Last Sunday,
May 1^st, I appeared on Roland Martin’s Washington Watch program with
two other DC pastors. Our discussion centered on the role of the clergy in
politics.  One of my fellow participants, Dr. Charles Wallace Smith, came
to national prominence because President Obama attended his Easter services
this year. Starting the Monday after Easter, conservative pundits played
excerpts of one of Dr. Smith’s previous messages on race almost non-stop. A
January 2010 speech at Eastern University in Saint Davids, PA conveyed these
emotionally charged words:

“It may not be
Jim Crow anymore. Now, Jim Crow wears blue pinstripes, goes to law school and
carries fancy briefs in cases. And now, Jim Crow has become James Crow, Esquire.
And he doesn’t have to wear white robes anymore because now he can wear the
protective cover of talk radio or can get a regular news program on Fox.”

Dr. Smith must
have known that he would eventually get a reaction from this speech, even
though it was delivered 16 months ago. Despite his low opinion of conservatives
and the Fox News team, I came prepared to affirm Dr. Smith’s right to speak.
Further, I wanted to remind the nation that America has been repeatedly
transformed by a free pulpit. The important fruit of religious liberty is easy
to forget when someone is saying something we do not like. Further, I attempted
to offer a plan of action for the nation to begin to tackle the 800 pound
gorilla in the room – 400 years of racial turmoil in America.

Just before
the interview, I was surprised to learn that both Dr. Smith and the Washington
Post reported that the pastor had received over 100 death threats in the first
few days after Easter. While I believe Dr. Smith’s claims, I question whether
all of these threats were actually from conservatives. I would not put it past
some liberal activists to fake a percentage of these death threats in order to
stir the pot of controversy and cast all “right wingers” as racists.

As soon as I
heard about the death threats, though, my heart immediately went out to Pastor
Smith personally. I could not help but remember the impact these kinds of
threats has had on my family, church staff, and congregation over the last two
years or so because of my stand for traditional marriage in both DC and in
Maryland. It was hard to believe that simply upholding the institution of
traditional marriage and preaching biblical truth could put a 21st century
preacher in harm’s way. For my family, it felt like living in a war zone. 

In response to
all this “hubbub” over Dr. Smith’s views on race and the president’s failure to
find a church in the Washington, DC area, the liberal pundits took to the
airwaves and viciously attacked the conservative electorate – not just the Fox
Newsmakers.  Liberal media persons very openly called Fox News anchors
“birthers” who had demanded that the president produce an official birth
certificate; they also called the Tea Party movement and Donald Trump “racists.”
 

By the Friday
of our taping with Roland Martin, just five days after Easter, both sides of
the political aisles were accusing each other of playing “the race card.”
Against this backdrop, I found myself having to defend the conservative
movement. Further, I felt I was being asked a couple of subliminal question by
Roland Martin, “Who are the bigger racists: extreme right wingers or liberals?”
and, “When will we solve this nation’s race problem?” Our host, Roland Martin,
even used a recent interview that Christiane Amanpour conducted with
Franklin Graham as proof positive (in his mind) of the racism that he thinks
permeates the white evangelical community. Unfortunately, I found myself
defending the Bible-believing evangelical community for most of the program.

After the
show, an important explanation of where the nation is in terms of race relations
was put forth by Niger Innis, national spokesperson for the Congress On Racial
Equality (CORE).Many of my older readers recognize CORE as one of the nation’s
oldest civil rights organizations. My younger readers may remember that James
Farmer Jr. portrayed in the movie “The Great Debators” became the founder of
CORE. Mr. Innis made the following remarks about race in America today: 

“The questions
surrounding our President’s religion and place of birth are a reflection and
manifestation of an American populace that is simultaneously proud that it elected
its first black president, but still curious about this young man that came
virtually out of  nowhere to become the most powerful man on the planet.
Election 2008 was far less a normal election year, than it was a racial
cathartic moment for the American people…. Questions about our President,
regardless of how clumsy they look and conspiratorial they may seem are a
reflection, not of racism, but of generally unanswered questions.”

I believe that
Mr. Innis is correct in his analysis. A few rocky years are ahead of us as we
finally begin to work on the problem of race. In all deference to Dr. Smith, incendiary
sermons will not help us. Loving, pioneering church leadership that challenges
people to rise above their personal histories and comfort zones is the only
answer to racism in America.

The church is
the only institution capable of leading the nation into a genuine process of
racial reconciliation. The Southern Baptist Convention modeled this some years
ago. Their leaders apologized for racism and then began to plant multi-ethnic
churches in communities that church growth experts would have viewed as
marginal. As a result, the Southern Baptists have grown dramatically in black
and Hispanic membership. Their people are learning to live together and love
one another.

In closing,
let me give you a word of encouragement. We can change America on our watch.
Using Christian faith as a form of social glue can help us create real changes
in our communities. For more practical steps of action I would recommend
reading one of these two books: 1) Unity
Embraced by Tony Evans or 2) my book entitled The Truth in Black and White.  Becoming salt and light within
our culture is not for cowards and it requires personal commitment and personal
sacrifice.

Semper FI,
believers!

This past week the Maryland Legislature has wrestled back
and forth with the issue of same-sex marriage. For months gay marriage
activists have boasted that there had been no real organized resistance to
their redefinition campaign. The most surprising aspect of the battle was
that last week an army of traditional marriage proponents appeared in
Annapolis, MD. Even though this group had testified and lobbied for over 3
weeks with focus and passion, they obviously saved the best for last. During
this past week over 30 different groups lobbied in shifts. None of them had
received the memo that they were supposed to be the desperate underdogs. In
fact they seemed just the opposite. They were as spirited and coordinated as
Florida A&M’s (my father’s alma mater) marching band during halftime.
  

Both religious and secular groups prayed, lobbied or
protested according to their own strategies and belief systems. The religiously
based opposition was unique – Mormon, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Missionary
Baptist, Roman Catholic, Presbyterians, and AME leaders busily moved from
office to office. These spiritual leaders also represented a diversity in the
size of their flocks and parachurch organizations. Churches ranged from 300
members to ministries shepherding over 20,000. The nationally known,
mega-church pastors moved with an equalitarian unity among their smaller church
colleagues. In addition, the Collective Banking Group (consisting of over 300
member churches), the Southern Baptist Convention of Maryland (with 500
churches), the Maryland Catholic Conference 
with over 300 churches), the National Hispanic Christian Leadership
Conference’s Maryland chapter (with over 200 churches), and regional pastoral
alliances from Frederick to the Eastern Shore were all represented. 

I have never seen such unity in diversity. The Washington
Post and other major papers emphasized the role of black clergy who wield
special influence in heavily populated Prince George’s County and Baltimore
County, while ignoring the racial and regional diversity of traditional
marriage supporters. Post writers Colbert King and Jonathan CapeHeart, long on
rhetoric and short on research, made illogical references to the narrow
mindedness of black clergy leadership in the state. They seemingly failed to
notice that the pro-traditional marriage proponents in Annapolis were not only
black but also white and Hispanic.  

This coalition could bring Democrats, Republicans and
Independents together as a swing vote on a number of statewide social issues.
The reason the tide turned so dramatically has to do with the cockiness and
condescending tone of the gay marriage coalitions. In fact, the Maryland
Democratic Party overplayed its hand on this bill last week. Governor O’Malley
deployed staff to attempt to intimidate his fellow Democratic delegates into
submission. The party threatened opposing party members with removal from
leadership posts, taking away State House perks, and descending on them with personal
calls from Russell Simmons, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and even representatives
of the White House. 

Savvy state representatives began to “get” the fact their
party leadership was lying when they said no one really cared about gay
marriage in their districts. They also realized that in a majorly Democratic
state their upper leadership saw them as expendable lemmings like the popular
misconception that the small rodents can be goaded into “mass suicide.” They
wisely decided not to fall for celebrity phone calls and glitzy ad campaigns.
The courageous black caucus had several Come-to-Jesus moments during the two
weeks before the vote. The black Democratic reps quickly called their party
leaders’ bluff. They realized that the party would not lose seats long term,
but that ambitious black leaders could quickly become ex-state representatives.
Therefore, during the two weeks before the floor debate, several members of the
black caucus publicly switched from co-sponsoring the bill to opposing it.

On Friday the Maryland House of Delegates refused to pass
the Civil Marriage Protection Act. They realized that the very name of the
legislation was deceptive. The bill was not actually about protecting marriage,
it was about redefining marriage to a completely different meaning. They
realized their vote on this issue really mattered.

Del. Cheryl Glenn, of the Black Caucus, said during Friday’s
floor debate, “The black churches — since I’ve been here — have never asked
us for anything, that I can recall. They are asking now, ‘Don’t use the word
marriage’.”  She went on to say “my faith tells me” to vote against it.
Delegate Emmett Burns, a black pastor, made a huge statement on the floor. He
said the struggles of gays could not match the violence against blacks during
the civil rights era.

“Show me your Selma, Ala.,” Rev. Burns said during the
debate.  He went on to say, “… [The bill] violates natural law. It
always denies a child either a father or a mother. It promotes the homosexual
lifestyle. It turns a moral wrong into a civil right. … [If the bill passes]
children will be taught that the homosexual lifestyle is on par with the
heterosexual lifestyle.”

Friday’s move by house leadership to send the same-sex
marriage bill back to the state Senate shows that Maryland’s delegates have
honored their sacred trust. Make no mistake, these men and women will be
rewarded by positive recognition by their constituents and secure seats for
years ahead.

Semper Fi!

Two weeks ago the black church world stopped for a moment when Bishop Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta addressed his congregation. The 25,000-member church (once the largest of any kind in America) was briefed concerning a lawsuit that alleges their pastor had sexual relations with four young men. His statement to his church was simple but clear. He said that he never claimed to be perfect but he was not the man the media portrayed him to be. With that in mind, he declared that he wanted his day in court. Further, he vowed to fight the civil lawsuit.

Who is Eddie Long? Simply, he is one of the most exceptional orators of this generation. His international television broadcast has taken him into the homes of people around the globe. Further, as the recipient of the Trumpet Award for leadership in 2005, he has been acknowledged time and time again for his leadership in the black community. He also serves on the board of numerous universities and colleges, including Morehouse, Emory and North Carolina Central.

It is safe to say that most black Americans believe that the bishop and his church have been a model of grassroots involvement. The news from Sept. 21 through the end of last week surprisingly ran counter to the church’s 30-year legacy. The most concerning aspect of the coverage was that CNN seemed poised to be judge, jury and executioner in this controversial case. They repeatedly rehearsed the accusations of the plaintiffs of the civil suit, while parading so-called experts into their studios to decry the leadership failures of the black church. For effect, they painted Bishop Long as a major leader in the “anti-gay” marriage movement. (As a national leader of the traditional marriage movement, I know he has not been involved in any substantive way in more than six years.)

