Years ago–during Trump’s first term–I listened as clergy colleagues addressed a committee of the Minnesota legislature in a hearing to determine how the state would respond to Trump’s harsh anti-immigrant policies. One pastor’s testimony was simply a recital of biblical passages concerning love of neighbor and care for the immigrant. Because she was allotted only five minutes, she couldn’t finish the long list of such verses.

Today, even Capitol Hill journalists have caught on that the religious chest-pounding from some in this regime stands in sharp contrast with the rising chorus of defiant activists reciting biblical verses. Earlier in February, one journalist asked the Speaker of the House to address the difference, and Mike Johnson leaped at the chance, declaring that “borders and laws are biblical.” 

What Are Walls for?

Johnson’s statement is true, of course. It’s been a go-to talking point on the religious Right ever since the first Trump administration, when some evangelical scholars rushed to defend cruel and inhumane border policies by stolidly observing that “biblical cities had walls.” 

In fact, as responsible biblical scholars can attest, the most prominent archaeological remains of “biblical” walls today are their massive gate complexes. “City gates in ancient Israel (ca. 1200–586 BCE) were fortified, multi-chambered structures serving as the primary hub for civic, judicial, and economic life. . .”

In other words, one of the primary functions of “biblical walls” and their gates was to open a city, responsibly, to the world around it, as people gathered in and moved through those gates to connect with one another. 

But Johnson’s obsession with “borders” seems to have some other focus: naked partisan ambition, perhaps. Let me stipulate that a morally responsible case can be made for open borders (just a few examples here), but no one on “the Left” is advocating letting violent men swarm into U.S. cities and rampage through neighborhoods, in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights.  That’s official DHS policy you’re thinking of. 

It bears note—again—that according to the DHS’s own records, only a tiny percentage of the people seized off the streets or out of their homes,  thrown into concentration camps, or deported are actually violent criminals—a smaller percentage than in the U.S. population generally.

Love Thy Neighbor—or Not

In contrast, Mike Johnson considers just one passage, Leviticus 19:34, supporting care for the immigrant. He sniffed that “whether [radical Leftists] know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land.” 

He apparently means that because that verse occurs before anything like a bordered Israelite state has been established, it can’t be taken seriously as relevant for actual nations today. 

“CONTEXT,” he declared in all caps, “IS CRITICAL.”

If that statement had appeared in an undergraduate’s paper, I would have circled it in red, written “exactly right!” in the margin—and then asked why context mattered not at all in the rest of his exposition. 

Come to think of it, let me take off my tweed jacket, roll up my sleeves, and spend some time with this argument.

. . . 

So, Mike—may I call you Mike? —you go on to explain that verses like that one, or the “Greatest Commandment” of love of neighbor, were “never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.” Somehow you think that lets you, and the masked brutes prowling U.S. cities, off the hook.

Actually, you might pay closer attention to the verse you just quoted, from the King James translation (of course). Note that in its archaic, 16th-century English, the verse interweaves the singular thou and the plural you: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you [plural] shall be unto you [plural] as one born among you [plural], and thou [singular] shalt love him as thyself [singular].” Note, too, that the command continues, as so often in the Torah, with a reason: “for ye [plural] were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your [plural] God.” 

It’s hard, then, to follow your insistence that this command is addressed only to the “individual.” The “thou” here is called on as a member of a people, and called to identify with a collective experience that should draw them into empathy and solidarity with the “stranger in their midst.” 

You’re right, of course, Mike, that this command doesn’t refer to the borders of a nation. In fact, all of the narrative of the Torah takes place before any of “the congregation of the children of Israel” enter the “promised land.” 

That’s really the point. The Torah reads as God’s formation of a people, independent of their dwelling within specific geographical borders. Yes, later in the story (in Numbers 34) God stipulates just what will be the bounds of the land that the people Israel will occupy. But even later, in Deuteronomy 17, God warns the people that if—in envy of the nations around them—they set a king over themselves, they will be courting danger. Not surprisingly, that’s what happens, and the text warns in anticipation that the establishment of the nation’s borders will take place only later, after the people, who are the Lord’s focus here, have taken what the Lord describes as the wrong direction. 

Even later (Deut. 28), Moses issues a lengthy warning to the people (in the future indicative, Mike, which means the warning also functions as a prophecy of what will happen). The people will turn away from the Lord and, in punishment, “the Lord will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle.” That cruel foreign invader will destroy the nation and disperse its people. Those appear to be retrospective references to the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C.E., which allows scholars to date the main body of Deuteronomy. 

