Weeks ago Brian published this blog post about the controversy over the Muslim community center being built in New York.  Since then the news coverage and related visceral and divisive hate speech has not died away, which makes me wonder, what will it take for people to realize that responding to hatred with hatred only spurs more hatred.  

A much better and more effective response is real dialogue and compassion.  We absolutely must learn to see each other a people who probably have more in common than we think.  Our JRLC legislative agenda is a good example of this.  It is a visual example of how Muslims, Jews and Christians (three groups of people who some think can't get along) and come together and work on tough issues that can divide even the best of friends.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has developed a series of public service announcements to counter the hate speech surrounding the New York community center.  What I find beautiful about the PSA, is that their response is not an attack back but rather an example of unity.  

What do you think about their video?  Do you think it is effective, and sends the right message?

"I firmly believe our salvation depends on the poor."

- Dorothy Day

Here at JRLC, we feel lucky to have a mission and values, articulated by faith leaders in our local Minnesota communities, and carried out by our fantastic organizing networks, that highlight the importance of the common good, human dignity, and right relationships. We look to examples like Dorothy Day to keep us walking this path and working for justice in Minnesota.

What inspiration do you take to keep you going? Share some quotations and inspirational figures with us in the comments section.

(Photo source).

by Dr. Bernard Evans, professor at St John's University and member of JRLC's Executive Board. Cross-posted with courtesy of the St Cloud Visitor.

Felons voting! Really. Is that so bad? Recent news carried a number of stories about voting by felons. Politicians stepped before cameras to assure their constituents – or would-be constituents – that they will be tough on felons. Persons convicted of a felony, it seems, are easy targets for cheap political points especially when the politicians involved ignore all nuances that come with the word, “felon.”

Persons convicted of a felony may be serving time in prison or jail; they may have served their time and are now on parole; they may be on probation. They also may be “off paper,” meaning all their obligations have been satisfied. A total of 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with a felony conviction. About 4 million of these live, work, pay taxes and raise families in our communities.

Whether such persons are allowed to vote depends upon where they live. Thirty-five states, including Minnesota, deny the right to vote to persons convicted of a felony as long as they remain on paper – that is, incarcerated or on parole or on probation. Other states restore this right as soon as the person leaves prison or jail. Two states (Maine and Vermont) allow inmates to vote. Two others (Kentucky and Virginia) permanently disenfranchise anyone convicted of a felony.

Catholic social teaching speaks of the right to participation – that is, the right to be involved in decision-making processes that affect our lives. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960’s spoke of citizens’ right and duty to vote freely in the interest of advancing the common good. What the U.S. Catholic Bishops said twenty years later about participation in the economy can be applied as well to voting. “Basic justice demands the establishment of minimum levels of participation in the life of the human community for all persons. The ultimate injustice is for a person or group to be treated actively or abandoned passively as if they were nonmembers of the human race. To treat people this way is effectively to say they simply do not count as human beings” (Economic Justice for All, 77). To deny people their right to vote is another way of saying they simply do not matter. This is wrong for the persons directly affected by such laws; it is wrong for the larger community as well.

Voting is the basis of American democracy and the health of our democracy requires the broadest possible voter participation. Restoring the vote to persons convicted of a felony encourages their participation in civic life, encourages them to re-establish healthy ties to the community, encourages them to be responsible citizens.

In 2007 the Minnesota Catholic Bishops joined other religious leaders in the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition (JRLC) in issuing a statement on voting rights for persons convicted of a felony. The statement urged the Department of Corrections and the Minnesota Secretary of State to do a better job of informing felons that they have the right to vote after they are “off paper.” It called for better communication between the justice department and election officials so that ex-felons are not red flagged at the polls even after they have satisfied their obligations. It also encouraged the State of Minnesota to extend the right to vote to felons as soon as they are released to the community and not wait until they are off probation or parole.

All of us in the Catholic community would do well to follow the lead of our bishops on this issue. At the very least we might allow ourselves to become better informed about this topic. With a little more information we might discourage others from targeting for political gain persons who have made mistakes, paid their price and now seek reintegration into our communities.

(Photo source)

There's no doubt anymore about what the Governor's race is about. It is about whether a vigorous state government is needed, for what purposes, and how the tax code should be altered to reflect each candidate's vision.

I am keeping two things in mind as I evaluate the candidates. First, Minnesota's state constitution gives the Governor a lot of power. Hence, Governors, unless they fumble badly, get about 85% of what they want budget-wise. And on top of that, Governors leave a lasting effect on the judiciary. In other words the Governor's race is huge!!!

Second, I'm listening and looking at their websites to see who best has a grip on the shifting tax burdens of the last decade and has a vision for both shared tax burdens and a plan for shared prosperity. Check out their websites, listed here alphabetically: Mark Dayton, Tom Emmer, Tom Horner.

JRLC keeps looking at the fairness and economic impacts of tax burdens and you'll be hearing more about that soon. In the meantime, the tax fairness cards, seen above, keep flying out of the office!

Brian Rusche
executive director