Ralph Reed to Jim Wallis: Broad Concerns Are Compatible with a Focused Agenda
Part four of a dialogue between Jim Wallis and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed on the question: "What should values voters value most?"
Jim, I fear you have been paying only selective attention to religious conservatives. Conservative people of faith care about a broad range of issues, including tax relief, education, poverty, racial reconciliation, crime and drugs, welfare reform…and, yes, protecting innocent human life and defending marriage.
The Christian Coalition for instance, not only pushed for a ban on partial birth abortion but also for rebuilding African-American churches burned by arsonists motivated by racial bigotry. We worked for passage of a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class, working families – which Bill Clinton opposed and vetoed twice—and tax credits for charitable giving to the poor. We also worked for the most sweeping reform of the welfare system since the New Deal, moving 8 million people from welfare to work and replacing a culture of dependency with self-reliance and dignity. These aren’t narrowly focused issues, they are broad issues of human decency.
The pro-family movement has worked with U.S. Senators like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum on foreign policy issues such as strongly supporting Israel and opposing genocide in Darfur. They were also critical to the passage of legislation creating a religious freedom office at the White House to monitor the violation of human rights based on religious beliefs around the world.
Religious conservatives gave strong support to President Bush’s faith-based initiative, which ended the discrimination against faith-based organizations delivering social services to the poor. My wife and I are involved in SafeHouse Outreach in Atlanta, which reaches over 300,000 people a year with after-school care, GED equivalency classes, and job training and placement. Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship work every day in prisons and jails all over the world to bring new hope to convicts, and to reduce the overall crime rate and recidivism through redemptive justice. These unheralded acts of compassion are a vital witness of faith. They hardly constitute a narrow agenda.
The war on terrorism is clearly another issue with profound moral dimensions. We face an enemy that is committed to the destruction of our civilization and denies basic human rights that we believe are God-given. Their targets are grandmothers at wedding receptions in Tel Aviv, families on holiday in Sharm el-Sheike, commuters in Madrid, and office workers in Manhattan and Washington. These extremists will use any form of violence and target any innocent person to advance evil. The United States and its allies are correct in opposing terrorists and the regimes that harbor and fund them.
Saddam Hussein presided over such a regime. He invaded Iran (causing over 1 million casualties), invaded Kuwait, fired missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal, and paid cash bounties to homicide bombers. According to the Dalfour report, he planned to reconstitute his banned weapons program once the sanctions regime collapsed. He paid $10 million to the North Korea government for long-range missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions that would have enabled him to fire a weapon into European capitals. He used chemical weapons against his victims, including some of the 300,000 innocent Iraqis who lie in mass graves. The fact that this dictator is now on trial in a free Iraq is a just outcome in the war on terror.
By any objective measure, the religious conservative agenda seeks to enrich, strengthen and respect human life. Their witness of faith is part of what is right about politics in America, and most of the complaint against them is political fodder.
As for your proposal that people of good will work together to reduce abortion, I strongly support such policies. That is one reason why I support abstinence, Woman’s Right to Know and parental consent laws, because states that have adopted these measures have seen their number of abortions decline. But John Kerry will not win the support of pro-life Americans by pledging as he did this week to reduce abortion when he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion (which Daniel Patrick Moynihan properly called infanticide) and has threatened to filibuster federal court nominees who do not pledge in advance to uphold Roe v. Wade.
I read the recent speeches by liberal Democrats on faith in the civic arena. I applaud them for speaking authentically about their faith. We need more discussions of faith in public life, not fewer. But their rhetoric does not always match their record. I hope that Kerry, Barak Obama and other liberal Democrats understand that pro-family Americans don’t have a quarrel with their faith; they have a sincere disagreement with them on public policy.
After all, they voted against Jimmy Carter, a genuinely committed evangelical Christian, and supported Ronald Reagan, the first divorced man to ever be elected President. Why? Because they agreed with Reagan on the need to grow the economy, strengthen national defense, and promote conservative values.
Therein lies the Democrats’ dilemma. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 26 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is “friendly” to religion. That’s a drop of 16 points in just three years. What Amy Sullivan calls “the Democrats’ crumbling credibility on religion” can only be repaired by a change in governing philosophy, not by campaign rhetoric.
And, contrary to your view, I have no problem with people of faith addressing a single issue that is a matter of conscience. The fact that liberals were motivated primarily by civil rights and Vietnam in the 1960’s is hardly an indictment of their movement---it was evidence of their social conscience and a sign of their effectiveness.
Many Jews and Christians in the United States are members of organizations that work on the single issue of protecting the state of Israel. That is a noble goal. The same is true of pro-life and pro-marriage organizations, and civil rights organizations. The Anti-slavery Society of the 1840’s was motivated by moral fervor and profound sense of right and wrong, and some might say it focused on a “narrow agenda.” Yet abolishing slavery was a moral imperative.
That is why I hope you and I can have a constructive dialogue based not on criticizing this constituency or that for whether their agenda is narrow or broad, but whether it promotes sound public policy.
Do you agree, Jim?
Jim, I fear you have been paying only selective attention to religious conservatives. Conservative people of faith care about a broad range of issues, including tax relief, education, poverty, racial reconciliation, crime and drugs, welfare reform…and, yes, protecting innocent human life and defending marriage.The Christian Coalition for instance, not only pushed for a ban on partial birth abortion but also for rebuilding African-American churches burned by arsonists motivated by racial bigotry. We worked for passage of a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class, working families – which Bill Clinton opposed and vetoed twice—and tax credits for charitable giving to the poor. We also worked for the most sweeping reform of the welfare system since the New Deal, moving 8 million people from welfare to work and replacing a culture of dependency with self-reliance and dignity. These aren’t narrowly focused issues, they are broad issues of human decency.
The pro-family movement has worked with U.S. Senators like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum on foreign policy issues such as strongly supporting Israel and opposing genocide in Darfur. They were also critical to the passage of legislation creating a religious freedom office at the White House to monitor the violation of human rights based on religious beliefs around the world.
Religious conservatives gave strong support to President Bush’s faith-based initiative, which ended the discrimination against faith-based organizations delivering social services to the poor. My wife and I are involved in SafeHouse Outreach in Atlanta, which reaches over 300,000 people a year with after-school care, GED equivalency classes, and job training and placement. Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship work every day in prisons and jails all over the world to bring new hope to convicts, and to reduce the overall crime rate and recidivism through redemptive justice. These unheralded acts of compassion are a vital witness of faith. They hardly constitute a narrow agenda.
The war on terrorism is clearly another issue with profound moral dimensions. We face an enemy that is committed to the destruction of our civilization and denies basic human rights that we believe are God-given. Their targets are grandmothers at wedding receptions in Tel Aviv, families on holiday in Sharm el-Sheike, commuters in Madrid, and office workers in Manhattan and Washington. These extremists will use any form of violence and target any innocent person to advance evil. The United States and its allies are correct in opposing terrorists and the regimes that harbor and fund them.
Saddam Hussein presided over such a regime. He invaded Iran (causing over 1 million casualties), invaded Kuwait, fired missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal, and paid cash bounties to homicide bombers. According to the Dalfour report, he planned to reconstitute his banned weapons program once the sanctions regime collapsed. He paid $10 million to the North Korea government for long-range missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions that would have enabled him to fire a weapon into European capitals. He used chemical weapons against his victims, including some of the 300,000 innocent Iraqis who lie in mass graves. The fact that this dictator is now on trial in a free Iraq is a just outcome in the war on terror.
By any objective measure, the religious conservative agenda seeks to enrich, strengthen and respect human life. Their witness of faith is part of what is right about politics in America, and most of the complaint against them is political fodder.
As for your proposal that people of good will work together to reduce abortion, I strongly support such policies. That is one reason why I support abstinence, Woman’s Right to Know and parental consent laws, because states that have adopted these measures have seen their number of abortions decline. But John Kerry will not win the support of pro-life Americans by pledging as he did this week to reduce abortion when he voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion (which Daniel Patrick Moynihan properly called infanticide) and has threatened to filibuster federal court nominees who do not pledge in advance to uphold Roe v. Wade.
I read the recent speeches by liberal Democrats on faith in the civic arena. I applaud them for speaking authentically about their faith. We need more discussions of faith in public life, not fewer. But their rhetoric does not always match their record. I hope that Kerry, Barak Obama and other liberal Democrats understand that pro-family Americans don’t have a quarrel with their faith; they have a sincere disagreement with them on public policy.
After all, they voted against Jimmy Carter, a genuinely committed evangelical Christian, and supported Ronald Reagan, the first divorced man to ever be elected President. Why? Because they agreed with Reagan on the need to grow the economy, strengthen national defense, and promote conservative values.
Therein lies the Democrats’ dilemma. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 26 percent of Americans think the Democratic Party is “friendly” to religion. That’s a drop of 16 points in just three years. What Amy Sullivan calls “the Democrats’ crumbling credibility on religion” can only be repaired by a change in governing philosophy, not by campaign rhetoric.
And, contrary to your view, I have no problem with people of faith addressing a single issue that is a matter of conscience. The fact that liberals were motivated primarily by civil rights and Vietnam in the 1960’s is hardly an indictment of their movement---it was evidence of their social conscience and a sign of their effectiveness.
Many Jews and Christians in the United States are members of organizations that work on the single issue of protecting the state of Israel. That is a noble goal. The same is true of pro-life and pro-marriage organizations, and civil rights organizations. The Anti-slavery Society of the 1840’s was motivated by moral fervor and profound sense of right and wrong, and some might say it focused on a “narrow agenda.” Yet abolishing slavery was a moral imperative.
That is why I hope you and I can have a constructive dialogue based not on criticizing this constituency or that for whether their agenda is narrow or broad, but whether it promotes sound public policy.