So why was Long’s story featured so prominently? I believe there is a radical, gay rights contingent within CNN and several other mainstream media organizations that wants to discredit or remove the “moral microphone” from the hands of black leadership. After all, it was black clergy that unified people in California and Florida to pass marriage amendments, which prevented the redefinition of marriage in both states. Since that time, many black spiritual leaders have been ridiculed and identified as the enemy by gay rights activists. The idea that black church leadership is a threat to gay rights has been vocally trumpeted by the celebrity community. For example, many blacks remember Roseanne Barr stated that “their hateful ministers” had influenced black Californians to vote against gay marriage.

Even the white conservative movement believes the most imposing firewall that has protected the nation from the advance of gay marriage and other gay political agendas has been the black church. Therefore gay grassroots activists have vowed to infiltrate the black community and break down their resistance. Against this backdrop in Washington, D.C., so-called “black gay” leaders were marched out front in our community and presented as emerging leaders. In reality, however, white leadership such as the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and others were actually calling the shots behind the scenes.

The media circus that has been created around Bishop Long is being used as an attempt to attack the bond between the black church and its leaders. Therefore, Long has been cast as homophobic, a “down-low” monster, and numerous other equally as reprehensible images because of this bigger battle. CNN seems to want to project that black leaders, who oppose gay marriage or other policy changes, are probably secretly struggling with the same kind of self hate that they project upon Bishop Long. Every hour on the hour, CNN and several other media outlets have been persistent in doing three things: 1. questioning the moral authority of the black church, 2. questioning its stand against gay marriage and homosexuality, and 3. attacking what the media dubs “the prosperity gospel” preached in many black churches.

Why has the progressive media attacked the black church at this specific time? The media tirade strategically coincided with the failure of the Senate to pass a Defense Authorization Bill last Tuesday that would have abolished the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in the military. The DADT policy did not allow gays to serve openly in the military. The DADT defeat was cleverly masked by launching this major initiative.

How are black church leaders responding to the intense scrutiny of Bishop Long? As I talk with leaders around the country they believe that Bishop Long was “lynched,” even if they do not condone an older man misusing his power, prestige, and prosperity to entice any young person into an extramarital affair. They believe the issue is more about the abuse of one’s personal power as a spiritual leader than it is about sexuality or public policy. Many of these leaders believe there will soon come a record number of IRS audits, civil investigations, and media attacks on other well-known local, regional, and national black clergymen.

If the CNN coverage of Bishop Long is really the beginning of an attack on the black church, it may break the tenuous progressive, political coalition that has attempted to keep blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, feminists, and unions in the same broad coalition. It appears that every special interest group is getting something that advances their agenda except for the black community. These same leaders ask themselves, “Why should black Christians keep supporting candidates with an immoral national platform on abortion and marriage? Especially when decade-old problems of education, justice, and minority under-employment have been left unattended?”

One preacher said it best, “The liberal alliance better watch out that they don’t take the black vote for granted or it may cost them the next two elections in both 2010 and 2012.”

Last Friday I had the privilege of appearing on the MacNeil/Lehrer Hour. My segment of the program had a Muslim leader, a liberal church leader who had worked extensively in New York just after 9/11, a secular current affairs blogger and myself (an evangelical minister). Our exchange was lively but thoughtful. The rest of the panel accused the majority of Americans of religious intolerance to some degree. They saw the threat of Koran burning made by Pastor Terry Jones of Dove Fellowship in Gainsville, Fla., as emblematic of a huge national resurgence of anti-Islamic sentiments.

On the other hand, I pointed out that the nation has never fully processed its grief about Sept. 11 or been told how to conduct itself in the “new” America. I cited the fact that religious leaders have the greatest access to the bulk of the American public. Unfortunately, many of us have not addressed the twin sisters of intolerance (fear and anger) that lurk within the hearts and minds of many of our parishioners. Political correctness has not allowed spiritual leaders to talk about their members’ concerns or encourage them to be tolerant of Muslim neighbors’ faith and background. I also was able to declare that tolerance works two ways. A few years ago, my congregation experienced a situation in which several community groups opposed our desire to build in a very exclusive neighborhood. Although we have the right to erect a church on an historic farm, which included the state of Maryland’s oldest beach tree and a slave graveyard; it would not have created an environment for ministry in that community. Therefore, we chose to sell the property to a developer and find another location.

This is exactly what the ground zero mosque folks should do. If they extended an olive branch of peace and tolerance, instead of demanding their rights, they would embody the true American value of forbearance and service. Time did not permit me to explain that in our “new America” people like Malik Nadal Hasan (the alleged Fort Hood Massacre shooter) have greater allegiance to intolerant religious beliefs than they have to our nation’s vision, values or goals.

I came away from the program feeling compelled to write this piece. I wanted to share some observations that I have gleaned from talking to my clergy friends.

First of all, we have a unique opportunity to advance racial and/or religious tolerance in the U.S. The election of President Barack Obama demonstrates that it is possible to break through the glass ceilings of race, class and gender in business, politics, entertainment and national leadership. The old adage about change describes where we are as a culture — “Desperate times require desperate measures.” Our problem is that when we are under pressure, it is easy to go back to old paradigms.

Ironically, the progressive political ranks are always accusing conservatives of preying on the fears of a nation. Unfortunately, they have been guilty of overusing fear in recent months as they describe everything from the Tea Party Movement, to healthcare, to the economy. For example, last week President Obama merely cast aspersions on those that he felt were being religiously intolerant instead of giving the kind of speech that he gave on race during the election. Very few people have the oratory talent or ability to paint a clear picture of the perils of religious prejudice as clearly as the president. In the arena of faith, he seems just as blind as he was enlightened about race in 2008. In such an address, he could probably clear up the misconception that he is an undercover Muslim and facilitate a healthy national dialogue.

Secondly, evangelicals leaders are more concerned about America’s future today than they were nine years ago. Their concerns about terrorism have not been relieved. As I have already stated, American bred terrorists make our defacto struggle with religious radicals even more concerning. Further, mainstream Christian fears about the theological content of Jeremiah Wright’s liberation theology have also created a concern about how the president’s value of money, free enterprise, taxes and the redistribution of wealth.

Finally most spiritual leaders I know believe that America’s greatest problem is the lack of heartfelt, personal spiritual commitment. We believe that the nation needs a third great awakening that will help us love and respect both our neighbors and ourselves. Naturally, the choice of each individual’s faith journey is sacrosanct. No, my ministry peers do not want a modern theocracy. Neither do they believe that spiritual leaders should impose a “one size fits all” form of moral or political orthodoxy on the nation.

They believe like Alexis de Tocqueville, the French political thinker and historian most famous for his work Democracy in America. He declared that, “America will cease to be great when she ceases to be good.” Most evangelical ministers I am close to believe that it is the personal application of concepts like honesty, faithfulness, marital fidelity and honor that will ensure America’s continued moral courage and professional excellence. External liberty without internal restraint could lead to anarchy instead of productive democracy.

These sentiments were at the core of the recent Glenn Beck Restoring Honor Rally. It is also the reason I am a part of a spiritually-based movement that is praying for a third great wakening in the U.S. We are calling for thousands of clergy, business people and laymen to offer heartfelt prayers and personal examination so that spiritual renewal of the nation may begin with each one of us individually.

The website for the “Pray and Act Movement” is . It all begins with a 40-day prayer adventure on Monday, Sept. 20. Become part of this national campaign. It has the potential to change not only your life, but also the lives of generations to come.

This past Sunday, an excited and focused group of people
gathered together for a singular purpose – to let our government leaders know
that we stand for traditional marriage and for the right to vote on issues that
affect the moral compass of our society. 
Deitrick and Damita Haddon, the
Rev. Walter Fauntroy and the Rev. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.) were among the notables who spoke. Here
is the speech I delivered at that event.

Today we are gathering in front of the greatest symbol
of American power – the Capitol. We come here today to express our confidence
in the institution of marriage. More specifically, we have also come to say to
the residents of Washington, D.C.; our two houses of Congress, the Supreme
Court and the President of these great United States that marriage (in its
traditional form) is one of the nation’s richest treasures.

At the same time, we have come to voice
extreme displeasure with the fact that there is a concerted effort by same-sex
marriage advocates to steal the people’s right to vote on this issue. From
Sacramento, Calif. to Boston, Mass. and many points in between, we see a
pattern emerging. The pattern is of runaway legislatures and overreaching
judges imposing their vision for American’s future without the express
permission of the people.

Time and time again these groups search
the dusty pages of our state, national or city charters or constitutions and
somehow “discover” a right to re-define marriage. The
better word would be that they “manufacture” new rights and benefits for our
historic documents. If what we have at stake culturally were not so serious, it
could almost become the substance of a stand-up comedy routine entitled –
Justice: American style?

What we have here is injustice in which
a privileged minority is imposing its will upon the concerned majority of the
American people. Preventing the people from voting on marriage, is essentially
denying all Americans our most fundamental right under the Constitution.

In 1954, a young black man was
threatened at gunpoint by a state trooper. The trooper discharged his weapon
right over the head of this zealous African-American, who had participated in
voter registration and right-to-vote activism. This U.S. Navy veteran was so
incensed that his Constitutional right to vote had been stolen by an abuse of
power by elected officials, that he left the southern state where this incident
occurred and threw himself into grassroots volunteer work in every election
until his death. The young man I described was my father. 

In 2010, the civil rights movement’s
glory and impact upon our culture is being hijacked. As I have already stated,
a well-funded and well-organized minority is attempting to impose its will on
the entire nation. At the same time, a growing majority believes that same-sex
marriage and its impact on education and community laws are bad for America.
Take for the example the debate going on in Helena, Mont. School children are
going to be assaulted with inappropriate information at very early ages. 

Same-sex marriage activists repeatedly
declare that their victory is “inevitable.” Their statements, if examined
closely, actually reveal that their victory is anything, but inevitable. These
declarations remind me of the threats youthful bullies made in my neighborhood
when I was growing up. Taunting, jeering, and name-calling were all apart of
their reign of intimidation.

We declare that there is coming an
unprecedented political backlash against same-sex marriage being forced down
our collective throats. Outraged parents, churches and other civic groups are
waking up to the ramifications of a massive change to the definitions of
marriage, family, and education.  We will vote same-sex marriage activists
out of office from the school board to the White House and every place in
between!

Activist judges like Joseph
Tauro in Massachusetts, Vaughn Walker in California, and the members of the Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C. are examples of why it’s so dangerous when judges usurp
law-making authority and rip public policy decisions out of the proper hands.
During the last two years, state legislatures and judges have played a tug of
war with the people concerning the world’s oldest social institution. 

The battle will soon be over as
marriage defenders fight back in the courts, in elections, and in the court of
public opinion as well. We have over 5,000 years of history, proven social
science, natural law, the teachings of every major religion, and common sense on
our side. 

Let’s all vote for people in the 2010
election who understand the basics – marriage is between one man and one woman!

In conclusion, I repeat the almost inimitable words of
Martin Luther King, Jr. – “Let Freedom Ring!”

Last week, Rep. Artur Davis (D) lost his primary bid for governor of Alabama in a crushing defeat. His opponent, Ron Sparks, won by 25 points in a contest which some believe shows that the race-based politics of the south have not changed. This conclusion has been postulated because traditional, non-elected black political stakeholders seem to have temporarily derailed the career of one of the Democratic Party’s fastest rising black stars.

Before the emergence of President Barack Obama on the national presidential scene, lots of Democrats felt that Davis would eventually become the nation’s first black president – especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). His credentials were incredible. In fact he was a classmate of President Obama at Harvard Law. He was incredibly articulate and what he lacked in charismatic speeches, he made up for in strategic thinking and networking ability.

Davis won his congressional seat in 2002 defeating incumbent Earl Hilliard in a strongly Republican state. In those early days, he quickly became the darling of the CBC. In 2008, Davis successfully ran President Obama’s primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. He was the architect of the statewide strategy, which avoided discussing race, but built a multi-racial coalition, which went around the traditional black power brokers (who all supported Clinton). Naturally, he presented his friend and schoolmate as a centrist candidate who would be less polarizing than Hillary Clinton. The message that Davis echoed in Alabama was that the days of race-based identity politics were over and a new era of politics had dawned.

As a result of this brilliant messaging, Obama won over 80 percent of the black primary vote, although the state went for McCain with over 60 percent of the vote in the actual presidential election. After the Obama victory, Davis felt encouraged to run for the governor’s seat in Alabama. He wanted to break an Alabama glass ceiling. This would have made him the first black governor in the state, which was the home of the original capital of the confederacy -Montgomery, Ala. Alabama is the same state in which Martin Luther King spearheaded the civil rights movement in 1955 and where George Wallace, a former governor, became famous for the statement, “segregation now and segregation for ever” in 1963.

For all the reasons cited above, Davis believed that this was his time to change the course of Alabama history. He used the strategy he had created for Obama and his state connections to run as a centrist candidate for governor. Further, while back in D.C., he also followed through with becoming a centrist voice, working across the political aisles with Republicans on several issues and ultimately becoming the only member of the CBC to vote against the administration’s healthcare plan.

Unfortunately for Davis, while he was heading towards the center, the administration was tacking hard left. Davis’ political senses told him that only a “moderate” or blue dog Democrat with a proven record of bridge building could win the highest post in his Republican-controlled, home state. Therefore, he essentially used the same methodology in his race for governor as he did in the 2008 primary presidential contest for Obama.

For months the polls seemed to be saying that Davis’ strategy was working and that a great number of Alabama’s Democrats seemed to be on board with him. All was going well until late last year. In November, Jesse Jackson made the statement, “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.” Although Jackson refused to name the person he was referring to, the direction of the dig was obvious.

Davis’ response was measured, politically correct but not persuasive. “One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader,” Davis wrote. In an almost tongue-in-cheek way he wrote, “The best way to honor Rev. Jackson’s legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race.”

Unfortunately after being ignored in 2010 just like they were in 2008, black Democratic leaders in Alabama did the unthinkable. They endorsed Ron Sparks, a white liberal, who supported the administration’s healthcare plan. One group rationalized their support for Sparks by saying, “Artur Davis voted against President Obama’s healthcare package to further his ambitions when the president needed him most.”

The turnout for this primary was down by over 31 percent, which meant that Davis failed the excitement test in this campaign. The state did not buy the “historic” dimension of his race. Therefore, he experienced an across-the-board defeat statewide. In some counties, he lost by 30 and 40 points. Davis joins the list (along with Georgia’s Andrew Young, North Carolina’s Harvey Gantt, and Tennessee’s Harold Ford) of southern black candidates who couldn’t get enough black and white votes to win.

After Obama’s victory in the Iowa Caucuses in January 2008, syndicated columnist George Will declared that the senator’s impressive campaign for the White House signaled the end of purely race-based politics in America. Perhaps the defeat of Artur Davis shows us that extraordinary skill is needed to capitalize on this new environment.

We certainly don’t need loud, angry race-hustlers playing the race card when it is inappropriate. America needs leaders with level heads. It is obvious that Democrats are experimenting with new models of leadership and they are breaking through previous race boundaries. There have only been three black governors since reconstruction – all have been Democrats. Unfortunately for Davis, he will not be the fourth.

I am hopeful that out of the field of 28 black Republican candidates for Congress this year, that there will be at least one or two who will climb the political ladder of success. These folks may give the nation’s voters new choices, new options and a way to escape the politics of race.

The controversy surrounding Arizona’s
new border law is unprecedented. From the White House to girls on the
basketball team, we find people voicing their criticism of the legislation.
Many people upset about the law call it “racist” and “xenophobic.”
Unfortunately, it seems the real reason for the outcry is a political attempt
to change the tables in the 2010 and 2012 elections. 

The real game-changer would occur if
the largest minority vote, the Hispanic community, falls uncontested into
the hands of the Democratic Party. If the Democrats can ramp up the rhetoric
loud enough and long enough, they may very well attract a majority of Hispanic
voters for the next two and a half years. If they can keep the controversy
going instead of solving the problem, the party will maintain both their
Congressional seats and perhaps even the presidency.

This same type of political maneuvering
is why so many African-Americans vote religiously for failing Democratic
policies. I have repeatedly described the relationship between blacks and the
Democratic Party as an adulterous affair.  An adulterous lover wants what
he wants, when he wants it. But he never gives his mistress true romance and a
genuine place in his life. The long-term adulterer is a master at selling a
dream while using his mistress. As the Bible says, “there is nothing new under
the sun.” 

Therefore, I am disappointed with those
who claim Arizona’s law is racist. The president’s popularity is declining
according recent polls, so the Democratic plan to create a new movement based
on the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, is accelerating. It’s unfortunate,
but current lawmakers are not willing to deal with the four major aspects of
the immigration conundrum in the U.S. that include:

1. Securing our borders for the protection of the
   next generation of people who will risk their lives to reach the
   “promised” land
2. Streamline the administrative process at INS.
   (It can take 7 or more years to successfully run the current gauntlet of
   regulations)
3. Enforce employer regulations and close illegal
   economic doors
4. Deal with current undocumented or illegal
   residents

Immigration reform requires that we
address these four areas. And we must take care in achieving reform, so others
like Lián González don’t lose their mothers to the rigors of illegal entry into
the United States.

In late 1999, Gonzalez’s mother drowned
while attempting to illegally enter the U.S. She lost her life enroute to the
U.S. from Cuba, but her son and boyfriend made it here alive. The INS initially
awarded custody of the boy to his father’s family in Miami, who wound up
fighting Gonzalez’s biological father for permanent custody. After a
highly-publicized court battle in the U.S., the boy’s father was awarded
custody, and he returned to Cuba with his son in June 2000.

As a humanitarian, I cannot help but
think that sex trafficking, drug dealing, and other criminal activity are
empowered by legal and enforcement loopholes we have allowed for too long. In
fact, some administrative problems at the INS could easily be thrashed out
before the 2010 election. Unfortunately, though, the journey of 1,000 miles
will not begin this summer.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will
probably want to have an ideological vote or two on measures that will be used
for campaigning purposes. Nonetheless, the substantive problems for the long
journey will not be addressed. 

I am convinced that the rhetoric of
recent days is designed to make conservatives appear racist, while attempting
to “force” the nation to support “comprehensive” immigration reform tactics.
Pursuing a more studied, systematic approach will only discover the correct
answer to our problems. 

As the pastor of a church with 22
nationalities located in our nation’s capitol, I am aware that this is not
simply a Hispanic problem. It is a national problem, and it will affect
immigrants around the world.

In early 2009, the administration
said “comprehensive” immigration reform would not be touched until the second
half of the president’s first term. In the meantime, the INS has stepped up
surprise raids in Hispanic communities across the country. These raids have
been so troubling that many Hispanic religious leaders have come to Washington
to lobby Congressmen and Senators. 

For some Hispanic clergy, they see a
reign of terror in which law-abiding citizens are harassed along with illegal
or undocumented people. Perhaps this is why so many groups are rising up in
opposition to the Arizona ‘s law, which is clearly legal. In my view the
Hispanic community is being manipulated because the folks ordering the raids
are the same folks who blame their political opponents for the ongoing problems
with immigration. In some ways, liberal leaders are talking out both sides of
their mouths and using the most egregious, Machiavellian tactics to create an
atmosphere in which political capital can be made from the pain of law-abiding
immigrants.

I am not saying that racism does not
exist. But I am saying that the democratic and legislative process should not
be shut down by name-calling of the worst order! Abuse of undocumented
workers in the nation is “the New Slavery of the 21st Century,” but we must be
very careful not to botch our opportunity to create powerful, positive change. After
reading Arizona’s new law, I believe the state’s motives are genuine.

As a conservative evangelical I want to
be proactive. Let’s make positive immigration reform today! Let’s be victors
not victims.

For many years, Africans and immigrants
from the Middle East have secretly remained faithful to cultural rituals and
rights of passage that have been designed to keep their young women chaste and eligible
for marriage. Partial or total female circumcision is one of these practices.
In an alarming reversal of protocol and wisdom, this dehumanizing practice is
gaining acceptance within the U.S. In fact the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) has recommended that American doctors be given permission to perform
“ceremonial” female circumcisions.  

Once again American leaders are
fearfully overcompensating for cultural and religious practices from other
lands. America especially seems to be intimidated by rituals found in Islam.
There are some cities in the nation that even desire to allow Sharia law to
operate in the United States. In that spirit of accommodation, the AAP wants to
give pinpricks or to “nick” the genitals of young girls here in the U.S. whose
families come from cultures that mandate female circumcisions. The doctors’
rationale is that if they perform the lesser procedure here in the States,
it would keep their families from sending the girls overseas for full
circumcisions. 

Before I go further, let me explain
exactly what female circumcision is. The biological reason behind this practice
is to reduce a girl’s sexual desire. Many cultures and religious groups are
convinced that this practice will ensure a young woman’s virginity until marriage.
Removal of all or part of the clitoris is the essence of female circumcision.
The more extensive procedure could also involve stitching the vagina. Reducing
the size of the vagina is also intended to increase the husband’s enjoyment of
the sexual act. 

Although the current law “makes
criminal any non-medical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the
United States, the AAP believes that U.S. residents will be discouraged from
returning to their homelands for the cruel surgeries often administered by
midwives or female village elders.

Thankfully, there are many opponents to
female genital mutilations. Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, actually
introduced a bill that would make it a crime to take a girl oversees for such a
purpose. Georgeanne Chapin of Intact America has urged the AAP to avoid moving
down a “slippery slope.” More specifically she said, “There are countries in
the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow
people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have
slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives
a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.” 

Today, the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists report that over 130 million women and girls
have undergone female genital cutting. Circumcisions are typically performed on
girls under 15-years old in countries including Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia.
Earlier this week, I saw a BBC special from South Africa which had a village
“mother” explaining her commitment to cutting the genitals of the younger women
with wives tales about their sex organs growing backward inside of their
bodies, thus creating long term health problems. Unfortunately, the true story
is that there are severe consequences to this surgery. The problems
include: 

1.) severe complications with
pregnancy, 

2.) problems with childbirth, and 

3.) sexual dysfunction later in
life. 

Nonetheless, the AAP restates its
rationale as follows “in some countries where FGC (female genital
cutting) is common, some progress toward
eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual ‘nicks’ for
more severe forms.”

America needs to take an about face
from our temptation to tiptoe around problems like these. Our national leaders
like Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, are reticent to “tell it like it is”
if another faith -especially Islam – could be seen in a bad light. We must take
a different approach and speak out against genuine sexist or dehumanizing
practices which can harm our people. We cannot let any faith tradition get away
with abusing our citizens – especially children.

We applaud our national desire to allow
religious freedom. This openness is something we have all learned from
Christianity. Other nations, however, are hardly as open or respectful of human
rights.

More specifically let’s look at the
Muslim faith’s track record of religious tolerance. In the Islamic world there
are several nations, which have large populations of non-Muslims who had been
conquered by jihad wars. Historically Islam conquered huge territories in
Africa, Asia and Europe from the 630s AD until 1683 or so.  In these
nations, dhimmitude is a status given to non-Muslims and their own
formerly sovereign land. The word “dhimmitude” comes from dhimmi,
an Arabic word meaning protected.

Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to
indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma).
 Dhimmitude is an extension of the ideology of jihad. 

The dhimmis – the conquered
people who remain Christian or Jewish – have a protected status under Islamic
law. Yet, they also are targets of mass discrimination. In Iran, for example, dhimmis
may have to change the names of their children to Islamic names in order for
them to be able to attend school. Their local religious leadership may be
persecuted or deliberately eliminated to inhibit their practice of their
“protected” religion. In addition, strict rules concerning public conduct have
been imposed on dhimmis in certain communities. 

In Turkey, religious freedom does not exist according the
definition established by the United States or the international community. Due
to their policy of secularism, religious freedom walks on a tightrope.
Secularism is practiced not as a way to insure that religious groups do not
exploit or abuse religion or religious feelings for personal or political
influence, but it is mechanism for state control over religion and the
practices and rights of religious groups. 

In conclusion, our parents, our
schools, our doctors, and our laws must protect our most vulnerable residents
and citizens. Until other faiths, especially the Islamic community, observe the
basic rights and freedoms of all people regardless of their race, color, gender
and religion to enjoy constitutional and legal protection, they cannot lay
claim to humanitarianism.  At the same time we must resist non-productive
compromises that endanger our people.

The last two weeks have been anything but calm in the world of faith and religion. Conservative Christians are wondering whether they are being betrayed by both officials in the White House and in the court system. The ruling of a Wisconsin judge that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and violates the concept of the separation of church and state has been like a blow to the solar plexus for battle weary Christians. In the much touted culture wars, there has never been such an open case of liberals throwing down the gauntlet in a specific area that has been deemed “Christian territory.”

Perhaps the blame for this change in the political atmosphere should be laid at the feet of the current administration and it’s concept of pluralism. After all, President Barack Obama boldly declared last year that the U.S. was no longer a Christian nation. This remark infuriated the faithful and set the stage for millions of rank and file Christians to question his personal faith. Next, he did not attend the National Day of Prayer and refused to make a declaration or statement until late in the day last year. Conservative Christian powerbrokers watched tentatively as the administration attempted to bring new leaders into the president’s advisory circle. These new leaders had no real national connections with the Christian masses. Despite the fact that the president attended a Congressional prayer breakfast earlier this year, his approach seems to have been aimed at “defanging” the politically powerful, religious right.

The latest debacle concerning the National Day of Prayer is even more volatile than the other issues. Uninviting Franklin Graham to speak at the Pentagon has raised eyebrows among the faithful from Maine to Mississippi and everywhere in between. It almost goes without saying that Franklin Graham holds a very prominent place in the evangelical community because of the stature of his dad – Billy. Obama’s visit with Billy Graham this weekend may be a sign that he knows that he has gotten himself into deep waters. The benign neglect approach to the conservative, religious community may backfire and create irreconcilable differences between this president and millions of the nation’s Christians.

Who ever would have thought that prayer would have caused a national controversy? After all, in these turbulent times, we could use both divine wisdom and God’s gracious intervention.

The need for the nation to pray about her problems would be high on my grandmother’s to-do list. In fact, she often said, “Prayer changes things!” As a black woman who was also part Native American, she was very proud to achieve the status of licensed practical nurse. She was a natural caregiver whose profession was simply an extension of the way her mother before her had lived out her faith – visiting the sick and shut-ins her church. Her generation saw America change because of a non-violent civil rights movement that was fueled by civil disobedience and the power of prayer. Her personal life also changed because of prayer and faithfulness. In fact, she lived long enough to see her four daughters and her 15 grandchildren all graduate from college. Two of us even attended a prestigious Ivy League graduate school, with one of her grandsons becoming the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Perhaps political liberals believe that the religious right will be emboldened or strengthened, if they are allowed to pray in public places or on special national holidays. Or maybe they believe that some form of psychological harm will befall those who are not attached to one of the many Christian denominations. Contrary to the public myths, everyone is encouraged to pray to the God of their own religious tradition. More importantly, acts of hatred, name-calling, or intolerant public jeering have never occurred at one of these prayer events.

It seems to me that the great faith of our leaders has not drawn the nation to prayer. Instead the huge needs of the nation have always driven men of faith and goodwill to pursue divine intervention. As I mused on this, I came upon a prayer offered up to God on behalf of the U.S. people in June of 1944. I have included just a snippet of this prayer:

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

“Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer.

“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace — a peace invulnerable to the scheming(s) of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.”

