Jim Wallis: Family Values?
What a shame. Don Sherwood, Republican from Pennsylvania, just lost his House seat. Sherwood had an 85% approval rating from James Dobson’s Family Action—only falling short of the 100% rating because he failed to co-sponsor the Marriage Protection amendment, though he supported it.
The scorecard rates members of Congress on how they voted on "Pro-Family Issues". The issues are ones you might guess: abortion, pledge of allegiance, stem cell research, and the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Depending on how a member of congress voted on 7 pieces of legislation related to these issues, they received anywhere from a 0-100% rating as a pro-family member of congress. According to the introductory letter to the Vote Scorecard, “This scorecard shows how your elected officials voted on some of the critical issues involving the family. It is important to remember, however, that the votes you see here are only a few of the hundreds of votes cast by Members of Congress in 2006. We have singled out for inclusion the most clear-cut, pro-family votes that came before Congress."
Problem is Congressman Sherwood admitted cheating on his wife, and in 2004, his mistress, Cynthia Ore, called 911 accusing the congressman of choking and hitting her. The congressman denies having abused his mistress. He did, however, settle out of court a civil case that Ms. Ore brought against him for an undisclosed amount of money.
Silly me, I thought fidelity and faithfulness in our marriage relationships were also family values. And having your new mistress allege that you beat her up isn’t the best endorsement either. But James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Action isn’t too worried about little things like that; they have political power to hold on to. What was Jesus' biggest problem with religious leaders—hypocrisy was it? I guess he just didn’t understand the necessities of pro-family politics.
The scorecard rates members of Congress on how they voted on "Pro-Family Issues". The issues are ones you might guess: abortion, pledge of allegiance, stem cell research, and the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. Depending on how a member of congress voted on 7 pieces of legislation related to these issues, they received anywhere from a 0-100% rating as a pro-family member of congress. According to the introductory letter to the Vote Scorecard, “This scorecard shows how your elected officials voted on some of the critical issues involving the family. It is important to remember, however, that the votes you see here are only a few of the hundreds of votes cast by Members of Congress in 2006. We have singled out for inclusion the most clear-cut, pro-family votes that came before Congress."
Problem is Congressman Sherwood admitted cheating on his wife, and in 2004, his mistress, Cynthia Ore, called 911 accusing the congressman of choking and hitting her. The congressman denies having abused his mistress. He did, however, settle out of court a civil case that Ms. Ore brought against him for an undisclosed amount of money.
Silly me, I thought fidelity and faithfulness in our marriage relationships were also family values. And having your new mistress allege that you beat her up isn’t the best endorsement either. But James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Action isn’t too worried about little things like that; they have political power to hold on to. What was Jesus' biggest problem with religious leaders—hypocrisy was it? I guess he just didn’t understand the necessities of pro-family politics.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
What does Wallis think of Kennedy's re-election?>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 4:49 AM
This is quite the contrast from the "We Are All Sinners" post from yesterday. Are we not still sinners? Did not Christ die for the ungodly? I can understand the point about hypocrisy, yet the way it is presented here comes across as a very partisan and ungenerous form of gloating.>
Posted by: Timbo | November 8, 2006 4:50 AM
Gloating it is.>
Posted by: Gordon | November 8, 2006 5:11 AM
Does Wallis really think Focus on the Family doesn't care about marital fidelity and abusing women? The rating was based on a "Vote Scorecard", which has nothing to do with personal character. He is completely misrepresenting FOTF's stance.>
Posted by: HAC | November 8, 2006 5:22 AM
A really dumb post. Every voter guide rates candidates on votes, not character.>
Posted by: jessie | November 8, 2006 5:49 AM
Jim, this is a pretty disappointing post. Your usual diplomacy and grace has left you. This reads as very petty, and unattractive.>
Posted by: geoff | November 8, 2006 5:58 AM
Wow, Jim, I didn't know you had this kind of pith and vinegar in you. I'm very impressed by your eloquent ramblings on hypocrisy. The true centrist, right?>
Posted by: Elmo | November 8, 2006 6:18 AM
Dobson and Focus on the Family ... Their definition of family values seems strange to me.
Take child abuse: The ONE THING, the one thing which we could do to lower our child abuse rate is to include male victims in our spousal abuse efforts. No doubt about that. Yet, Dobson stands opposed to doing that. Hmmm, so does the Christian left for that matter.
Christinaity has become a group which sees abused chidlren as prefered to wasting effort on mere males. You cannot wave a magic Crucifix and make that go away.>
Posted by: jw | November 8, 2006 10:28 AM
Jim,
You forgot that pointing out blatant hypocricy will upset the Sanhedrin.
Please promptly go back to ignoring corruption and hypocristy whenever you see it, just like Jesus did.>
Posted by: Tenoch | November 8, 2006 12:18 PM
This is a legitimate and non-partisan criticism for two reasons:
1. Jessie says that voting guides consider only votes and not character. Exactly. Note that the Sojourner's voting guide set out the criteria and then challenged everyone to find out where the candidates stand in relation to those criteria. Jim's got pretty solid ground from which to level this criticism.
2. HAC says that it's not fair because it's based on FotF's voting guide. Exactly. FotF is telling people that this is a rough measure of where the candidate stands on Family Values. They call it a voting guide for a reason. They've simply left no grounds for righteous indignation at being called out.
Jim is stating that the guide is seriously flawed because of FotF's myopic outlook led them to exclude indispensible factors. It's a legitimate answer to say that they should have accounted for it and certainly find those things important. But attacking the criticism as somehow biased and unfair misses the very serious point.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 8, 2006 2:44 PM
Daniel,
Was there some place on Wallis' voter guide that mentioned marital fidelity and character of politicians? His was issues-based, too.>
Posted by: jessie | November 8, 2006 3:30 PM
Wallis on family values:
"Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society - especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children."
No mention of character and lifestyles of politicians.
Jim, you've got a thick log stuck in your eye.>
Posted by: jessie | November 8, 2006 3:36 PM
Jessie,
In the Voting God's Politics Issues Guide 2006, on page 16, Sojourners says that we must make it a 'personal' priority and involve 'all sectors of society' in strengthening families, including maintaining the integrity of marriage and reducing and preventing domestic abuse. This clearly engenders integrity and character and delimits the debate from policy.
I'm 100% positive Jim is a sinner and to some extent a hypocrite, as is every human being. But the fact that we are sinners ourselves is a call for compassion, empathy, and respect - not relativism; Jesus still told the prostitute to go and sin no more.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 8, 2006 4:11 PM
Daniel,
I agree that character and integrity of politicians is important, but I don't see it given any emphasis in Wallis' earlier post or in the excerpt you mention. With Kennedy (both of them), Clinton, et al. in the Democratic party, it makes sense that Wallis would not emphasize this.
I doubt FOTF or any other group that published voter guides would say "ignore character and focus on the issues", which is what Wallis is implying they are saying. Voter guides are just helpful and informative in their own right. Expecting them to judge a candidate's character goes beyond their capacity or intent. The organizations Wallis supports (eg, ADA) have voter guides that do not address character, too.>
Posted by: jessie | November 8, 2006 4:25 PM
No mention of character and lifestyles of politicians
I can see the concern that private shortcomings can spill over into public service - the final Clinton years and the recent Republican scandals are sufficient proof of that - but don't you feel that even public figures are entitled to some privacy?
I mean loook, I really don't want to vote for someone who has substance abuse issues, but is it any of business if he has bad relationships with his children or whether or not he drives an SUV?>
Posted by: badmash | November 8, 2006 6:26 PM
Jessie,
I agree with your counter-criticism that FotF obviously wouldn't intend to look the other way and that the Voting Guide just doesn't catch this sort of thing. I think you have a good point and I think Jim has good point.
I will defend Jim on the character/Clinton/Kennedy remark. Wallis has been very critical of Bill Clinton's behavior in particular and in God's POlitics specifically assails the idea that personal life and policy-making life are compartmentalized - he argues that character matters because it's all integral.>
Posted by: Daniel | November 8, 2006 7:24 PM
"God's POlitics specifically assails the idea that personal life and policy-making life are compartmentalized - he argues that character matters because it's all integral."
There were a number of democratic scandals this election cycle, not one of which received any mention by Wallis.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 7:48 PM
Sojourners and Jim Wallis used to be a breath of fresh air to the "use vs. them" mentality that I found in the religious right spokesmen. But, unfortunately, in this post, Jim has sunk to their level.>
Posted by: foxnala | November 8, 2006 7:54 PM
There were a number of democratic scandals this election cycle, not one of which received any mention by Wallis.
Feel free to mention any Democrat scandals that Jim may have missed, Kevin.
But I doubt if you can come anywhere close to this list of Republican scandals:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2006 7:56 PM
i used to have a lot of respect for jim wallis and his writing... but this post was unnecessary and in poor taste. there is no need to gloat or rub people's face in their tradgedies... what happened to loving your neighbor as yourself? we can disagree on issues, and even debate vigorously. but lets keep our integrity and dignity, and treat others as Jesus would want us to (even if they do not!)>
Posted by: wolvesfan | November 8, 2006 8:37 PM
Caustic and Snide are not going to further the "National Dialogue".
I am pretty certain this commentary will not bring Jim Dobson into the dialogue.
Point is good and appropriate, but the presentation could be a tad less combative.>
Posted by: Dana | November 8, 2006 9:01 PM
Well, Clinton committed perjury and adultery, and Kennedy effectively murdered his secretary. Patrick Kennedy got hopped up on painkillers and could easily have killed someone when he was driving down the wrong side of the road Barney Frank solicited a male prostitue, then hired him as an assistant. Sandy Berger stole documents from the national archives related to Clinton's performance before 9/11. Sen. Bob Toricelli left the senate over embezzlement, I think. Bob Menendez was just elected in spite of his ethical flaws. Governor McGreevey was using his office to emply his lovers. The intern Gary Condit was having sex with suddenly turned up dead. Cynthia McKinney attacked a security guard. John Murtha was a co-conspirator to bribery. Gerry Studds had sex with an underage congressional page (FOR CRYING OUT LOUD). Merriam Berry has been something of an embarassment. Rep. William Jefferson was caught accepting a bribe on tape and was re-elected.
It goes on. Most of those people are still in office, but Sojourners is silent. Why? Because they are democrats, and Sojourners is a partisan organization.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 10:00 PM
Kevin S. writes:
"Most of those people are still in office, but Sojourners is silent. Why? Because they are democrats, and Sojourners is a partisan organization."
I agree Kevin. I used to appreciate Sojourners because of it's "God is not Republican or Democract" approach to Christianity and politics. I certainly don't consider myself a Republican...I lean much more towards the Democratic side of the fence. But, I'm truly saddened that Sojourners seems to have recently gotten more blindly partisen. God is not a Republican or a DEMOCRAT. Sojourners and Jim Wallis would do well to remember this!>
Posted by: foxnala | November 8, 2006 10:29 PM
Kevni -- You can't seriously be suggesting that the real and/or alleged "scandals" listed in your latest post actually happened in this election cycle, as one of your earlier posts intimated. For heaven's sake, most of these incidents happened 30 years ago! Bill Clinton hasn't held office in 8 years. Ted Kennedy had his car accident in 1969 for crying out loud -- probably before you were even born! Barney Frank met, hired and fired his pal in 1990. Sandy Berger was never an elected official and the documents he took were his own notes. Robert Toricelli did the honorable thing by resigining -- four years ago, in 2002. Jim McGreevey did the same. Gary Condit lost his re-election bid in the 2002 primary. Cythina McKinney also couldn't get past her own Democratic party constitutents. John Murtha's pseudo-scandal was part of Abscam in the 1980s. He never took any money, was not indicted and was re-elected in a landslide at the next election. And Gerry Studds had his run-in with the page in 1970s and he's DEAD>
Posted by: Julie | November 8, 2006 10:42 PM
You can't imagine the joy I have reading this website. I am still trying to understand what 'evangelical' group or congregation Jim is connected to. I believe, not to be spiritual, that the sauce that flavors to goose also flavors the gander. There seems to be a major disconnect between liberal/demo and conservative/repu with most of the writers on this site. As I read and try to understand how they feel we should play out our 'faith', I feel like I am reading some ranting of liberals in conservative clothing. Focus on the Family, Billy Graham and his son Franklin, Paul and Jan of TBN, even Robertson of CBN. These people are all doing kingdom work. Do we need to dis so many of our brothers and sisters? I believe that we need to vote, act, work, play the way God would want us to. I believe that God reveals to each individual what His desire of/for them is at the correct time. We may be at different places in our journey of faith but I believe that there are some things in scripture that are a standard for all. (at least they are if you allow scripture to talk for itself and not allow the social/PC talk to enter into the discussion)
For me this is what I believe God has told me or put on my heart. I personally would not try to be so bold as proclaiming 'God Politics' as I am not his mouth piece. Come let us reason together says the Lord...
have a great day
Robstur>
Posted by: Robstur | November 8, 2006 10:44 PM
Julie,
I was responding to Justintime, who offered a list that spans decades as well. