Chris Broussard

I've been accused of overgeneralizing, too. For instance, saying things like "Republicans are crooks." Not all republicans are crooks, I'm told, so I shouldn't lump them together. Two comments on that. First, liberals are overgeneralized ALL THE TIME. Need an example? I'll give you five. Democrats want to ban the Bible . Democrats are for abortion. Liberals control the media. Liberals are snobs. Liberals want only gays to be able to adopt children (don't laugh, that's actually an accusation made against us. Second, you can't help but "over" generalize when you're given material like this on an hourly basis: Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff has channeled money donated to a charity he ran, Capital Athletic Foundation, which bills itself as promoting sports-related programs for kids, to " pet projects having little to do with the advertised sportsmanship programs, including political causes, a short-lived religious sch

I have been accused (and accused, and accused some more) of being arrogant. So, I think it’s important that everyone here realize something about me. I have always despised writers or speakers who stubbornly put outrageous thoughts forward, even though those thoughts are easily dissected and found to be wanting. Therefore, it has been an ongoing self-corrective exercise for me to check my information two, three, even five times before putting it “out there.” An example. This past Sunday evening, my wife and I went to a religion/politics discussion group hosted by friends of ours. There was a pretty good turnout, and everyone was cordial until the topic of abortion came up. The facilitator of the group read a statement from the Catholic Church that said it was unsound practice to vote for a candidate solely on the basis of their stand on abortion. Then, my wife added that statistics show that abortions have been lower during Democratic presidencies, which caused several of the

From "Dangerous Religion" by Jim Wallis: Christians should always live uneasily with empire,which constantly threatens to become idolatrous and substitute secular purposes for God's. As we reflect on our response to the American empire and what it stands for, a reflection on the early church and empire is instructive. The book of Revelation, while written in apocalyptic language and imagery, is seen by most biblical expositors as a commentary on the Roman Empire, its domination of the world, and its persecution of the church. In Revelation 13, a "beast" and its power is described. Eugene Peterson's The Message puts it in vivid language: "The whole earth was agog, gaping at the Beast. They worshiped the Dragon who gave the Beast authority, and they worshiped the Beast, exclaiming: 'There's never been anything like the Beast! No one would dare to go to war with the Beast!' It held absolute sway over all tribes and peoples, tongues, and r

Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering. —Eugene Peterson (from the introduction to the book of Amos in the Bible paraphrase The Message)

Remember Jimmy Swaggart? Despite a particularly nasty fall from grace several years back, he’s still in the pulpit and he has thousands (if not millions) of followers. On September 19, while conducting a globally televised worship service, Swaggart paused in the middle of his sermon to state that he would kill a man who looked at him romantically. "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry," he began. This was followed by shouts and applause from the congregants. "And I'm gonna be blunt and plain, if one ever looks at me like that I'm going to kill him and tell God he died." At this the audience roars with laughter and applauds. "In case anybody doesn't know God calls it an abomination. It's an abomination! It's an abomination!" More applause. ..."I'm not knocking the poor homosexual. I'm not. They need salvation just like anybody else.... I'm knocking our pitiful, pathetic lawmakers. And I t

I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to feel really unsettled by the direction this whole faith/politics discourse is taking. As a Christian, I’ve moved through numerous faith communities and socialized with a variety of Christians. I’ve found that as long as we agree on some aspect of the Christian faith, things are fine. Disagreement, though, can lead to calamity. Dissension is frowned upon in Christian circles. So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by what I’ve seen recently. But, for some reason, I typically hold onto hope longer than I reasonably should. America has always been a “melting pot” of cultures and colors and convictions. Our 228 year history has seen political ideologies come and go. We’ve watched Protestant denominations split and then split again. Freedom of speech has given us the ability to share dissenting views and to shape the body politic by doing so. But a different dynamic has emerged. Since George W. Bush is seen as the anointed man of God