Do you agree, Jim?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I really don't get it!
What I don't get is why do you both want to impose your moral views on the USA. You both think that the US needs moral guidance from the top and that it needs to be legislated for. It's as if you want to usher in a Holy Kingdom of America.
Whilst a great set of laws does seem to create a lovely society to live in, I can't get my head round the idea that we, as Christians want to impose our morality on people who don't want it. I mean, it's not like it makes people better at the level of their relationship with God. It might seem, from a human point of view, that it is a good thing, but the only good thing is to have a relationship with God and to do his will - that is the only good in our world, everything else is a cheap imitation that doesn't really bring life at all.
Jesus lived in a country that was occupied by foreign forces. Did he bother himself with that? No, he knew that freedom wasn't in the laws of the land, but could only be found in a relationship with God. Did he try to control people by imposing laws? No, he came to make the law (and indeed laws) obsolete - to bring God into our hearts. He worked from the bottom up, not the top down. He aligned himself with the downtrodden. Even when he did get to talk to the most powerful men in Israel, he didn't try to get them to alter their laws, he stood quietly, a testimony to the new Kingdom that he was ushering in, a Kingdom that stood in contrast to their kingdom.
Jim, Ralph, stop wielding worldly power and focus instead on wielding Godly love.
Cheers,
Mark>
Posted by: Mark Porthouse | September 21, 2006 12:02 AM
Ralph,
If you read this, very, very well said. I can guarantee the nuances of your argument will be completely ignored by posters here, but not by me. I am actually surprised at the level of seriousness with which you are taking this debate.
Mark,
Jesus didn't have the opportunity to influence government, and so he didn't. But why can't our faith inform our politics. Jesus never asked us not to engage in politics.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 21, 2006 12:08 AM
Ralph Reed said:
"We worked for passage of a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class, working families which Bill Clinton opposed and vetoed twice and tax credits for charitable giving to the poor. We also worked for the most sweeping reform of the welfare system since the New Deal, moving 8 million people from welfare to work and replacing a culture of dependency with self-reliance and dignity."
I don't remember the Christian Coalition working on a $500 per child tax credit for middle-class working families - which Bill Clinton opposed and vetoed twice. Please provide a reference for this.
Charitable contributions have always been deductible as far as I can remember, so how and when did the Christian Coalition achieve this?
As far as the sweeping reform of the welfare system, I remember the poor being swept out of the welfare system but I don't remember any jobs being created.
These are just distractions away from the heartless core of the Christian Conservative movement.
The Conservative Christian position on poverty parallels the Libertarian position - that the poor in our society deserve to be poor and that if they would only turn to Christ they could lift themselves out of poverty.
This is the basis of the Conservative Christian / Libertarian political coalition that brought us the corrupt Bush administration
In reality, the funding given to "faith based" poverty programs by the Bush administration is dwarfed by the funding cuts in social programs made by the Bush administration.
No wonder John D'Iulio resigned from his position heading up the Bush "faith based" program.
Are these "faith based" programs making any progress in alleviating poverty in America?
I don't think so.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 12:37 AM
Yes, quite well done, Ralph.
Abortion and gay marriage is important. And last time I checked, setting priorities is not a sin.>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 21, 2006 12:46 AM
By the way, what has the Christian Coalition been working on lately?>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2006 12:46 AM
First of all, Mr. Reed, your post is so full of incorrect half-truths and Republican talking points I couldn't even start to point them all out (can the rest of y'all see what I'm talking about?).
Second, how can you speak of the Democratic party's rhetoric not matching it's record in being "pro-family" when EVERYTHING the Republican party has done in the last 6 years is anti-family? Tax cuts for the rich? Supporting countries like Saudi Arabia who have deplorable human rights records? Allowing people to go without health care? Supporting the torture of your fellow human beings? The list goes on, and on, and on (anybody else care to add to it?)
You are one to talk about abortion...I won't even get into the Mariana Islands stuff as I can see others have done on the previous day's threads. If religious right-wing nuts would actually stop treating single mothers like sluts and would actually care about children once they are here (funny, I never hear a word about bombing Iraqi children - is that pro-life?) then maybe I could take your "pro-life" arguments seriously.
You are also one to talk about the sanctity of marriage - seeing how you cheated on your wife and left her for a younger women. You can denigrate gay families all you want, but you are still a hypocrite. And not being a Christian myself, I would like to point out to y'all that the most oft-mentioned marriage arrangement in the bible is...polygamy! Imagine that! Or I guess we can go back to the "traditional" way of marriage by treating women as property, which I'm sure right wing Christian men would love.
Sorry to personally attack you, Ralph, but I don't take kindly to complete hypocrites who see fit to act with hate in their heart instead of with the REAL love of Christ.
That being said, as a long-lapsed Lutheran who is happy to be free of the shackles of what passes for Christianity these days in America, it is refreshing to see liberal-minded Christians on this site and Mr. Wallis speaking about the world's real problems - poverty, social justice, hunger - and actually getting active about it.
I recommend reading "The Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell. MNW, you especially if you haven't read it. It opened my eyes to the man-made origins of god/gods and it discusses religion in a very rational way. Good stuff.
Peace out.>
Posted by: Butterfly | September 21, 2006 12:47 AM
Abortion and gay marriage is important? Aargh!
Me fail English? That's unpossible!>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 21, 2006 12:48 AM
Dear Ralph,
Would you explain to us the Christian Dominionist Movement's plan for America after the takeover?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 12:58 AM
Hi Kevin S.
God had the opportunity to do exactly what he wanted with Jesus. In fact the Jews thought that they were going to get a political King, a freedom fighter.
However, I do believe that Jesus was deeply political. He made his statements by mixing with Samaritans, tax collectors etc. By loving the unloved, by doing good on a Sabbath.
I fully recommend this info from the UK Religious Think Tank 'Ekklesia':
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/article_060724redeeming.shtml
Cheers,
Mark>
Posted by: Mark Porthouse | September 21, 2006 1:01 AM
at 6:42 PM justintime wrote:
The Conservative Christian position on poverty parallels the Libertarian position - that the poor in our society deserve to be poor and that if they would only turn to Christ they could lift themselves out of poverty.
Uhh, well, not exactly. Actually, our position is that government has historically done a poor job of providing assistance to the poor and that private charities do this better.
That bit about "turn[ing] to Christ" is closer to the truth -- we do think that religious faith and moral guidance can help poor people escape poverty, but education and self-control are more complicated than simply responding to an alter-call. (I would also point out that libertarians themselves are all over the map when it comes to the value of religion)
As far as I know we have never claimed that "the poor in our society deserve to be poor", at least not in any general sense. (You wouldn't happen to have a cite for that would you?) We do pay attention to self-responsibility and may be true in some individual cases that a poor individual has made his or her own situation worse. But we are quite aware of societal pressures (such as poor schools) and the effects of failed families. Every poor person has a different situation, which is one of many reasons why one-size-fits-all government programs aren't all they're cracked up to be.
Hope this clears up any misconceptions you might have about our approach to poverty.>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 21, 2006 1:08 AM
It's all illegal...it's all bull...and the only way it will end is in blood shed. I am disgusted with it all...because it is so NON CHRISTIAN...Christ would say you have become the evil you fled from and seek to create an evil empire. I could care less ...I will vote as it is my duty. However I leave unto ceaser ....that which is ceaser's. Christ said these words...why do you not hear them is he is your Messiah truly. Or do you serve another purpose supposedly in the name of God. Listen to God's son...if you believe in him and act as though you believe in him...you will enter heaven. It is apprent that they have little faith or they would allow God to move the hearts of people towards his will. Instead they wish to indoctrinate the youth to their fascist bent.>
Posted by: Dody | September 21, 2006 1:15 AM
Actually, in response to Kevin S. and others... Jesus was very clear about the priorities of Christians, and trying to create a nation where the laws revolve around our moral values was not one of them. The example Christ set for us was that of living a grace-filled life, one which works to bring justice and hope to people in the midst of whatever political system we happen to find ourselves.
Grace triumphs over law is not just a spiritual truth, it is a pragmatic one as well. The problem is that often we don't really believe that. Many great Christian writers (Bonhoeffer, Ellul, Yancey, etc) have pointed this out. It is time that more Christians (I'm including myself here) actually took our faith seriously instead of relying on a political system to make Christianity easy for us.
Geoff>
Posted by: Geoff | September 21, 2006 1:20 AM
OK, Wolverine,
I don't have any exact quotes about the Conservative Christian position on poverty.
Perhaps you could help us out on this. Quotes from other than Ralph Reed would be especially helpful.
But actions speak louder than words.
I will stand by my statement about the Libertarian position on poverty.
They do believe the poor deserve to be poor.
And from a policy perspective, the Conservative Christian position on poverty followsr to the Libertarian political position.
Again actions speak louder than words.
I also make this statement:
"In reality, the funding given to faith based poverty programs by the Bush administration is dwarfed by the funding cuts in social programs made by the Bush administration.
No wonder John D'Iulio resigned from his position heading up the Bush faith based social programs.
Are these "faith based" programs making any progress in alleviating poverty in America?"
Any comments on this, Wolverine?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 1:26 AM
...
Jesus sought to *serve* those he met, and serve those that followed by living the example of what we should strive to be.
Kevin S., Jesus (the Christ) is divine he was and *is* perfectly able to influence politics ... and yet he did/does not. It is *not* about opportunity, it is about choice.
Wolverine, Christ led a constructive life. He never did anyone harm. Live you life the best you can and let others do the same. The law of man is not God's. It is ours. Your inference that our laws can in any way reach the level of the divine is insulting to my concept of God. If a man does another man harm, it is man's concern. If a man does God harm, it is *God's* concern. There is not one of use who can speak for God ... I realize that your post was a misconception of your intent :-( ... but I decided to address it anyway ... apologies to you.
justintime, Libertarians, at large, strive for a minamalistic federal government. They generally embrace the idea that the private sector is better suited for most of what the government does today. This is not the same as every-man-for-himself. Churches offer a tremendous breadth of charitiable services ... none of these are government organizations, and all are examples of Libertarian-style initiatives.>
Posted by: Ben Abbott | September 21, 2006 2:00 AM
Jesus didn't have the opportunity to influence government, and so he didn't. But why can't our faith inform our politics. Jesus never asked us not to engage in politics.
As others have pointed out, while Christ speaks out against the governmental and societal abuses of his time, he did not spend his time on earth rallying his people against them or forming political parties. He was, in fact, very contrary to what his disciples expected: they sought a political hero, he gave them a spiritual leader.
I am frustrated by the increasingly political nature of religious discourse in America. We need to stop thinking about what is best for our country and start thinking about what is true to Christ's example.
And why must this discussion spiral away from the idea that moral values are important to discuss to petty quibbling between Republicans and Democrats. I don't like either party and I don't like the idea they both assume: the problems of the US can be solved by passing the correct laws and instituting the right programs.
The moral degradation in the United States can only be addressed by a Biblically enveloped person or organization, one that cares more about knowing God and making him known than scoring another point in the culture war.>
Posted by: Andrew Nichols | September 21, 2006 2:08 AM
"We need to stop thinking about what is best for our country and start thinking about what is true to Christ's example."
Amen. Herein lies the moral dilemma for Christian politicians. Their secular duty directs them to put America's interests first, but their Christian duty directs them to love EVERYONE, regardless of nationality. Sometimes these directions head the same way, but sometimes they do not.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 2:20 AM
Hi Ben Abbott,
Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry for Libertarianism:
"Most libertarians oppose forced economic 'redistribution' and any other form of government welfare because they consider forced redistribution a form of 'legalized theft.'"
This sounds a lot like "every man for himself" to me.
The political coalition of Christian Conservativism with Libertarianism brought us the corrupt Bush administration, which immediately made enormous cuts to social programs for Americans and then threw a much smaller bone to the Christian Conservatives in the form of "faith based" social programs.
These faith based social programs have been, in large part, a failure - leaving an enormous gap in the social safety net for Americans.
Check the poverty statistics if you're really interested in this issue.
By the way, Ben, are you a Libertarian Christian?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 2:23 AM
Interesting that the early Church lived a life totally different from that of the government around them, and one much closer to Communism then Libertarianism.
But there is no bigger bogeyman in US politics than the C-word. Well...perhaps not any more. ;)>
Posted by: Andrew Nichols | September 21, 2006 2:29 AM
Hi Andrew,
There are a lot of really interesting things in the early Church about which modern Christian Conservatives seem to be ignorant.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 2:34 AM
Yeah, didn't the early Christians live in virtual "communes," living together and sharing their possessions in common? Seems to me the Bible preaches community, while America preaches individualism.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 2:37 AM
Someone please explain how these policies, championed or passed by the Republican (not conservative) government, reflect good Christian values:
1) Bankruptcy "reform" which makes it harder for those in debt to come clean with their debtors... including those with catastrophic medical issues.
2) Waging a war of choice and endorsing torture as a way to extract "confessions" from "enemy combatants".
3) Failure to raise the minimum wage to even keep up with our nations level of poverty.
I could keep going, but I think these first three should be enough to get people started.>
Posted by: Spinter | September 21, 2006 2:53 AM
Conservative people of faith care about a broad range of issues, including tax relief, education, poverty, racial reconciliation, crime and drugs, welfare reform and, yes, protecting innocent human life and defending marriage.
If this is the case, then conservatives must be ashamed of their broad range of concers. They certainly hide them well.
And I would like to make the point that lobbying for a reversal of Roe v Wade does not make one a protector of innocent human life. Similarly, restricting marriage rights does no make one a protector of marriage.>
Posted by: Drina | September 21, 2006 2:57 AM
Also, Mr. Reed's continued use of the term "pro-family" to describe conservatives, which implies that progressives are anti-family, is slick and disingenuous.
Please, Mr. Reed, a little honesty and integrity is appreciated here.>
Posted by: Drina | September 21, 2006 3:10 AM
Hi Spinter,
I certainly can't square any of the Bush administration policies that you list with the Christian values that I was raised with.
1. The bankruptcy bill, or rather the "usury bill", was written by the corporate credit card industry and passed by a corrupt Congress, to the detriment of all Americans, not just the poor.
2. Ralph Reed merely parrots the Bush administration's lies with regard to the immoral "preemptive" war against a sovereign nation, Iraq, that was no threat to America whatsoever.
Christian Conservatives should do some serious soul searching for their role in promoting this war and the needless killing and torturing of other human beings.
3. This failure to address the needs of the poor by raising the minimum wage just illustrates the heartless core of the Conservative Christian movement.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 3:32 AM
R. Reed says, "they agreed with Reagan on the need to grow the economy, strengthen national defense, and promote conservative values."
Can't argue much there. And I'm sure it won't do any good to tell you that the birth of this wild and irresponsible economic blitz is why we are seen as an empire today. Why we have such an outrageous defense budget? Why the right imagines Clinton as a subversive radical and much of the liberal left chooses to view him as a hero? And why greed and ratings are shamelessly promoted in the media? If we could go back to that moment wouldn't we have directed our great American experiement much differently?>
Posted by: me | September 21, 2006 3:46 AM
If there's an essential message from the Conservative Christian movement that I can recognize, it's...
...FEAR
Fear - of terrorists, of gay Americans, of illegal immigrants, of immoral liberals, of becoming sick, of being poor, of not being wealthy, of original sin, of eternal damnation and of just having a normal happy life.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 3:49 AM
justintime wrote:
Dear Ralph,
Would you explain to us the Christian Dominionist Movement's plan for America after the takeover?
Hey Ralph, don't worry, I got this one.
Okay, here's our top-ten list of things to do after taking over:
10. Cover up those nude statues at the Department of Justice.
9. Invade Canada, execute Terrence and Philip.
8. Abolish the Designated Hitter Rule.
7. Nuke Vegas.
6. Destroy all evidence of the "Left Behind" movie.
5. 24 hour Veggie-tales channel
4. Harvard University renamed "Bob Jones University-Cambridge"
3. Abolish all speed limits 'cuz God wants us to drive fast. He told me so in a dream last night.
2. You can't be too careful -- nuke Vegas again.
and the number one item on our to-do list...
1. Put Jesus face on the $20 bill.
Thanks everybody, I'm off to catch the rest of the Tigers-White Sox game.>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 21, 2006 4:15 AM
Pro-life. Pro war. Pro torture. These three just can't be spun so they fit together in a Christian statement.>
Posted by: Bill Wilkerson | September 21, 2006 4:16 AM
What about care for God's creation? What about the rising gap between the rich and the poor? Where was the Christian Coalition when Roman Catholics, the National Council of Churches, and other moderate/progressive religious organizations were standing up against the impending war with Iraq?
Mr. Reed I am tired of the excuses, tired of the twisting of the facts and selective readings of history. Finally moderate and progressive spiritual voices are on the rise. America is waking up and things are going to change.>
Posted by: Will | September 21, 2006 4:28 AM
Ralph,
Good response. Even though I differ, I thank you for putting your thoughts into this debate.
But I still am concerned of the things you mentioned:
* Tax relief- which benefits the poor. Doing away with the estate tax will better help top CEO's like Wal-Mart has so they can get money back. They sure need it, too.
* Education- you mean "No child left behind?" How come education people hate it? They hate the legislation because everything is now geared towards standarized tests which a good number of students have trouble with. Children with special needs often can't do a standardized test, but according to NCLB, they and the school fail. NCLB is the failure.
* Poverty- then how come tax cuts favor the rich? How come food stamps, medicaid, student loans, etc. have been cut by the Bush Administration? Who do you think the poor are? They depend on these "liberal" services?
* Racial reconciliation- tell that the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, where poverty and race were shown to still be in the same league.
* Crime & Drugs- sorry, I must have misunderstood you. What have you done about that?
* Welfare reform- you mean like those well-documented cases where single moms get on a bus and ride 2 hours a day to work at a $7 and hour job? Great.
* And all the things you haven't mentioned: immigration, healthcare, etc.
* The war in Iraq has spoiled America's image around the world and don't forget the WMD's never found because of "bad intelligence."
Thanks Ralph and Jim for the dialogue.
By the way, I encourage everyone to watch CBS evening news Thursday night. There's a segment on "Evangelical Liberals.">
Posted by: Bob L. | September 21, 2006 4:33 AM
But has Ralph approved this agenda?
Go White Sox!
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 4:40 AM
"If there's an essential message from the Conservative Christian movement that I can recognize, it's......FEAR"
I agree completely, and have long thought that myself. In addition to the fears you listed, it seems there's also a fear of trusting in God and His ways, which can seem foolish and impractical in the face of real-life threats.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 4:49 AM
Does anyone here actually take Reed s claim to being Christian with family values seriously? Beyond the body bags and the Casino deceptive nastiness, he has also worked, like so many conservative Christians, to promote Sun Myung Moon s goals and organization.
You can see Ralph helping Moon change the name of his political front from the Unification Church to the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification in the introductory video found here. My Bible says to expose false teachers and then stay away from them. Ralph, does yours say to work with, support, and promote false teachers? If not, why have you and so many Christian conservatives sold the nation out by empowering and accepting Moon the past 25 years? Just because his goal was to turn America into a right wing, homophobic, theocratic nation like your goals? so it was just fine to help him?