The climax of the book, toward which one could argue the whole of the Torah has been driving, is the solemn, countervailing promise that Moses gives to the assembled people (chapter 30): if—later, after their dispersal “to the ends of the world”—they will turn again in obedience, the Lord “will bring you back . . . into the land that your ancestors possessed” (30:4-5). 

Attentive readers will note some anachronism there. Moses seems to be speaking “over the heads” of the throng assembled before him on the plains of Moab, to address a later generation, living after the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.E.), when the (relatively) more civilized Persian emperor Cyrus the Great allowed exiles to return to Jerusalem. Modern biblical scholarship recognizes the anachronism and recognizes its role in the wider cultural context (there’s that word again) of the ancient near east: a later generation addresses their own situation by revitalizing older tradition and attributing the result to an ancient lawgiver. 

It’s clear from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the Torah was made “the law of the land” under Cyrus’s direction. Serious biblical scholars recognize that, discussing the relationship of “Persia and Torah” and describing the final Torah as “the literature of colonial Yehud,” a phrase first popularized by the late, great Norman K. Gottwald. 

At this point, Mike, I’ll admit I don’t seriously expect you to follow this argument, because it’s so uncongenial to your commitments. You are what any contemporary Bible scholar would recognize as a literalist, probably a Fundamentalist, and not a curious one at that. We recognize your type in the classroom pretty early in a semester. You’re not really a student: you’re a provocateur, and no one is going to change your mind.

I hope I’ve not gone too far into the biblical-scholarship weeds. I just want to point out that there is a world of actual study of the Bible in its historical context, which for some of us really is critical. That means recognizing that the final form of the Torah didn’t fall from heaven into Moses’s hands; that it was created centuries later, in solemn retrospect, by people who were trying to discern the divine will in the course of their own history. It wasn’t written to speak to people living on some other continent two and a half millennia later, though centuries of white Christian Protestants have insisted that they are precisely the Bible’s long-awaited subjects. 

More directly to the point of your concern, Mike, the Torah doesn’t imagine that any people can be kept holy through strict border controls. Holiness is a matter of doing right by their neighbors—which is why the single command you discuss appears as part of what scholars call the “holiness code” in the book of Leviticus.

This is a good place to observe that the ways any of us reads the Bible always say more about us than about the Bible. You presume that the Bible provides the blueprint for a white Christian America, to which everyone else must “assimilate”—a line that received an appropriate response from Stephen Colbert. 

You present your neat division of labor as the master-key to interpreting the Bible. “The Bible,” you write, “teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority—(1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities.” All that “love of neighbor” stuff in the Bible, so popular on the “progressive Left,” applies, you insist, only to the “INDIVIDUAL” (sic); in contrast, you write, “the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).” 

It’s interesting that you don’t cite any Bible verse  that lays out that division of labor—but not surprising. No such categorization of responsibilities ever appears in scripture. You or, more precisely, the Christian Dominionists on whom you rely made it up. The reason is pretty clear: You prefer a scheme that gives you authority over the rest of us to actual biblical teaching.

Let’s give those verses in Romans more attention than you’ve managed, Mike. (Full disclosure: I’ve written two books on the Letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperialism, and an additional scholarly essay just on this passage, 13:1-7.) 

There is no divine “calling” or “establishment” or “authorization” of government in these verses; the Greek participle tetagmenai (rendered “ordained” in the King James Version, and “appointed” in the New King James Version) has a restrictive sense and might better be translated “set in rank,” the way a drill sergeant might snap unruly troops to attention. The punitive role of governing authorities is described in the indicative—as a matter of fact—and not as a positive value. 

You seem attracted to the calm assurance in verses 3 and 4 that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil”; so, the one who does right has nothing to fear. To you, as to everyone in this administration and abroad in MAGA world, that means that people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were self-evidently evil-doers, and their deaths are their own damn fault. 

Leave aside for a moment the breathtaking indifference to brutality expressed in such sentiment. Even at the level of reading ancient biblical texts, this facile moral embrace of whatever the government does fails miserably. 

The apostle Paul knew perfectly well that government authorities were lethally dangerous to innocent people; after all, he declares that “the rulers of this age” crucified the innocent Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8), and later in that letter, assures his readers that at “the end,” Christ will destroy “all rule and all authority and power” and thus put “all enemies under His feet” (15:24-25). Paul describes his own record of being arrested and beaten by civil authorities as evidence that he is a genuine messenger of God, which is the opposite of how you want us to use the Bible (4:9-13). 

Scholars more chastened by actual history know that reaching for Romans 13 to buttress government authority has been the ploy of governments that have no intention of acting virtuously: Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, any number of other brutal dictatorships since. The passage remains something of an enigma, but over the last half century, scholars have observed the following:

1. Paul thinks his hearers have good reason to be afraid of the civil authorities (the words “terror” in v. 3 and “fear” in v. 7 are the same word in Greek, phobos). That good reason is precisely that the authority “does not bear the sword in vain” (v. 4). (Paul wrote that line at a time when the new emperor, the teenage Nero, was requiring his speechwriters to insist that he had brought peace throughout the Empire without even touching a sword.)
2. The Roman sword remains a constant lethal danger, as Paul affirms earlier in this same letter: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (8:36).
3. Precisely because Roman authorities had proven themselves a deadly blunt instrument in putting down tax protests in nearby Puteoli, then again in a mass expulsion of Jews from Rome in a habitual over-reaction to civil unrest, Paul knows his own people are at greatest risk if the civil authorities crack down over any disquiet. 
4. And that’s why, in unfortunately stereotyped language, Paul here urged his (non-Jewish) readers to keep their heads down and their noses clean—advice he himself usually did not practice. 

The Bible for Thee, Not for Me

All of this is relevant historical context, yet none of it seems to matter to you, Mike, so I want to ask a few more questions.

If you took seriously the division you outlined between biblical instructions for “the individual” and those for “civil authorities”—why wouldn’t you accept the first as decisive for yourself?  Sure, you’ve been elected to the House, and your colleagues have made you Speaker, but if you had known what the Bible commanded you as an individual, why would you ever have sought public office? Indeed, why would you aspire to be an “agent of wrath,” instead of a righteous lover of mercy, as the Bible does expressly command? 

It seems to me that no Bible verse or biblical commentator is quite as important for your “theology” as the logic of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, a favorite of self-styled right-wing intellectuals like Peter Thiel (and his protegé J. D. Vance). For Schmitt, what made a nation was sovereignty, and what constituted sovereignty was the power to declare a state of exception to the laws that everyone else had to follow. That’s why you want to be in government, Mike—especially in this government, where declaring national emergencies is the most convenient way to ignore Congress, the courts, and the Constitution.

And why else, Mike, would you reach for the Bible to explain your eager participation in this regime? Even if you were right about the Bible’s authorization of government as God’s “agent of wrath,”  nobody asked you to serve the Bible. 

Instead, you were asked to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

I know that’s loaded with all sorts of language you’d prefer was not there: “domestic Tranquility”? “general Welfare”? “the Blessings of Liberty”? It’s pretty obvious you would rather be doling out punishment to “bad guys,” so you prefer to think that’s what the Bible authorizes you to do. 

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan taught us to recognize how often “the medium is the message.” The principle has no more apt illustration than you addressing a roomful of journalists and, over their heads, the American people, to tell us that the Bible authorizes you and your Republican colleagues to ignore the basic morality and decency to which so many of us feel bound. That moment—the medium of your self-righteous little Bible study—is the message you find in the Bible: you and your people decide, we obey. 

Fantasies of self-righteousness and the divine power to punish wicked others, fed by apocalyptic texts in the Bible, are rife in the present regime. More attentive readers of Revelation, or the prophecy in Matthew 25, will notice that no government officials, no military commanders appear in biblical visions of heaven, or heaven on earth. It is clear enough from the Beatitudes Jesus pronounces in Matthew 5 that the blessed are not those who have used force to assert their will but the poor in spirit, the meek, those who hunger for justice, those who make peace.

Don’t worry, Mike–there’s still time to read up.  

The post The Bible and the Border: Mike Johnson Explains It All (or Does He?) appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

At the end of January, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Chicago Cuba Coalition’s event titled “War in the Americas, Cuba, Colombia, Immigrants in the Crosshairs, What’s Next? What Can We Do?” During this event, I spoke about my experience on the DSA Cuba delegation. This event took place days after Trump’s new executive order, which seeks to further limit fuel going into Cuba. Trump’s executive order on Cuba, paired with the toppling of Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro, exacerbates the humanitarian crises unfolding in Latin America. My goal was to capture the beauty and resilience of the Cuban people despite every attempt to cut them down. I hope to carry that spirit of revolutionary struggle – which is still alive and well in Cuba today – into our local work, which takes place within the belly of the imperialist beast that is the United States of America.

***

Transcript of speech by Lyra Spencer, delivered January 31, 2026 at Chicago Teachers Union Headquarters. Text edited for clarity.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lyra Spencer, and I am one of the two co-chairs of Chicago DSA. It is such a privilege and an honor to share the stage with such scholars, experts, and fighters who have been working to end the blockade for many years. 

I come to bring my experience and perspective as someone who had the privilege to travel to the island in October along with my DSA comrades in solidarity with Cuba. Thank you for giving me this space to share my experience. Cuba, interestingly enough, was my first trip abroad. It was a life changing experience for many reasons. 

I want to start by foregrounding the humanitarian crises unfolding in Cuba inflicted upon that nation by the United States. While I was there in October, Cuba was really struggling. Older buildings in Havana’s city center were crumbling and trash started piling up in places due to the lack of fuel for trash collection. There was actually a moment when we were passing a field on our bus where two 12-year-old boys carrying a trash can emptied it into a nearby lot. The hospitals are in desperate need of supplies, and they experience frequent power outages.

Cuba is facing a currency crisis. The Cuban peso has taken such a hit that many of the smaller peso units of currency are worthless now. Cuba, despite its robust public healthcare program, has a shortage of doctors now because the median wage is paid in pesos at $25 dollars per month. Cuban residents can find much more lucrative wages working in tourism, where currency and tips are often exchanged in U.S. dollars. A restaurant server often makes far more money than doctors.

A local Cuban journalist described the situation, stating that there used to be a baseline in Cuba where everyone had their basic needs met. No one was particularly wealthy, but no one was forced to live in extreme poverty either. However, because of the blockade, many of Cuba’s residents are falling into a type of destitution that few have experienced before. All of this was prior to the illegal kidnapping of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela, and before the executive order on Cuba. 

I can only imagine how hard things must be for the people of Cuba now. I wanted to ground us in this place upfront to acknowledge the rough spot that Cuba is in as a result of U.S. imperialism. The reason why I chose to foreground this is because I do not believe that the full story is one of sadness and sorrow, but one of beauty, resilience, and liberation.

***

The most shocking thing about Cuba wasn’t the problems that ail its society today. For me as an American, it was seeing a society centered around the wellbeing of humans and not the maximization of shareholder value.

While in Cuba, we visited three main places that I want to highlight. The first being one of the main hospitals in Cuba, where we learned from some of the top doctors about the Cuban healthcare system. In Cuba, everyone has access to free healthcare, and it is considered a fundamental right. Healthcare was one of the main tenants of the Cuban revolution, and Fidel Castro demanded equal access to healthcare for all Cubans as a part of his two-hour denunciation of the Batista regime following his arrest for his involvement in the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba on the 26th of July, 1953.

Immediately after the revolution, doctors were sent to every corner of Cuba which had been previously neglected to survey the population and find out the needs of the public. They immediately set up a primary care system and started treating the most common ailments of the day. Cuba has historically had lower infant mortality rates than the United States, as well as a similar life expectancy and more equal health outcomes along race and income lines. The people of Cuba enjoy far better access to primary care, with doctors and nursing teams located at the neighborhood level, and residents having access to frequent preventative screenings. Even with Cuba’s current doctor shortage, they still have a higher doctor-to-population ratio than the U.S. 

Not only does Cuba provide excellent healthcare for its citizens, it also exports its doctors around the world to help other Global South countries in need. The only limitation to the Cuban healthcare system are the restrictions placed upon it by the U.S. embargo. It is ironic, despite its immense wealth, that the U.S. government is doing everything in its power to remove access to healthcare for millions of Americans. Despite the hardships imposed on them by the blockade, the people of Cuba are doing everything it can to keep quality care and expand it to other countries in need. 

During the trip to this hospital, I noticed something that I rarely see here in Chicago: Black doctors in prominent leadership positions within Cuba. In fact, Cuban society was fairly integrated, at least in Havana. Not only doctors, but professors, museum curators, lawyers, and countless other professions had their fair share of Afro-Cubans working together in Cuban civil society.

This was one of the first stark differences I noticed, as a Black woman residing in a northern neighborhood in Chicago. Back home, I could go days without seeing someone who looks like me, despite Chicago being 30% Black. Furthermore, professions are often unofficially segregated by race in the U.S., just as the neighborhoods in Chicago are. On our way out of the hospital, one of the doctors revealed that she was in her seventies, which was a shock to all of us. On the trip someone asked how she manages to look so youthful, she replied, “The revolution keeps me beautiful.”

***

The second place I want to talk about is the Latin America School of Medicine in Havana. There, we learned that Cuba sends doctors to other Global South countries around the world as a humanitarian service to the poor. The country takes in students, houses them, and trains them to return to practice medicine in their own countries free of charge. The head instructor told us that they share what they have with the community, including educational instruction, supplies, and temporary housing. But in exchange they also share some of Cuba’s problems, such as blackouts and limited access to food. The head instructor told us that recently fresh water hadn’t been available at the school for twenty days, and the students operated to distribute water pipes sent to them in equitable ways. In some communities in Latin America, over 70% of the doctors came from the Latin American School of Medicine. I also found it interesting that this school has also trained doctors from poor communities within the U.S., having hosted over 244 U.S.-American students since the academy’s founding. Eight U.S. students will be graduating this year.

The last place I want to cover is Cenesex. Cenesex is the Cuban National Center for Sex Education. It handles most of the country’s sex education, along with advocacy and essential services for queer people. The organization works to educate the population on all things related to queer and trans people, domestic violence, and sexual abuse. 

Cenesex was one of the main institutions responsible for the update to the family code that was passed through a nationwide referendum in 2022. It legalized same-sex marriage and adoption and recognized non-traditional family structures outside of the nuclear family, focusing on the rights and wellbeing of children over parental authority, mandating equal sharing of domestic responsibilities and gender equality, banning corporal punishment for children, and setting the minimum age for marriage in the country to eighteen. Cenesex was one of the main drivers of the advocacy campaign in favor of the new code, hosting public input and educational forums all across the country. It also helps trans individuals navigate transitioning, preparing them for surgeries, offering them and their families counseling, and connecting them to much-needed resources.

One moment that was the cornerstone of this trip was leaving Cenesex. There were three trans people on this trip, and we all cried after the visit. It was truly shocking to see a government institution actively care about our wellbeing instead of trying to erase our identity, call us “groomers,” and eradicate us from existence. We are told by our government that Cuba is a danger to the United States, yet each and every one of us trans women on this trip felt far safer in Havana than we did crossing through the Miami airport to get there.

***

The reality of Cuba that I experienced is one of resilience. Despite our government’s best efforts, Cuba has created a society that centers around the wellbeing of its population. While I was there, I saw very little military and police. I saw integration. I saw a government and people trying as hard as they could to get by in spite of the situation. Like any government, it makes mistakes. However, the central point of Cuba’s state planning is to center human wellbeing. 

The only danger that Cuba presents to the United States is the danger of U.S. citizens seeing what a government with a fraction of our country’s resources can do to take care of its people and its struggling neighbors. That is why our imperialist government is fighting so hard to finish the job of its predecessors and destroy the revolution once and for all.

I left Cuba with a renewed sense of responsibility. The only people that have the power to stop what our government is doing is us. We must carry the strength, beauty, and resilience of the Cuban people in our struggles against this fascist Trump regime. We must stand united in the belly of the beast.

Thank you.

The post The Revolution Keeps Me Beautiful: A Report-Back of the DSA Cuba Delegation appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

It is that time of year again, time for Vermont’s annual Town Meting Day tradition. 

The last two years have seen schools and school budgets become the focus on local as well as state politics. As in every year, Green Mountain DSA (GMDSA) recommends voting yes on your local school budget. 

GMDSA only chose to endorse one candidate for a local race this year, but there are elections in every town, city and village, some of which are more exciting than others. The rest of this voter guide will be a town-by-town breakdown of local races in areas where there is an active GMDSA presence, of both elections and ballot questions. 

Burlington

Green Mountain DSA has only endorsed one candidate this TMD, being Marek Broderick, for re-election to the city council in Ward 8. Before first being elected in 2024, Marek was co-chair and an organizer with the UVM chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, DSA’s youth section. As a councilor, Marek has fought for tenants’ rights on and off campus, including notably organizing with UVM's Student Tenant Union to win unanimous support for a resolution holding UVM accountable for poor housing conditions. Marek was unanimously endorsed for re-election by the chapter because the fight is not over. If Marek wins on March 3, he will continue to fight for housing for all, tenant rights, and a city that everyone can call home.

However, Marek’s advocacy for renters, students and the broader working class has not made him any friends within Burlington’s establishment. This year, the Democrat Party chose to nominate only one candidate to run against an incumbent: the landlord Ryan Nick, scion of commercial real estate tycoon Jeff Nick, is running to unseat Marek. 

