With that in mind, I introduce another recurring feature in this issue, called "One Man Watching: 2nd Look". This is where I will revisit past commentaries where I have learned new information, changed my mind, and/or, as is the case today, made a prediction that has not come to pass. 

In our current political climate, anybody who changes their mind or backs down from a statement they have made is accused of "flip-flopping". There is a difference, though, between changing your position every time the polls indicate a shift in the wind and recognizing when we are wrong. Given the fact that nobody, politicians and pundits included, is ever going to always be right, it's an important distinction to make. I'm certainly no less fallible than the next person, so here is where I will offer my mea culpas, make my turnarounds, and eat my fair share of crow. 

One side note: Happy birthday wishes go out to my sister, Sharon, who celebrates another year of growing in grace and wisdom today. 

Brad Pardee
Editor

This week marked the annual Labor Day holiday in the United States, and if you looked past the picnics, the back-to-school sales, and the Jerry Lewis Muscular Dystrophy Telethon, you could see the celebration of the American worker, particularly those affiliated with the American labor movement. 

The labor movement has historically been a constituency of liberal Democrats. If you question this, ask yourself how often you hear about a labor union endorsing a candidate that is a conservative Republican. I'm sure it has happened somewhere at some point, but I don't remember any instances of it. Consequently, whenever an issue comes along where labor and conservatives are on the same side, they truly constitute "strange bedfellows". 

It didn't have to be that way, though. If you think back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, when the seeds of organized labor were taking root, you will recall horrific stories. Workplaces that were, at best, sweatshops and, at worst, deathtraps. Business owners that viewed their workers as disposable commodities. The worst of the tales could cause the strongest of people to look away. 

Where were the conservatives? Were they so committed to limited federal government that they neglected the duty of elected officials to ensure public safety and human rights? I'm no historian, and I can't say what their thoughts were, but the fact seems to remain that it was the liberals, not the conservatives, who saw the injustice and took a stand, much as they would in the bitter civil rights struggles of the 1960s. 

Even more troubling, though, is the question of "Where was the church?" The Gospels make it clear that the church is to act on behalf of the poor and the weak. Although there were those who did (such as William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army), there were a great many who found themselves vulnerable and alone. 

The Gospels also make it clear that the church is to call the cruel and unjust to task. When the captains of industry failed to "love their neighbor as themselves", where was the voice of the church calling them to repent of what they did "to the least of these"? 

In a society far less secular than ours is today, I have difficulty believing that they could not have brought about a change in society that was rooted in changed hearts. Because the church failed to do so, they left a void that was waiting to be filled by others. 

Into this void came a labor movement that used its power to demand changes and to do so with the threat of strikes, some of which turned violent. An adversarial relationship was established that still exists today, and although workplaces are safer and rights are more freely claimed, it hasn't come about because of changed hearts. There's no question that there have been excesses on the side of the unions, some as bad as what they are supposed to fight. There's also no question, though, that, if we we returned to a non-union non-regulated workplace, the old abuses in pursuit of profit would return as well. 

So we are left with an imperfect stand-off where those who ought to be partners for a common goal are instead adversaries. It is a pair of necessary evils, but the great tragedy is that it didn't have to be this way. 

I was quite surprised, therefore, to see the Anti-Defamation League come out with a strong statement calling for Senator Lieberman to limit the expressions of his faith. Also heard from were Salon magazine and Barry Lynn of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, among others. 

To their credit, they have shown themselves not to be applying a double standard in this instance. Granted, their criticism of Senator Lieberman was a quiet concern about what they saw as inappropriate. Nobody suggested that he was the pawn of religious fanatics who posed a threat to all we hold dear. However, at least they showed a general distaste for politicians who express their faith without regard for their relative liberalism or conservatism. 

Unfortunately, where I expected them to treat one candidate rightly and one candidate wrongly, their common treatment was to treat both candidates wrongly. In doing to, they reflect a false understanding of the proper role of faith in our public life, and I'll address that in an upcoming issue.