Accepting him? how about honoring him like the Christian right did at the luncheon where Moon was given an award for his family values an AWARD for the man who has broken up countless families worldwide and swindled much of cash to put the right inpower by targeting widows in Japan with his cons AN AWARD and it was presented by who?
Here s who:
The Rev. Billy McCormack, a Christian Coalition board member and long-time Religious Right activist from Louisiana, assisted in presenting Moon with the award. Other attendees at the event included TV preachers Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, Kenneth Copeland and Paul Crouch as well as Don Argue, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Former pop star Pat Boone provided entertainment.
Yes, there have been a few liberals over the years that have been caught up in Moon s web; he makes sure he smudges just enough to keep them quiet. But thanks to years of the right mainstreaming Moon, giving him face, accepting his propaganda paper as their voice, Moon is now digging his claws into black ministers and the world s political structures thanks to conservatives.
Quoting: U.S News and World Report March 27, 1989
Rev. Moon's Rising Political Influence
His empire is spending big money trying to win favor with conservatives.
On New Year's Day, 1987, South Korean mystic Sun Myung Moon, who considers himself to be the son of God, told his Unification church followers that he wanted to expand the church's political influence in the United States. His aim, Moon said, was "the natural subjugation of the American government and population." the [Unification] church has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration. As the Washington Times has become the voice of capital conservatives, the Heritage Foundation has become far more tolerant of church ties "Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don't want to publicize the extent of the church's involvement," says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research. Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church's role. That happened when one organization, the Capital Research Center, published a newsletter last November warning of the church's attempt to create a "centralized world theocracy." One of its board members, who was also on the board of the International Security Council, resigned in protest, and conservatives charging that the paper was creating discord on the right, besieged the center with angry calls. "We got a very, very strong reaction -- almost as if we were the enemy -- because we raised the issue," says CRC Chairman Willa Johnson, a former president of the Heritage Foundation. >
Posted by: mb | September 21, 2006 4:50 AM
D4P,
Right on!
Being afraid to trust in God is the fear of all fears.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 4:52 AM
Besides Moon claiming that he is THE Messiah, that he is here to fulfill Jesus Christ s failed mission and that he actually says he is better than God, let me remind you agina of who we are talking about here:
Qouting: By the mid-1980s, Moon s Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father (Moon). Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America s democratic form of government. History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him. Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. That is Father s tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population.
This idea that the Christian right is about family values is laughable at best. The Christian right is nothing more than an authoritarian, homophobic, theocratic political movement lead by faux Christians. The religious right has ridden to power on the back of their True savior s front groups and political operatives and billions of dollars their savior, Moon, brought in from overseas to manipulate our political process and use these so called Christians as his tools. Tell me Ralph, are you proud of where the billions of dollars that put the theocratic right in power came from? Read about that here. Just like what the right has done to our once great nation, it isn t pretty.
Tell me Ralph, why has the Republican party worked with the Moon, the man who says his job as messiah is to raise up the Christian right tpo control the nation, why have you worked with Moon to tear down the wall between church and state? Can you say ">http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5684&abbr=cs_"> Moon Tool?
The "faith-based summit" itself was sponsored by Watts (R-Okla.), Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and other top congressional Republicans, but efforts to promote it at the grassroots level were turned over to a Moon organization.
Why is the Republican Party working hand in glove with Moon front groups? The partnership stems largely from Moon's phenomenal ability to make inroads in GOP and Religious Right circles. Despite his unorthodox theological views Moon teaches that he is the new Messiah, sent by God to complete the failed mission of Jesus Moon has had little difficulty penetrating the upper echelons of American conservatism.
While a number of Republican-aligned private organizations have promoted President George W. Bush's religion funding scheme, only Moon won an official relationship with the Republican leadership to rally grassroots forces on behalf of the "faith-based" summit. This enhanced status enabled him to do grassroots political organizing and religious recruitment with the apparent blessing of Bush and his GOP allies in Congress.
Moon specializes in the creation of "Astroturf organizations" groups that appear to have grassroots power but that in reality speak mostly for Moon. Moon has used these groups to curry favor with Republicans for more than 30 years, Clarkson said, and is revving them up again to help the new Bush administration. "Whenever the conservatives identify an issue as important to their agenda, Moon creates an Astroturf organization to create the appearance of grassroots support for these initiatives," Clarkson said.>
Posted by: mb | September 21, 2006 4:56 AM
justintime,
The child tax credit was enacted, after two vetos from the president. Look it up yourself. Reed's not just making it up. A tax credit is different from a tax writeoff. Don't pin your ignorance regarding the nuances of tax code on conservatives.
As far as job creation, you don't remember ANY jobs being created in the 1990s? Really? Where were you (elementary school, I'm guessing?)>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 21, 2006 5:02 AM
From a pragmatic view, is it really possible for the Bush administration to create a sustainable peace?
Just today our president was called the "Devil" by Chavez in the UN. This is what much of the world thinks of the current administration.
So just how willing do you think leaders representing extremist populations are to sign a pact with the devil?
It's time for America to look at itself, and decide what we as a people really stand for. Beyond that, we need to demonstrate to the world that we are a nation built on a solid foundation, before the torrent sweeps us away.>
Posted by: Kozzmo | September 21, 2006 5:08 AM
So Sad to see all the dissention...this country needs unification and strong leadership now more than any time in our history...We face an enemy more deadly and sinister than most people in this country realize...The social issues we argue about are nothing compared to the problems and atrocities which we are going to face if we don't unify and present a strong, solid front....Religious or not does not matter in the face of radical Islam...we are all the enemy if we don't convert....Let's stop bickering, splitting hairs and fighting....we need to Unify...period.>
Posted by: maggie | September 21, 2006 5:17 AM
The real crime is that the conservative right has turned Christ's beautiful teachings into soemthing so offensive and unappealing. They all talk from the same script like a bunch of clones. They are obssessed with other people's sex lives -- the issues of abortion and homosexuality are always the primary focus. They all hate with a passion Al Gore for his environmentalism, Al Franken for his "liberal' radion station, anyone who isn't a Republican. I recently had a friend confess to me that she was fond of her employer even though it turns out he was a Democrat. It was as though she was violating the conservative right code. And there is always that just below the surface bigotry, against non-whites, poor people, "the undesireable elements". They have a cult-like allegiance to anything Republican, anything the President says or does, anything the preacher tells them. No thinking, just following.All that anger. This is not the way Christ taught us to live and certainly not the way to interest others in getting to know Christ.>
Posted by: s holmgren | September 21, 2006 5:24 AM
Justintime,
If you are a White Sox fan, that explains a lot. Nice game tonight. Go Tigers!
Someone asked "if NCLB was so great, why do educators hate it so much?"
Are you really ignoring the fact that teachers unions are complicit in the problems facing public schools? We have a system that is completely unaccountable, and NCLB (a Ted Kennedy bill, btw) was a small attempt to introduce acountability to the classroom.
The problem with public schools is that we have a situation in which teachers are compensate without any regard for their ability. When I was in school, there were a handful of great teachers who stood out from the majority (who were barely competent). Those great teachers earned the same as the incompetent ones.
When we have a system such as this, what kind of people are going to be drawn to teaching? The mediocre. What kind of people are going to be promoted to lucrative principal, superintendent-type positions? Those who love the flawed system. If the president's solution wasn't correct, what is the right solution?
I know everyone who has a friend in teaching (as I do) is going to get hissy, but my point is still valid>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 21, 2006 5:27 AM
"This is not the way Christ taught us to live and certainly not the way to interest others in getting to know Christ."
The latter point is key. What is it about the hatred shown by so many Christians to homosexuals, environmentalists, "secularists," "liberals," etc. that is supposed to make them attracted to Christianity? What do conservative Christians care more about: a homosexual's sexual activities, or their salvation? I get the impression that many Christians care more about converting homosexuals to heterosexuality than they do converting them to Christianity.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 5:29 AM
There is no doubt that ones religious, philosophical and moral views also influence ones political views.
The founding principles of the country however where those of limited government, personal freedoms, protection of minority rights and respect for human dignity. Legislating personal moral views essentially removes those rights from those who disagree.>
Posted by: jsadams | September 21, 2006 5:30 AM
I don't really desire to get into a discussion so I leave my thoughts here in one post. I don't plan to respond, because I don t believe intelligent discussion is being conducted here. Debate amongst yourselves.
1. Jesus did not get involved in ANY political discourse. Every time it was brought up, he skirted the question. The bible tells us often that he did things because it was not his time. Besides, every time politics came up, it was used to try to trick Jesus. What does this mean? It means we can't use Jesus' words to determine a Christian view towards government, because he didn't say anything about our view towards government. Jesus' purpose was singular: to bring salvation to the world. There is plenty of instruction in the other books of the bible. Should we ignore these because Jesus didn't say them? Do we assume that because Jesus taught forgiveness that the call for justice in books like Micah should be ignored? No. We take Scripture as a whole, and in regards to government, Jesus gives us no instruction except to give the government what belongs to the government.
2. The bible DOES tell us very explicitly what our view towards government should be in Romans 13, as well as the purpose for government (i.e., to carry out justice). Also, it gives us a model for government in the Old Testament, since it was set up by God, and many of the prophetic books speak as to God's desire for a society (lots of calls for justice, I might add). Although any ideology will have its flaws, the modern ideology that is closest to the system set up by God in the Old Testament is the libertarian-conservative-Christian movement in America. You may disagree with its method, but its theory is generally right.
3. Ephesians 1:10 speaks of bringing EVERYTHING under the authority of Christ. This means our society, our government, our laws, our lives... even our political views and associations. I, for one, don't believe that this is carried out by institutionalizing religion (in case you thought that) - I think that does the opposite - but part of it does involve "legislating morality", as some say, in areas that affect others (i.e., abortion, gay marriage, etc.).
