One comment I found especially odd, and it still puzzles me: “For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible — and no one can now doubt the word of America.” Bush said these words after the example of Libya giving up its WMD programs after negotiations. But I wonder how Bush can possibly think America is credible in the eyes of the world when the tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction we went to war over are nonexistant. ABC panned to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and I wondered if the ABC director was thinking the same thing, remembering Powell’s display of intelligence before the United Nations.

Finally, there are these words on freedom:

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East.

A recent post of mine on poverty drew criticism that I contradict myself in supporting the rights of the poor in the U.S., while not supporting the rights of Iraqis brutalized under Saddam Hussein. Those comments seem to completely agree with Bush’s remarks above, but I think I see things differently.

I hear a call from the Bible to protect the innocent, care for the poor, uplift the downtrodden, but I also hear a call from the Bible — and especially Jesus — to be peacemakers. This is a debate I’ve had many times before, and I see no clear answers. Sometimes force is required to maintain peace and justice, but that’s a contradictory approach. There aren’t any easy answers.

Freedom and democracy are great things, but I guess I don’t see them as answers to the world’s problems. You can protect the innocent, care for the poor, uplift the downtrodden and promote peace and justice without the freedom and democracy we have in the U.S. Maybe I sound like an idiot. Freedom and democracy probably make it easier to do those things, but freedom and democracy aren’t the goal. Peace and justice are, so why not focus on them? You’re aiming for the wrong goal, and in attaining that goal you’ll have lost site of the true goal.

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, as the verse goes, not on churches or sermons or pastors or books or doctrines or any of those things that can be wonderful in the walk of faith, but in and of themselves are nothing.

Maybe I’m totally off-base, but that’s my perspective at 10:21 p.m. CT on the eve of the State of the Union address.

After reading blogs from my friends like this and the comments on this one, I start thinking about politics. Of course nothing polarizes a room quite like a political discussion.

Why does it have to be that way? Why do we have to be so bent on our own ideological views that we can’t even be civil? Is it that hard to have an honest discussion of the issues, where — gasp! — we might even admit when we’re wrong?

Time recently did an article on President George W. Bush, “The Love Him, Hate Him President” (of course you need a subscription to Time or the willingness to actually pay for it to read it online). The piece covers this polarization of American politics pretty well.

Maybe I’m just naive, but is it that hard to be honestly critical? I’m not a big fan of Bush, but I’ll acknowledge he’s done some great things. He’s offered amazing leadership after 9/11. His package of tax cuts seems to be jump starting the economy. He helped get a prescription drug benefit for seniors.

Those are all good things, but let’s be honest. The unilateral approach and lack of a follow-through plan have really hindered Iraq. While I applaud Bush’s efforts to consistently root out terrorism, a lot of his actions aren’t helping the problem.

While his tax cuts may be helping the economy (not being an economic expert I’m not sure how much credit Bush can claim, and being unemployed I’m not sure how healthy the economy really is), I can’t help but wonder about the nation’s ballooning debt. Sure, fighting terrorism is worth some debt, but that’s not the only cause. Are tax cuts really worth it when we just end up paying for debt in the long run?

A drug benefit for seniors is great (again, I don’t know how much credit Bush gets for this — it seems more like Congress did the legwork), but again I wonder about the cost and why they didn’t fight to lower drug prices. The way I understand it, the bill abandoned a provision that would allow the Federal government to use its massive buying power to lower the drug prices. I don’t understand why we’d abandon that.

Every one of these issues is not a cut and dry issue, and I wish we’d acknowledge that. I wish a politician would forget about the bumper sticker slogan and admit that while the Medicare bill is a start, it falls short. Or what about the Energy bill that’s bloated with add-on expenses to buy votes? It’s multiple times more expensive than what Bush asked for, but you don’t see him rolling it back and urging Congress to pass the original vision.

That’s the problem today. We’re all a bunch of Michael Moores and Ann Coulters. You call my guy a jerk so you must be a jerk! Mud-slinging at its finest. And through it all we can never rise above to have anything close to a clear discussion of the issues.

Maybe that’s just my overly idealistic vision of what politics could be. I guess by its very nature it won’t happen. Bah. And we wonder why voter turnout is so lame.

I don’t exactly get along with James Dobson and Focus on the Family. For the record, our worldviews are fundamentally opposed. At least that’s what they told me. I dared to suggest there might be a logical endpoint for the command to multiply and fill the earth. Apparently I’m wrong, and that means I’m a heretic.

I’m OK with that.

So it shouldn’t come as any surprise that I disagree with other things Dobson stands for. With fundamentally opposed worldviews, it’s bound to happen. But I guess I’m still surprised. I naively think we can all just get along.

This time around it’s gender roles. I’ve heard about the views espoused in Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys before, but this time it really sunk in. Dobson belongs to the old school of gender roles, where men are men and women are women. Gender roles are sharply defined, and crossing those lines is a “straight” path to homosexuality. Apparently dads are supposed to wrestle with their boys, stock their toy boxes with play guns, encourage them to play sports, and — I wish I was making this up — shower with toddler-aged boys to show them what a penis looks like. If a father fails in those things, the boy is bound to be gay.

T-ball was the extent of my childhood sports career, I rarely wrestled with my dad, and I definitely didn’t shower with him. While I did play with plenty of guns, that’s only 1 for 4. I must be three-quarters gay. My wife played with G.I. Joes as a child, so our marriage is pretty much whacked.

This is the kind of 1950s mindset that firmly divides domestic chores from manly tasks. This is the mindset that declares men as the only fit breadwinners and women as the only fit nurturers. This is the mindset that squeezes people into boxes that don’t fit. This results in non-athletic boys (like myself) and non-girly girls feeling unnatural, like something is wrong with us.

This is the mentality that in part crippled my parents’ marriage. Rigidly defined roles left the overwhelming housework to my mom while my dad sat back to be served. It goes deeper than that, but anyone could see the tension it caused.

This is the kind of mentality that leads to (gasp!) homophobia. I’m not condoning homosexuality, but it exists and you have to face it. Washing dishes and playing sports has little to do with sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a deeper issue than mere gender roles. You’d think we could get past the manly pride stereotype.

I know Focus on the Family and James Dobson do some great stuff. They stand up for some important causes and do good work. But sometimes they support things I just don’t understand. And what really baffles me is how many people give Dobson and Focus on the Family unwavering, unquestioning support. Unfortunately, ideological lemmings exist on throughout the spectrum.