I am thankful that Franklin Delnor Roosevelt prayed this bold prayer in clear and understandable terms during World War II. I pray that President Obama will catch the spirit of prayer and follow FDR’s example. For the rest of us, let’s not be afraid of the power of prayer. Let’s use this awesome spiritual weapon to ensure the continued light and favor that America has enjoyed over the past 234 years.

Harry R. Jackson Jr. is senior pastor of 3,000-member
Hope Christian Church in the nation’s capital. Jackson, who earned an
MBA from
Harvard, is a best-selling author and popular conference speaker. He
leads the High-Impact Leadership Coalition.

In recent weeks, several leading Republicans have been crying for the ouster of party Chairman Michael Steele. If Steele is fired or resigns before he completes a critical stabilization plan for the party, it may spell doom for the Republican National Committee (RNC) in 2010 and beyond. Let me say it simply: Steele must be kept in place until there is a clear vision and mandate that is created for the party’s future.

His situation is very reminiscent of what happened to world-class CEO and businesswoman Carly Fiorina in 2005. During the time in which the technology powerhouse Hewlett-Packard felt that they needed to change their image and revitalize their brand, they sought to circumvent the normal painstaking process of self-analysis, restructuring and rebuilding by bringing in a management superstar – Fiorina. Her academics were impeccable, framed at Stanford University, University of Maryland and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But all of this was inconsequential because the board of directors had made an improper assessment of where the business was. Their vision was murky. Their mandate was muddled. Therefore the corporate message was unclear. Thus in a few short years, they fired the woman who once graced the covers of major national periodicals in their name.

If I am correct, the RNC organization must work at reaching an internal consensus of what it means to be a true Republican. They have got to answer the question of how will their values positively affect the nation. Once this is done, a cogent and compelling vision can be crafted.

It is very clear that the GOP leadership has not slowed down and given much thought to its long term problems. Instead, it has reacted to fears about the Obama administration in something of a knee-jerk fashion. Unfortunately, the reactive nature of many of the party’s actions over the last 18 months has earned them the label of being the party of “no.” The party has actually continued in a sharp downward spiral for two of the last two and a half years. Only the six months under Steele’s leadership has there been any sign of real turn-around. This sign I am referring to is the fact that independent voters seem to be willing to take a chance on Republican candidates again.

To help clarify the GOP situation, let me share five stages of decline articulated by Jim Collins in the book How the Mighty Fall.

Stage 1: Hubris Born of Success
Stage 2: Undisciplined Pursuit of More
Stage 3: Denial of Risk and Peril
Stage 4: Grasping for Salvation
Stage 5: Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death

Fortunately, based on Collins’ research, each step of decline can be reversed by positive steps of action – if implemented in a timely fashion.

If the RNC does not seize this moment, it could enter into stage four immediately, grasping for salvation. This stage is marked by attempts to find a silver bullet, an extraordinary leader or savior, which often only leads to a temporary sense of euphoria. The euphoria masks but does not address the potentially fatal problems in an organization. Now is not the time for the RNC to abruptly change course.

When Steele was selected as the chairman, there were many who believed that an overemphasis on “divisive” social issues like protecting marriage and preventing abortions was causing the party to be marginalized. Others believed that the Bush administration’s over-engagement in the war had been the primary reason for the party’s fall from grace. Another group felt that Bush was never a true conservative, while evangelicals felt that moral inconsistencies had caused the Republican brand to be devalued. In fact, the rise of the Tea Party movement is an expression of the frustration among many conservatives who feel as though the party has lost its way and cannot be rehabilitated.

From the beginning, Steele could not win. Like Fiorina, he was not truly given the freedom to clarify the group’s vision. Thus when he took on radio personality Rush Limbaugh early in his tenure, he had no real authority to call media icons like Limbaugh to any form of accountability. The chart below compares what was given to President Barack Obama as he became head of his party versus what Steele received.

Obama:
1. Elected by a landslide within his party
2. He was given a mandate for change
3. Liberals saw the election of a black man as a sign of progress
4. Consensus on what their big goal was
5. Determined to push their agenda

Steele:
1. Elected as a compromise candidate
2. Was given a mandate to analyze losses
3. May have been seen as a token black
4. Rebranding in the wake of scandal was acknowledged but not acted upon
5. Determined not to lose the Supreme Court and major legislation

Based on this comparison Steele, who is an excellent communicator, was never given a mandate to lead from day one. His biggest mistake has simply been that he attempted to rebrand the party without the consensus of the members. Social conservatives abandoned the party first simply because they felt abandoned themselves. Numerous conversations were held about the chairman’s stand on marriage and abortion. They had felt marginalized by Bush, because only lip service was given to their issues. Further, pro-gay marriage protests led by Cindy McCain earlier this year confirms the inconsistencies in the GOP. Therefore Steele did not create the ambivalence in the Republican Party, it was handed to him.

In conclusion, the GOP needs to commission the chairman and his staff to host a three-day summit with the brightest, best and most committed members of the party. Their goal should be to 1.) write down a value statement and operational game plan for the next six months, 2.) immediately develop a clear, unifying platform with priorities and talking points, 3.) make a vow to put bickering aside and 4.) set up a national tour, including speakers from fiscal conservative, military conservative and social conservative branches of the party.

Steele has made some mistakes, as he admitted in his speech last Saturday at the Southern Republican Leadership Convention, but simultaneously under his leadership, amazing victories have been achieved in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Now is not the time to fire Steele. This is simply the time to fire him up to unify and to do the hard work of laboring as one collaborative group that puts forth great candidates for conservatives, Tea Party members and independents.