4. The early church was in NO WAY close to communism. The early communal (to be distinguished from communist, which is very different) church was (1) voluntary, (2) on a small level, and (3) it didn't last. The first is important because communism is forced on a people and is one of the most evil government systems derived by mankind. "But it's never been practiced in its true form." That's because it cannot exist in its intended form, since it denies human nature and desire (God given and sinful), as well as differences in people. Anyway, I'm off topic... The second trait is important because communism is always practiced on a large scale. It becomes a very inefficient bureaucracy, impersonal, and (again) tyrannical. The early church is much more comparable to a family. Just because dad makes the money but the rest of family eats doesn't make the family communist. That would be an absurd conclusion. The third trait is important theologically, since Acts is often confused as a book of instruction, when it is rather a book of history. Scripture never tells us that the initial community is what God intended for the general church. In fact, God made the church spread, and didn't allow it to remain in its communal form.
Take this for what it's worth. I doubt many here will truly seek to understand anything I'm saying, and will throw me off as some Ralph Reed fanatic (I barely know anything about him).
- Chris>
Posted by: Chris Hill | September 21, 2006 5:34 AM
"The problem with public schools is that we have a situation in which teachers are compensate without any regard for their ability."
Some would say the same about politicians, corporate CEOs, actors/actresses, singers, etc. etc. etc. That's pretty much the way of the world.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 5:35 AM
Sorry for all my double posts. Don't know why that keeps happening.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 5:41 AM
Chris,
I'm sorry, but in response to the OT government most resembling conservative/libertarian worldview, how do you explain the year of jubilee in which every fifty years, all people were given back their original landholdings and set free from being indentured servants? That sounds like land re-distribution...is that a conservative idea? I disagree.>
Posted by: Dave | September 21, 2006 6:09 AM
Based on my own personal, long time, up close and extensive experience with conservative Christians, I want to vomit when I hear the name of Jesus. The way conservative Christians have treated gay people, among many other groups, should have descredited the Gospels for all time. If this has not happened, then what about learning from experience?
Why don't the liberals and progressives simply go find another religion. UUA is a fine group of people, UCC is another. Why do they stay and try to rescue something that has been so thoroughly trashed?>
Posted by: dalea | September 21, 2006 6:11 AM
*Why don't the liberals and progressives simply go find another religion*
Because they believe in their current one...?
The fact that some conservative Christians give Christianity a bad name is not a surprise, nor should it reflect poorly on Christ. The conservative Christians in the Bible (see: the Pharisees) cared more about rules than relationships, more about laws than love. They focused heavily on other people's sins, while ignoring their own. When they tried to get Jesus to condemn a woman caught in adultery, His response included (1) pointing out that the Pharisees were sinners too, and (2) having compassion on the woman.
As a Christian, I try to follow God, not other Christians. Their behavior doesn't impact my view of God.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 6:21 AM
I am staggered by the anger and self-righteousness in the posts from the left in this thread.
At various time Christian conservatives are accused of "acting with hate in their heart (sic) instead of the REAL love of Christ." We supposedly "hate with a passion Al Gore for his environmentalism, Al Franken for his "liberal' radion (sic) station, anyone who isn't a Republican". And finally there's "the hatred shown by so many Christians to homosexuals, environmentalists, "secularists," "liberals," etc." (Italics added)
Well.
The awful thing about this whole "hate" business is, it's nearly imposible to disprove. After all, we do have serious disagreements with most of these people, so there's bound to be heated statements out there that can be lifted out of context and turned into indicators of hatred. We can't exactly tear open our hearts to show the absence of hatred.
We can do what we can to help these people, but because in so many cases we can't offer them exactly what they want, our help isn't always well received. For instance can help gays leave the gay lifestyle, but if you're absolutely convinced homosexuality is okey-dokey, then you will probably think we're trying to destroy the "gay lifestyle", hence we still hate gays.
No, I don't hate any of these people or groups. But I'll never be able to prove it to your satisfaction. Your just too invested in seeing us as bigots.
I could accuse you of hating America, of hating Conservatives, let you bang your heads trying to prove the impossible for a while, but there's just too much real hatred out there and I don't want to muddy the waters further by adding more fake hatred. Plus I'm tired.
Good night kids.>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 21, 2006 6:24 AM
I don't understand what your saying Chris, for the following reasons,
" I don t believe intelligent discussion is being conducted here"
so you are unwilling to listen to anyone else?
"Jesus did not get involved in ANY political discourse."
"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you to do." Matthew 23:3
"the modern ideology that is closest to the system set up by God in the Old Testament is the libertarian-conservative-Christian movement in America"
Do you have any supporting evidence for this statement? The old testament supported the ideology of an eye for an eye, christ taught,
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6: 27-31
"communism is forced on a people and is one of the most evil government systems derived by mankind."
I thought the cold war was over? Clinging to conservative rhetoric based on an outdated mode of economic reform, directed at solving the question of how to deal with the stagnation of the market seems counter-productive.
Wouldn't it be better to state that communism was not capable of promoting the economic demands of the world economy, because it did not sufficiently address the question of aggregate demand?
It sounds more like your a Rush Limbaugh fanatic.>
Posted by: Kozzmo | September 21, 2006 6:31 AM
kevin s.
I just looked up the child tax credit and then remembered the reason why Clinton vetoed two omnibus tax bills - in which the child tax credit was embedded.
These omnibus tax bills (part of Gingrich's so called "Contract with America") had many features incompatible with working class families and a Federal balanced budget.
One of these objectionable features was the repeal of the estate tax, which Republicans are still trying to get passed in spite of the astronomical Bush budget deficits.
If the President had a line item veto, the child tax credit would have been passed the first time it was offered.
To insinuate that Clinton was against the child tax credit in principle is typical of right wing tactics of deception.
And for Ralph Reed to take any credit for the child tax credit or the jobs created because of Clinton's fiscal responsibility is an outright joke.
It's a fact that Republican fiscal policy benefits the wealthy at the expense of the average American family and is a cruel legacy for our children who will have to bear the burden of profligate Republican fiscal policy.
The Republican strategy is to run up such an impossible debt that social programs for Americans will have to be completely eliminated.
They call it their "starve the beast" strategy.
Republican strategist Grover Norquist wants to "shrink the government drown to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub".
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 6:43 AM
"Republican strategist Grover Norquist wants to "'shrink the government drown to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.'"
I propose we start by eliminating Big Government military spending. Are ya' with me, Grover?>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 6:46 AM
D4P,
You make the statement that CEOs, actresses etc... Get paid regardless of their ability. I don't think that is true. While CEOs get a bad name, most (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for example) earn their money by performing well at their jobs, and earning money for their companies. Many companies don't earn money of course, but a C-level executive does not have long to turn his/her companies fortunes around before he is gone. The same certainly goes for actors/actresses. If you don't bring in box office, you're done.
If you are a teacher, and you don't produce, what happens? Depends on how long you have been at your school. Entirely. That isn't right.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 21, 2006 6:48 AM
Although any ideology will have its flaws, the modern ideology that is closest to the system set up by God in the Old Testament is the libertarian-conservative-Christian movement in America. You may disagree with its method, but its theory is generally right.
You're seriously advocating a governmental system based on the OT Israelite system? A system of law and government that was specifically designed to show God's nation just how much they would always fail to follow him exactly?
Christ came to abolish the OT reliance on law (c.f. the Religious Right's reliance on legislation of morality) and to fufill that law's ultimate purpose by changing hearts, bringing them under His mastery. In the Kingdom of Christ, all is grace. Which kingdom do you think we ought to emulate?
But for a moderating word: while the Religious Right is so often wrong by virtue of legalism, the Liberal Left is so often wrong by way of antinomianism.
As far as the Big Two Issues (c) go:
A cursory reading of the Bible would inform anyone that homosexual activity is condemned and that human life is said to be previous even in the womb. While the Left likes to excise these bits from the bible, the Right cannot pretend it doesn't use the scissors liberally too. (I made a funny!)
Where is the condemnation of divorce or heterosexual activity that does not take place between a husband and wife? And why is some life (rich, white Americans) considered worth spending more money preserving than other life? (poor, non-white, and non-American)
I would equally challenge the left to recognize the sinfulness of the behaviors they condone and the right to talk as much about divorce, fornication, and the plight of starving babies around the world as they do about gay marriage and abortion.
Unfortunately, neither is likely to happen.>
Posted by: Andrew Nichols | September 21, 2006 6:49 AM
Wolverine,
If you want to feel some really intense hatred, just tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter or any number of the other right wing motor mouths.
By the way, what happened to the Sox?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 6:56 AM
"The same certainly goes for actors/actresses. If you don't bring in box office, you're done."
I'm not equating ability with "bringing in box office." There are plenty of terrible actors/actresses who nevertheless draw lots of people to their movies and still make millions, despite their poor acting skills. Same goes for singers. Teachers are hardly the most egregious case of not being paid according to ability. And I would also caution against measuring teacher's ability by examining their students' test scores.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 6:58 AM
Justintime,
You claimed that the credit was never vetoed, and that it never passed. You know acknowledge that it was, and it did. Yes, it was part of a larger tax relief package.
I'm all for the line-item veto. The courts have found it unconstitutional. there you go.
A large part of Clinton's fiscal responsibility had to do with legislation passed by Republicans (how else could it have happened). His welfare reform package would be a prime example.
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding the "starve the beast" concept.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 21, 2006 6:58 AM
kevin s,
Please reread my posts.
I said I couldn't remember Ralph's story about the child tax credit.
Now that I've looked it up, I remember how it happened. And it didn't happen the way Ralph tells it.
And please explain what 'starve the beast' means to Republicans.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 21, 2006 7:20 AM
Okay, I'm a little late to the fracas. I have a single question:
Has Wallis considered the possibility that the religious right is more concerned about abortion that the poor because no one is killing the poor?
Leaves out the gay marriage question, but I think it's a point worth considering.
Cheers,
Doug>
Posted by: Doug Brown | September 21, 2006 7:50 AM
"Has Wallis considered the possibility that the religious right is more concerned about abortion that the poor because no one is killing the poor?"
This seems to ring hollow for at least 3 reasons. First, many members of the "religious right" support killing in other situations. Second, the Bible talks about poverty A LOT, and commands Christians to serve the poor (even going so far as to sell our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor). Third, poor people around the world die every day because they lack food, water, etc., while wealthy people in the US and elsewhere hoard their wealth and have more than they need.>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 8:03 AM
And PS: like I've said before, it's much easier to focus on an issue like abortion or gay marriage that doesn't impose any costs on yourself than an issue like poverty, which convicts all of us and forces us to confront our own greed and lack of concern for those less fortunate than ourselves.
Most people in the world will never have an abortion (whether it's legal or not), and most will never attempt to marry a person of the same sex. But, according to the Bible, everyone has a responsibility to serve the poor. Focusing on issues that don't implicate oneself (like abortion and gay marriage) is easy and doesn't require personal change. But focusing on poverty forces one to ask difficult and unpleasant questions, like "Do I spend $50,000 on another SUV to fill my 3-car garage, or do I donate that money to feed starving children?" "Do I buy nice things for my house, or do I settle for less?" "Do I meet my needs AND wants, or do I live simply that others may simply live?"
Who among us wants to argue that Jesus would prefer us to spend the $50,000 on luxuries for ourselves rather than on necessities for "the least of these"?>
Posted by: D4P | September 21, 2006 8:16 AM
If there is anything that politicians fear,its responsibility.The genocides,world wars,military coups,bloody regime changes,TERRORISM,world economic imbalances are art works of politicians.Its sad when people of faith want to be partners in that,in the name of Jesus.The Jews are strategic about Muslims,while christians engage them in a passive manner,behind a veil..yet Muslims have a crystal clear perception of all other faiths and demography measures places them at vintage point for power.They have to be fully engaged if we truely want progress.Humans of all faiths are predisposed to weakness.God did not create Israel in six days,He created the world.>
Posted by: kaota | September 21, 2006 8:56 AM
it's much easier to focus on an issue like abortion or gay marriage that doesn't impose any costs on yourself than an issue like poverty, which convicts all of us and forces us to confront our own greed and lack of concern for those less fortunate than ourselves.
I couldn't have said it better myself.>
Posted by: Drina | September 21, 2006 8:56 AM
Hi Chris Hill,
Regarding your point 2:
Israel in the Old Testament were the Children of God. Therefore the example of Israel should be used to illuminate the Children of God today - the Church. Where Israel was ruled by the written law, the church should now be ruled by the law on our hearts.
Babylon and Egypt in the Old Testament are the equivalent of the wider world today.
Old Testament Israel should not be used as an example of how we must rule the world today! Far from it.
Here is a post about why we sometimes want to take political power:
http://www.sundaypapers.org.uk/?p=253
Cheers,
Mark>
Posted by: Mark Porthouse | September 21, 2006 9:31 AM
"Most people in the world will never have an abortion"
Yeah, but it's pretty close. Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of women will have an abortion in their lifetime (this is cited on both pro-choice and pro-life websites), and even more if you count morning-after pill methods.
The reason the bible doesn't talk much about abortion is because there weren't easy ways to have abortions until recently. Yes, it does speak a lot about giving to the poor. This should never be ignored, and conservative Christians don't ignore this. They just believe it is better for the hearts of everyone if we all CHOOSE to give, rather than be forced to give (that's like when you parents made you say sorry when you really weren't). Anyway, regarding God's preferences using the bible, do you remember Molech? People would sacrifice their children to him. As a result, God wiped out ENTIRE RACES of people. It wasn't just the idolatry; God condemns them for slaughtering innocents. I think stopping abortion is MORE (yes, I said more) important to God than giving to the poor, although to overlook that is always wrong.>
Posted by: HAC | September 21, 2006 9:42 AM
For what it's worth, homosexual activity is listed immediately after sacrificing children to Molech and right before beastiality in Lev. 18. I thought the biblical connection between killing babies and homosexual activity was interesting. Anyway, that's probably getting off topic.>
Posted by: HAC | September 21, 2006 9:51 AM
Ralph Reed says:
By any objective measure, the religious conservative agenda seeks to enrich, strengthen and respect human life. Their witness of faith is part of what is right about politics in America, and most of the complaint against them is political fodder.
The Bible says: no mater how good ones agenda, if it is done without love it is worth nothing. I Corith 13
I would argue that the hatred, fear and anger driving the conservative agenda has nullified any good intention just as the Bible said it would. We are witnessing the results of this without-love agenda in the polarization in our country and the polarization of the world against the US.
By dominating the agenda with fear and anger we are now getting back exactly what was sowed and preached; fear, anger & hatred. This is neither the agenda nor the priority of Jesus call on our lives as Christians. We are to draw others to Jesus not pushing them away. We are to love our enemies, not hate nor kill them literally or figuratively.
A witness of faith it may be, but not a witness I am proud of. It seems to be a faith in government and law rather then in God, just as the Pharisees relied on laws for salvation.
Yes, we are to prioritize and Jesus tells us that love is the top priority. Wrong priorities is just that wrong.
How we spend our money shows or values and priorities. I do not know how I am going to stand at the pearly gates and explain why I dedicated weeks each year to the paying of taxes that were used for an unnecessary war that God s followers promoted.
Isaiah 31:1[ Woe to Those Who Rely on Egypt ] Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the LORD>
Posted by: R Nussbaum | September 21, 2006 10:40 AM
"By any objective measure, the religious conservative agenda seeks to enrich, strengthen and respect human life. Their witness of faith is part of what is right about politics in America, and most of the complaint against them is political fodder."
Interesting assertion. I agree with most of the rest of what you say in this last post, but, this ...
The conservative agenda is publicized by people like Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. and as a former conservative / libertarian I have to admit I would be ashamed to be counted in the same group as them. To me they come across as intolerant, foaming at the mouth bigots. Hypocrites too. Limbaugh was anti-drug, ahem, who was caught abusing drugs? AND tried to justify that it was not a bad thing?
Ann Coulter says she is a Christian first ... yet she is explicit in her claims to hate anyone that does not agree with her agenda. Not the ideas they have, the people themselves, you know, liberals ... Sorry, either she is Christian and loves her neighbor, or she is not. Her writing says NOT. Political satire to make a point does not have to be cruel nor derogatory. Doonesbury shows that, as did Art Buchwald ...
For those that seem to wonder why, ahem, liberals seem to spend so much time concentrating on issues like abortion and homosexuality is that much of what the conservatives seem to focus on are these two issues. You don't want to have an abortion, then don't. Don't like the idea of homosexuality, well, don't do that either.
The plain fact is this, if you TRULY cared to eliminate abortion, well, easily done. But, no church yet has stood up to make that step. Which, unfortunately shows that elimination of abortion is NOT the issue. Quite simply if you want to eliminate abortion all a church has to do is to guarantee the life and financial well being of any unwanted child. And prior to that, to support contraceptives. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and where that fails, provide for the child.
A church that committed to providing for the fostering and economic well being of every "unwanted" child, and that followed through, would eliminate the need for an abortion. Face the fact, most abortions are for a child that the mother has no way to support. But, churches, and conservative politicians are only interested in stopping the abortion. Not in the mother's health, nor the child's, nor the child's life after being born.
As far as the govenment not being good at welfare, well, I have not heard of any church that has comitted to the elimination of poverty in their city. Nor any that had accomplished this feat. Nor any that even tried. If private welfare is better, where has it been proven? Where indeed has it been tried?>
Posted by: Paul D. Buck | September 21, 2006 11:28 AM
Wikipedia: "Most libertarians oppose forced economic 'redistribution' and any other form of government welfare because they consider forced redistribution a form of 'legalized theft.'"
justintime wrote: This sounds a lot like "every man for himself" to me.
Then you've missed the point.
and no. I'm no a Libertarian. However, as a man of principle I find it reprehensible to misrepresent the intentions of those that I do not agree with inorder to garner support against them.
oh, and while speaking of Libertarians, I'd be very surprised if Bush was ever popular among them.
Regards>
Posted by: Ben Abbott | September 21, 2006 1:54 PM
I don't really know where Wallis and others are getting the idea that Bush does not care about those in need. As this article in the USA Today notes, "Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster [during the Bush administration] than at any time since the 1960s." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm
Believe me, no conservatives are happy with the spending of this president. Because Bush spends less than what liberals want to spend, he is painted as a conservative, but he isn't one. As far as domestic spending goes (prescription drug bill anyone?), he is one of the most liberal presidents in history.>
Posted by: jessie | September 21, 2006 2:18 PM
I agree with Jessie. Bush doesn't know how to manage a budget. I didn't vote for Bush, but when he was elected in 2000, I tried to remain optimistic and thought that perhaps the Republicans could make our social programs more efficient and cut some costs. Instead, they came up with programs(faith based initiatives) that throw money willy nilly across the board.
What did Norquist mean by "starve the beast?" I'd like a conservative to answer that question.
mb, great posts on Rev Moon and the Christian Coalition. I wasn't aware of any of that. The Christian Coalition gets money from Moon(who claims that he's the Messiah), and what does Moon get in return? I missed that. Power and a seat at the table. But what else does he want?
I stopped calling myself a Christian because the religious right convinced me that my views on God and Jesus were too heretical to fit the bill. They have a point. However, I must say that the posts on this blog from Christians really warm my heart and make me proud of Christians in America. And they give me hope. Sometimes I'm missing hope..... and faith in mankind.
Thanks, especially(but not exclusively)to D4P.>
Posted by: watsy | September 21, 2006 3:18 PM
One more thing, I don't mind when Christians speak about Christianity. I really hate it when they make comments about Judaism and "the law." Christians who get their education on Judaism from Sunday School and the New Testament know so little about Judaism that it's safe to say that they know nothing. Focus on Christianity and let the Jews focus on Judaism.>
Posted by: watsy | September 21, 2006 3:24 PM
this country was founed on the seperation of church and state. We need to keep religion out of the state,and the state out of religion.The only thing we need is to have faith in man to do the right thing and work together for peace and harmony. Our children and our childrens children are our future. So keep the faith that God is watching over all of us to do the right thing for all of our futures.>
Posted by: roxanne | September 21, 2006 3:39 PM
Ralph:
Your point that Democrats need to change is well-taken. As George Will said, when we lose political contests we tend to see it as stupidity on everyone else's part.
But I'd like to challenge about whether those policies you've mentioned actually express your values.
(1) Leave no millionaire behind. The Bush tax cuts are regressive - bigger cuts for those who need it the least. Given the free market principle of diminishing marginal returns there is no wiggle room on this one. A poor person's 1,000th dollar is far more valuable than my 50,000th. To my knowledge, Jesus did not instruct us to minister unto the working middle class.
(2) Leave no tree behind. This President has gutted the EPA's enforcement mechanisms and allowed unsustainable increases in logging. In his first 40 days he repealed protections for arsenic in the water as a gift to mining companies. He reduced the Clean Air Act's requirements on all but one pollutant and called it the 'Clear Skies Initiative.' Is caring for creation not a priority?
(3) Praise the LORD and pass the ammunition. The budgets you have supported have been largely geared toward escalation and fueling a arms race. This while the administration in power believes in deterrence as a strategy for peace, as opposed to Micah or Jesus' view that offering your enemy security without fear of retaliation is the way to go.
(4) Relativism. The Christian Coalition supported Ronald Reagan while we were funding Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. Donald Rumsfeld wrote back then that we knew Saddam was using that money to buy chemical WMD to liquidate Kurds but that the strategic need to fight communist expansion meant we should just turn a blind eye. Now you want to take the moral high horse? I'd like to suggest you think about applying the virtues of humility, repentance, and contrition to this topic.
(5) Blessed are the lucky. Reducing welfare rolls is not the same thing as moving people from welfare to work. There is substantial evidence to suggest these people are slipping through the cracks. You support the people who have prevented increases in child care for welfare mothers - care that makes it easier to keep families together.
(6) Health care. The Christian Coalition has made no attempot to support health care for the poor. Think about this - it is literally a policy based on Darwinism.
(7) Pro-death? Evidence says that sex education and prenatal care for poor women reduce infant mortality and abortions. You knowingly supported the budgets that cut both of these programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy. You are obsessed with baby's lives - unless they are poor. Or already born. I challenge you to seriously think about the value of a life consistently. If you won't ask the working middle class to invest in saving lives how pro-life can you be?
What say you?>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2006 3:42 PM
Apologies for not fillinng in a name, the 7-point challenge to Ralph Reed by anonymous as 9:47am was mine.>
Posted by: Daniel | September 21, 2006 3:44 PM
By dominating the agenda with fear and anger we are now getting back exactly what was sowed and preached; fear, anger & hatred. This is neither the agenda nor the priority of Jesus call on our lives as Christians. We are to draw others to Jesus not pushing them away. We are to love our enemies, not hate nor kill them literally or figuratively.
Spot on.
This IS the elephant in the room.
The message at the forefront of the "Christian movement" (lead by conservative/Republican "Christians") in this country, is that there is no room at the table unless you pledge allegiance to THE faith.
People may be drawn to "Christian" mega-churches and conservative churches today more than they were in the past...but there are just as many, if not more, people turning away from the Christian faith or looking upon it and/or "Christians" in complete disgust.
Part of that disgust grows out of the repulsive blending of religion and politics that has been so blatantly created and exploited by the Republican party. If it isn't obvious to you that Christians in this country are being exploited by their own "Christian leaders" and by members of the Republican party...then you are either completely ignorant, willfully ignorant, willfully in denial, or all of the above.>
Posted by: MNW | September 21, 2006 3:55 PM
There are a couple of themes in this thread I frequently see among so-called progressives that I think bear some discussion.
The first is the use of Christ's gospel to justify a "live and let live" attitude about sin. Yes, Jesus dined with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Yes, he said judge not. But continually, and foremost he said "Repent." He didn't say to the woman caught in adultry, "Whew, that was a close call. Be careful next time." He said, "Go and sin no more." We cannot judge our fellow men because only God can do that, but we have to make judgements about how best it is to live and how we are to behave, and if we love our fellow man we have to repeat Christ's call to repent and live it ourselves. To progressives, the only sin is to believe in sin.
Next is the constant accusation that conservative Christians are somehow imposing a theocracy in the US. This idea is so ridculous that it is surprising that it is so often made. Yes, I tremble at the coming Christian Taliban every time I look at MTV or FOX. Their encroaching influence is evident everywhere. I can see it in my children's mandatory "diversity" codes in high school and college curriculuum requirements. I am terrified every time a state supported artist drops a crucifix in a jar or urine or a huge entertainment corporation puts out a movie like the Da Vinci Code lest these Christian zealots burn down the theaters and art galleries - they are running wild! Our society is practically run by the Pope don't you know. Theocons my eye.>
Posted by: Sean H | September 21, 2006 3:59 PM
So many thoughts...not enough time.
Ralph...I love how you keep saying that the Religious Right is pushing to support Israel...like that is a good thing? There are two sides in the conflict, and they have both committed atrocious acts.
And supporting abstinence? Sounds good in theory, but every study shown on absitence programs have found taht they simply do not work, and my even lead to more issues (such as not using protection).
And opposing terrorists? I would agree with you, except for the fact that this nation's actions in Iraq has led to a greater number of terrorists, not fewer. And where is Osama bin Laden, anyway?>
Posted by: Dave | September 21, 2006 4:01 PM
Sean H,
Is divorce a sin?
If so, where is the movement to "protect marriage" by amending the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states with verbiage that would make divorce illegal?
Is adultery a sin?
If so, where is the movement to "protect marriage" by amending the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states with verbiage that would make adultery illegal?
Why do Christians pick and choose the "sins" they wish to enforce with the law and which ones they don't?>
Posted by: MNW | September 21, 2006 4:05 PM
Questions for Dave - Evidence that abstinence programs don't work? After three deacades of Planned Parenthood-type sex-ed, a three-fold increase in abortions and a more than 100% increase in teen pregnancy and illegitimacy and you are demanding those that want to try something different prove their way is better? It reminds me of the educrats who have overseen the destruction of one of the few successful government-run efforts - public education - and now accuses anyone who wants change of not caring about kids.
On Israel, yeah, maybe we should consider the other side, the side that seeks the complete destruction of Israel - yeah, that's the ticket. At least the problem wil go away.>
Posted by: Sean H | September 21, 2006 4:10 PM
Sean,
I think you'll find that religious progressives agree with you about sin. I love the fact that we define sin as doing God's will and not ours. But it's not the body politic's place to administer retribution for sin - that would be theocracy. In a political context, we believe that justice is not about retribution but about acting collectively to help shape a society based on fairness, dignity, integrity, life, and civil liberty.
I don't think the fear of theocracy is as far-fetched as you do. Read Jim's chapter in God's Politics called "Dangerous Religion." The President says he thinks he has been tasked by God to rid the world of evil. If that's not theocracy then we have different criteria....>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2006 4:14 PM
I'd just like to see what a definition of 'pro-family' is. Though I may have deep disagreements with Reed's political ideology, as well as some theological disputes, I can respect his views on some issues despite those disagreements.
However, isn't 'pro-family' open to interpretation? Isn't it something different for each different family? If one family thinks it's in their best interest to eat lots of green beans and that such actions keep them together, isn't that 'pro-family' to them?
I know that's a glib example, but my point is that when we try to narrowly define what something is and what something isn't - all in the name of scoring political points - we tend to miss the picture all together.>
Posted by: Jmac | September 21, 2006 4:15 PM
You're right MNW - I'm for both of your measures.
Why do liberals do the "hypocrite" dance everytime someone challenges their position. No issue is ever all or nothing. Most conservatives don't insist all of their views be enshrined in law. I, for one, wish divorce laws were more stringent, but those laws were changed - THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. That's what I am for, having the debate and going through the process. I am against same sex marriage, and I am willing to have a vote on it as we did in the cases you cite.>
Posted by: Sean H | September 21, 2006 4:16 PM
After three deacades of Planned Parenthood-type sex-ed, a three-fold increase in abortions and a more than 100% increase in teen pregnancy and illegitimacy and you are demanding those that want to try something different prove their way is better?
OK, but Sean you're taking one portion of a very complex problem - one which ranges from everything from parental responsibility to poverty to education to etc. - and then using that to justify your argument. Dave was right in saying that abstinance programs have done little to deter these. It's more than merely saying 'don't do it' or 'don't do it, but if you do, do it this way.'
Same thing with your public education example.>
Posted by: Jmac | September 21, 2006 4:19 PM
Nice cop out Sean.
The "Christian" movement to deny gay couples the legal recognition of their marriages is supposedly founded on the idea that "Christians" wish "only to protect marriage".
If the purpose of denying gay couples the legal recognition of their marriages is to "protect marriage" and the amendments to the constitutions are meant to "protect marriage", then why do NONE of these amendments or laws include language that would outlaw divorce and adultery? Are divorce and adultery not "attacks" on marriage?
Why are you "against same-sex marriage"?
Do you believe "outlawing" same-sex marriage will somehow prevent gay couples from marrying? My marriage is not legally recognized...but I am still married.
Why do liberals do the "hypocrite" dance everytime someone challenges their position.
Why are conservative "Christian" positions always so blatantly hypocritical?
Is hypocrisy a sin? Does Jesus approve of hypocrisy?>
Posted by: MNW | September 21, 2006 4:25 PM
Dear Mr. Reed,
Could you please reference where tax policy is covered in the New Testament? I thought we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar s? Matter of fact, could you also please elaborate on why free market ideals are more moral than Keynesian economics? I was taught not to store up treasures on this earth and not be anxious? Why are you teaching the opposite? Isn't true that the Bush Administration had very close ties to Enron and Ken Lay? Is this the moral leadership and the sort of people that you think make a Christian businessman? Why can t you accept that we Christians have been misled by this administration? How can you rationalize the treatment of prisoners with for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' " How are you looking after these prisoners from Iraq?
I prey for you Mr. Reed. One day you are going to realize what you are doing and how what you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me
How can you not oppose the reality that the top 1% of Americans are accumulating an increasing amount of wealth, while the middle class does not keep up? How can you not oppose greater environmental laws? How can you allow the administration to slash programs (such as the children s health study) and think that this is being a good steward? You cover yourself in false doctrine to hide what we all can see: you are a phony.
As someone who is a religious conservative and believes in a literal translation of the Bible, I am saddened how you have maligned our image and have turned us into a political movement. I live my life to serve God, not special interest groups like yours. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are moral: they were created and operate to serve worldly interests.
The reality is Mr. Reed is that you, like so many other great men before you, have fallen and have allowed your ego and worldly desires to take precedence over serving our Lord, Jesus. I will prey for you and hope that one day you will understand the story of the Good Samaritan.
CD>
Posted by: CD | September 21, 2006 4:30 PM
Yes, Jesus dined with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors. Yes, he said judge not. But continually, and foremost he said "Repent." He didn't say to the woman caught in adultry, "Whew, that was a close call. Be careful next time." He said, "Go and sin no more." We cannot judge our fellow men because only God can do that, but we have to make judgements about how best it is to live and how we are to behave, and if we love our fellow man we have to repeat Christ's call to repent and live it ourselves.
So, Sean, do you admire Ronald Reagan? Would you dine with him?
Do you judge him?
Do you demand that he repent?
Ronald Reagan..."star" of the "right"...dreamy pillar of conservative ideology...hero and idol of conservative "Christians".
A divorced man...who lived most of his life "in sin"...and as a married again man, he was obviously not repentent of that sin. Everyday he lived married to Nancy, was a day he lived in unrepentent sin.
But "Christians" don't give one shit about that.>
Posted by: MNW | September 21, 2006 4:32 PM
I prey for you Mr. Reed.
CD, I trust you mean 'pray' because the latter is kinda funny, but also weird.
I kid. I kid. ;)
MNW, the bigger question regarding banning same-sex marriages is, as you allude to, why is that singled out? As a Christian, I wanted my marriage to be done in a Christian ceremony because I believe marriage is a religious institution and a beautiful example of God's love for humankind on earth.
However, I accept others share differing views on marriage and seeing that we live in a society which permits freedom of association and speech and religion, I am content in respecting those differing beliefs while embracing and practicing my own.
So the question is then why would religious convservatives who are so against gay marriage so narrowly limit their focus? Why wouldn't they advocate banning all marriage except for Christian marriage? This is what I find hypocritical in this entire debate.
If someone wants to get have a ceremony and say they're married, that's fine. Who am I to stop them, particularly when I hold my own personal beliefs of what marriage is and what marriage isn't.>
Posted by: Jmac | September 21, 2006 4:38 PM
We obviously do have different ideas about theocracy, because if Bush is imposing one, he is doing a pretty poor job. Just because a man says his faith imposes some obligations on him doesn't make him a theocrat.
And yes, I do believe most liberals have a very different idea about sin. Most of them take the view that sin is whatever I say it is and that anyone who suggests there might be some objective right and wrong - at least on the things they care about - is intolerant.
Finally - liberals should really stop with the theocracy argument. I live in Boston, and as we have gone through the whole same-sex marriage debate, liberal religious groups have been at least as vocal in their support as conservative religious groups and the Catholic Church has been in their opposition. What this comes down to is - my theological vision (the liberal one) informs my views, but yours (conservative) imposes them on others. If one of my kids went to school here with a T-shirt with an anti-same-sex marriage message on he or she would be sent home, but the school itself sponsors a gay support group that puts posters up supporting SSM. Who's views are being imposed?>
Posted by: Sean H | September 21, 2006 4:42 PM
I actually heard quite a bit about Reagan being a divorcee. Martin Luther King Jr. was chronically unfaithful, and basically expected his wife to be a housefrau while he did his important work, but you don't hear much from progressive Christians about that either. Sometimes we set those things aside when we admire a man's accomplishments, for better or worse.
The conservative explanation of starving the beast is not that we tank our social programs, in hopes that they cannot recover. Starving the beast refers to reducing taxes, which (temporarily) reduces the flow of revenue to the government. Therefore, government is forced to trim the fat from ALL projects, not just entitlements. It is a theory that is proposed to counter government's tendency to expand in good economic times, which creates unmanageable debts in leaner times.
For the record, Bush is clearly not an advocate of this theory, as he has not made the massive cuts to entitlements that everyone assumes he has, which is why libertarians (by and large) loathe him.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 21, 2006 4:47 PM
Sean, I'll concede there are some mixed messages coming from liberals involving religion, particularly along the lines of the ones you speak. I think we need to do a better job of being more tolerant of other views, no matter how much we disagree with them.
The only caveat that I'd add to your specific example of T-shirt (aside from the question I have about what child would really want to wear an 'anti-gay-marriage T-shirt'), is that - according to our society's understanding of discrimination laws and hate speech, whether you agree with it or not - is that something which is 'anti-....' is going to be viewed as disparaging and discriminatory toward a particular group, while a shirt that is supporting a particular group or view wouldn't be.
I'd venture to say that if the child wore a 'Protect Marriage' shirt, he/she would be deemed 'OK' to wear it. However, wearing something which is patently insulting to another group ventures into new territory.
Well, that and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled a while back that children don't have the same protection of free speech that adults have.>
Posted by: Jmac | September 21, 2006 4:50 PM
I think we need to do a better job of being more tolerant of other views, no matter how much we disagree with them.
That depends, doesn't it?
I've no intention of EVER being tolerant of intolerance. The anti-gay platform of the modern "Christian" movement is nothing but intolerance, pure and simple, and I will never be tolerant of such views. If "Christians" want to believe that having gay SEX is a "sin", then they can go right ahead...I really don't care. But I'll be damned if I will tolerate them using their religious beliefs as a basis for denying me my civil rights...which is exactly what they do today.
They've no rational (read: non-religious) argument for denying gay people their rights. It's their prejudiced religious beliefs that is the basis for this denial...it's their ideas about "sin" and their ability to exploit the deep-seated prejudice towards gay people harbored by the populace that allows them to get away with it. Thankfully though, the populace is waking up and recognizing how hateful and bigoted these beliefs are and the tide is changing. It's only a matter of time before gay people will legally marry in every state...but like a rabid dog cornered, their attacks on gay people will get more and more insidious. I mean...that is the "Christian" way, isn't it?...at least that's the "Christian" way as I have experienced it.>
Posted by: MNW | September 21, 2006 5:14 PM
Sean said, "Most of them take the view that sin is whatever I say it is and that anyone who suggests there might be some objective right and wrong - at least on the things they care about - is intolerant."
You clearly don't understand my idea of sin. We might agree on what's sin and what isn't. It's extremely important to me because it determines how I live my life, and how I feel about myself. But I think that we might disagree on how far we should go in imposing religious beliefs upon others. I have no difficulty in separating my personal code of ethics (let me call it my personal laws)from what the government permits or imposes(civil law). Where I draw the line is where civil laws force people to violate their personal laws, or where people who have a different set of personal laws are negatively impacting others.
We live in a very diverse culture. It makes America interesting.>
Posted by: watsy | September 21, 2006 5:14 PM
Paul Buck - beautifully said. That has always been one of my big problems with the religious right and the abortion issue. I have yet to see a really, really big movement among Christians to promote adoption in a big way by *gasp* actually adopting a child/ren themselves. I have a conservative Christian aunt and uncle who constantly let me know how terrible abortion is. However, they only have one child of their own and, even though they are blessed with plenty of money, have yet to adopt any needy children and have no plans to. Talk about hypocrisy.
I challenge every single church in this country to adopt 5 single mothers and their children, and, as individual congregations, take care of all their educational, monetary, and spiritual needs for as long as they need it. If I ever actually saw churches putting their money where their mouths were concerning single mothers and their children, I might take their anti-choice arguments seriously.
While the government isn't the perfect way to help the poor all the time, the religious people of this country sure are doing an awful job of filling in the gaps for as much as they like to dis the government.
And for anyone who rips on gay families, just remeber that many times gay couples are the first ones in line who are willing to adopt and love the disabled and emotionally disturbed children that are abandoned by their heterosexual parents. Can't say I see a lot of straight Christians doing that.>
Posted by: Butterfly | September 21, 2006 5:19 PM
And, I might add, legalizing civil unions if fine with me. It has no impact on how I live my life. It doesn't affect anyone but gays and corporations(pay out more benefits) and attorneys(less work since gays are covered under the law for things that they might otherwise need a legal document to have).
Kevin,