Nick has been able to raise considerable cash through his connections to the city’s monied interests, mostly from other landlords and real estate moguls. This is fitting, as Nick has made a name for himself as a vocal opponent of essential harm reduction services like the Howard Center’s needle exchange, and an opponent of mutual aid groups like Food Not Cops. Ryan himself works for his father’s real estate company, JL Davis Realty, on “tenant relations,” according to his CCTV candidate forum. Between his status as one of Burlington’s landlords and his antagonism of community groups, Green Mountain DSA believes that Nick cannot be trusted to hold police accountable and exactly represents the elites’ status quo that is crushing us workers. 

If you live in Ward 8, please vote to re-elect Marek Broderick!

Green Mountain DSA recommends voting for all other Progressive candidates, including in Ward 7, where Bill Standen is running to unseat Democrat Even Litwin.  Green Mountain DSA also recommends voting yes on question three, which would enshrine the city’s Racial Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Office in the city charter. 

Lastly, the coalition that put Proposition 0 on the ballot in 2023 is at it again, aiming to get the direct democracy charter change on the ballot again in time for the November midterms. We recommend signing the petition to get Proposition 0 on the ballot. 

Winooski

In Winooski, there are no contested races for city council or the mayor. Green Mountain DSA offers no recommendations for this election, other than a yes vote for both the city and school budgets, particularly article six which would allow the school to purchase a nearby home to the school with surplus funds. The property will be used by the school for specialized educational settings for students who need it. Currently, the school system does not have something like this and students who need a specialized education setting are required to travel out of district. We would also like to note that an added benefit of this purchase is removing a known Zionist's pro Israel propaganda from the property being purchased.

GMDSA also recommends Katie Livermore, who is running for re-election to the School Board. Many Winooski GMDSAers know her from her work on the Winooski AFC campaign which passed last year with over 70% approval. Katie played an integral role in that campaign and continues to organize in her community both in the school and outside.

South Burlington

Unlike Burlington, and like Winooski and the rest of Vermont municipalities, South Burlington elections are officially non-partisan. However, this does not stop them from being competitive. For the two-year seat this year, the two candidates running are Amy Allen and Beth Zigmund. Allen seems to be a typical pro-business, establishment candidate, while Zigmund is running with the support of progressive non-profits like Run on Climate (which also endorsed Marek Broderick). Green Mountain DSA offers no recommendation in this race, but leans toward favoring Zigmund. 

Montpelier

Montpelier residents will again vote on the Apartheid-Free Communities (AFC) pledge, after it was voted down last year. The pledge, which passed last year in Winooski and various other towns across Vermont, condemns Israel’s system of Apartheid, settler colonialism and occupation, and commits the signer to fighting for liberation in Palestine. Green Mountain DSA endorses AFC, and urges Montpelier residents to vote yes. 

Waterbury

On Waterburry’s ballot this year, there are three seats up for election: one three-year seat, and two one-year. For the three-year seat, Republican Chris Viens is the only candidate to have made it onto the ballot. Fortunately, former Selectboard member Don Schneider has announced a write-in campaign, and we recommend writing in his name. The chapter offers no recommendation for the one-year seat, but recommends voting yes on the Randall Meadow bond question .

Randolph

Randolph residents of the police district again face an increased police budget, this time to $893,357. Despite the district containing less than half the town’s total population of just 4,774 people, the police budget is approximately a sixth of the town’s budget. Green Mountain DSA recommends residents vote no on the police budget.

Randolph also has two selectboard elections this year. The three-year seat race is between Ashley Lincoln and Emery Mattheis, and the two-year seat is between Bethany Silloway and Dustin Adams. Mattheis and Adams are running with the newly-formed “Committee for a Cooler ‘Dolf,” organized by a GMDSA member. Adams is also a GMDSA member himself, although he did not seek the chapter’s endorsement. GMDSA recommends voting for Emery Mattheis and Dustin Adams.

St Albans

St. Albans has a relatively slim election this year. Three city seats are open – two city counselors and the Mayor – all of which are uncontested. 

Article three continues a seven year project to upgrade and update the city's 1953 water system. The current ask is for St. Albans residents to permit the borrowing of $800,000 to refurbish the existing town water tank; this accounts for half the total cost (project total of $1.6M) with the remaining $800,000 covered by a no-interest 40 year loan. Completion of the project will ensure that St. Albans continues to provide safe, clean water to residents without service interruption caused by maintenance: GMDSA recommends voting yes on Article three. 

Article two is a proposed budget for FY2027. Effort has been made to keep expenses low for residents with a modest property tax increase of 2.2% (estimated to be $50 more per resident throughout the year), and the budget includes capital improvements for the Welden Theater, new breathing apparatuses for fire responders, a lawn mower for city parks and properties, an increase in services provided by the Restorative Justice Center, and a new snow plow. The budget also includes a substantial increase for Police and Dispatch wages, as well as two new vehicles (one marked, one unmarked) for the St. Albans Police Department. Because the FY27 budget devotes nearly 50% of its total projected $15.5M expenditure to Dispatch and Police service, GMDSA recommends voting no on Article 2 unless the police budget is disentangled from other budgetary needs or the increase in police spending explicates integration of support/social service resources into law enforcement services. 

Town Meeting Day is Tuesday, March 3, 2026. Please email us at hello@greenmountaindsa.org if you’d like to join a canvass between now and then, or if you’d like to see an item on your town’s ballot included in this guide. 

You can check your voter registration here. 

Kat Armas’s Liturgies for Resisting Empire: Seeking Community, Belonging, and Peace in a Dehumanizing World meets readers amid a renewed consolidation of Western imperialism. It is equally part memoir, spiritual and consciousness-building guide, and cultural criticism. By tracing the long history of imperialism and how its violence continues to live “unchecked” in our contemporary minds, bodies, language, and social practices, Armas points the way for how we can begin to heal through a global decolonization project rooted in radical Christian hermeneutics.

By emphasizing the beginning point of this comprehensive decolonization project, Armas suggests we largely hold off–for now–on the concreteness of the project’s political dimension because so many are still in a recovery phase. As such, Liturgies serves as a humbling reminder to students of liberation theology of how early we still are in the struggle and how much necessary spiritual work remains to be done on both inter/intrapersonal levels before the Christian Left (and the broader U.S. Left) can meaningfully confront and overcome empire. 

The Two Tracks of Healing from Empire

Each of Liturgies’ nine chapters follows a four-part structure: a folklore tale from the colonized world; an analysis of topics long discussed in post-colonial studies (such as ideology, hierarchy, dualism, dominance, violence) and its corresponding, desired alternatives (think wisdom,kinship, paradox, connection, peace); a prayer of resistance; and last, a benediction. 

“This is not just about individual transformation but also a commitment to fostering collective change.” Armas writes. “We cannot build something in the world that we haven’t first cultivated within ourselves.” Accordingly, Armas argues that the path to decolonization unfolds along two sequential tracks, reflecting liberation theology’s insistence that a commitment to God is both horizontal and vertical: first, a healing oriented toward the self, our ancestors, and all within the “kin-dom” who have been harmed by imperial power; and second, resistance to an imperialist apparatus enforced by a conjuncture of the state and its military hardware, capitalism and extractivism, and the soft power of the reactionary forces in Christianity.

Liturgies tilts heavily toward this first healing track, focusing on the unlearning of the beliefs and affective habits that Armas and other victims of empire have internalized as part of a colonized existence. We read about Armas’s experience as a young adult in Miami with an evangelist church to which she enthusiastically gave up her life to serve faithfully. But when Armas became disillusioned with her church’s aggressive, commodified push to prioritize the recruitment of “twenty thousand souls,” she pivoted away from evangelism. Armas speaks of her Cuban-American ancestry and separation from the homeland in the context of Cold War politics as well as of the trauma of her Abuela Flora’s multiple suicide attempts. 

Armas’s writing evokes the voices of bell hooks, adrienne maree brown, Homi Bhabha, and especially Gloria Anzaldúa. The Anzaldúa influence is evident when Armas argues that healing rejects “clean lines of binaries” and is instead a process where we sit with the “tangled tension of human life” and embrace the “thin space” that disrupts the borders between heaven/earth and time/space. Faith is a “paradox” and the mysteries of Christian theology (Jesus/human/divine and Mary/virgin/mother) are ones never to be solved.  

I found this discussion on the tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes the most interesting feature of the book. But in this moment of political despair, my mind longs for a political and precise description of the most potent strategies for organizing a collective, decolonization project. 

Constituting Theology

Certainly, the absence of a “What is to be Done?” strategy in Liturgies isn’t because Armas lacks a direct understanding of those suffering from the impact of imperialism. 

Armas recounts how, during a mission trip, she helped distribute free Bibles to Haitians. One woman thanked Armas for the gift but declined it, stating that eye glasses were much more a priority. After that exchange, Armas shares that she felt “useless” for having failed to “see” what was most critical to the poor. Armas therefore recognizes the urgent need for Christians to organize to do the type of collective, political work described in Romans 1:11–12 and elsewhere.

Using “liturgy” in the book’s title evokes a distinctly Christian vision of power from below, as liturgy signals an engaged community poised for resistance. As Armas writes, empire “fears our togetherness, our longing for belonging.”

In her efforts to flesh out some sort of a specific political vision, Armas cites Acts 2 where a decentralized multitude is “wrapped in chaos” as each speaks in languages other than the language of empire, thus representing a subversive threat to empire. There are references contra state power, and “kingdom” becomes “Kin-dom” in a world decolonizing. The activities described in Jeremiah 29:5 (building houses and planting gardens) operate alongside prayer as concrete political actions that can spark “rebellion,” Armas suggests.  

Both personal and collective healing–as well as political transformation and the transition to socialism–are extended political processes that don’t come with exact timetables. This has long been recognized in classic Marxist texts such as Lenin’s State and Revolution, Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed, Engels’s “The Principles of Communism,” and in specifically-imperialist context, Cabral’s “The Weapon of Theory.” But Armas’s political playbook for struggle includes just a handful of tactics and practices (such as land reform) in which to bring down empire–and none of them particularly revolutionary. Once again, we can’t help but seek more militant solutions that directly speak to the urgency we face on the U.S. Left. Yet the constricted political terrain available for resistance and reconstruction in Liturgies may be by design, directing readers toward the cultivation of a faith-based foundation before engaging the political structures necessary to overcome imperialism. 

The Trajectory of Trauma & Political Mobilization

Like many of us on the U.S. Left, Armas is understandably pessimistic about any immediate, political insurgency to get things going in the right direction. One might be tempted to compare Armas’s political vision unfavorably with the clarity and confidence of earlier generations of liberation theologians. In the 1970s and 1980s, Juan Hernández Pico interpreted the Book of Joshua (6–9, 18) and other passages to argue that Salvadoran guerrillas and campesinos rightly embraced a “co-responsibility” with God in launching social struggles. Just as the Israelites urged Joshua to see himself alongside God as a liberatory agent for his people, Hernández Pico contended that Salvadorans, too, were called to become active protagonists in their struggle for freedom.Yet Armas surely recognizes that our present political moment is markedly different from Pico’s El Salvador of forty years ago.

This is speculation, but I believe that Armas is addressing the collective trauma that has long occupied a significant place in postcolonial scholarship. Because many aspiring revolutionaries only read Fanon’s famous first chapter (“Concerning Violence”) in The Wretched of the Earth, they’re missing out on the larger, more important point he outlines in the last chapter, which consists of a series of clinical reports on psychiatric patients (who include both the colonized and colonizers). For Fanon, political violence against empire may be necessary to decolonization, yet it is not, by itself, liberatory. Violence, then, in his account, is not an end but a catalyst for healing—a process the colonized must continue long after the achievement of state independence. 

The preliminary task for the activation of healing, Fanon argues, is for the colonized to continually ask–and contemplate–during the resistance and beginning again, nation-building phases of decolonization, “In reality, who am I?” Certainly, readers of faith will welcome such non-violent, regenerative practices in constructing political alternatives to empire. 

Several generations later in the never-ending struggle against imperialism and in the tradition of the colonized speaking in their own voices on the experience of trauma (including as they do throughout the Bible), Armas also recognizes that the U.S. Left is nowhere near articulating the organizational capacities and power structures that could be put into place to overcome imperialism. Accordingly, the starting point for Armas’s approach to launching such a political project is for us to be vulnerable in “bearing witness” so that we may first call things as they are–and then deploy an appropriate political response. Such a strategy is on the surface a modest one but it is vital to overcoming our despair and isolation and ultimately, activating the long struggle leading to liberation. 

The post First Things First: Why Politics Needs to Wait appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

Congratulations to Marek Broderick of Green Mountain DSA, we proudly endorse your re-election to Burlington’s City Council!

Marek’s time so far on the city council is marked by his dedication to protecting renters, supporting students, and public service!

When students at UVM organized for better living conditions, Marek listened, and acted! The city council passed a resolution to address the deteriorating dorms thanks to Marek’s action and students’ organizing!

DSA is proud to continue fighting alongside Marek for a better Burlington!

Marek is part of a slate of candidates in the Socialist Cash Takes Out Capitalist Trash fundraising project!