Oh, I get it now. Before, I thought George W. Bush was a liar. Now it turns out that he may just be in an unbelievable state of denial. Here’s the latest assessment on Iraq from the campaign trail: We are helping the Iraqi people to build a new democracy. Forget the pessimists, they were wrong about the occupations of Germany and Japan too. Saddam is in prison, so America is safer. “Freedom,” says Mr. Bush, “is on the march.” Now, I know that Mr. Bush doesn’t follow the news. That’s how he avoids having the liberal media bias slip into his decision making. But, seriously, shouldn’t someone slip this man a newspaper? An article in the New York Times yesterday makes it clear that outside of the president’s circle of handlers, the people who are paid to analyze what’s going on are distancing themselves further and further from his rosy assessments. A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq paints a dismal picture of that country’s future. The best case scenario for the coun

Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960. What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

I, apparently, am a "Liberocrat". This is a term coined by my frequent critic, Stephen Rowland , of Columbia. Mr. Rowland is probably the most articulate critic of my editorials. His responses generally flow well and lull me with their clever word choices. He is clearly a talented writer. He is also staunchly Republican. Mr. Rowland and I have corresponded a few times and I have found him to be more articulate in stating his positions than others who email me. I disagree with those positions, of course. But it's interesting that I am now the leader of an alleged movement in Columbia - a movement of Liberocrats. I am not, as those of you who know me can attest. I am, in fact, a liberal Democrat, and I wear both labels with pride. I know my history very well, and I know that most of the things we value, the liberals gave us. Forty-hour work week: liberals. Children going to school instead of the factory: liberals. Social Security: conservatives (just kidding) Liber

On Thursday night, in front of a sea of enthusiastically euphoric supporters, George W. Bush attempted to frame the 2004 campaign. To Mr. Bush, the future rests on bringing democracy to the repressed of the world (especially the Middle East) while protecting the United States from terrorists who hate the freedom we represent and seek to destroy us. The message du jour at the Republican National Convention was “it’s the war, stupid” and Mr. Bush served it up royally. There was a fundamental difference in Bush’s delivery, though. While his predecessors at the podium placed the war in Iraq in the context of protecting America, Bush went on to say that "America is called to lead the cause of freedom in the new century.” “Freedom,” he added, “is not America's gift to the world. It is the Almighty God's gift.” This came moments after New York Governor George Pataki described Bush as God’s gift to the United States. “He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore

A few years ago, I was invited by some well-intentioned relatives to attend an Amway rally in Memphis. I had already endured the presentation of “The Plan” and had politely resisted, so they felt that I needed the full treatment. In charity, I went. I got the same feeling during the three days I spent at that convention that I feel today watching the Republican National Convention. See, the problem with Amway is that it’s sold as something it’s not. Sure, people succeed in the Amway program. But the few who succeed in Amway are the same people who would succeed at just about anything they did. Success with Amway is built on the backs of the “downline”, those beginners in the program who buy most of the “stuff” that earns the higher-level distributors their bucks. These people are usually in financially murky waters to begin with, which is why the Amway pitch works for them. The Amway convention put speaker after speaker on the stage to tell you why you should pursue your “drea

Dana Stevens does a great analysis of the macho posturing at the Repug National Convention at Slate. Among other points, she tackles Arnolds attack on “girlie men.”: Let's approach it for a moment like a logical syllogism: According to Arnold's formulation, anyone who believes the American economy is in trouble is a girly man. If holding such a belief makes one similar to a girl, then anxiety about the economy must be a feminine, and hence laughable, trait. But Schwarzenegger didn't say that worrying about the economy made people (read: men) into girls. He said it made them into girly men. With the new category of "economic girlie men," everyone who has a problem with the debt, unemployment, or the future of Social Security has now become an effeminate male—a conversion that, for some of us, requires considerable maneuvering. Here I thought I was just a grown woman worrying about how to afford health insurance, but it turns out I'm a sissy man who think

Here we go again. Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level. Instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration announced plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods. In a Bush administration press release on August 31, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years.This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulat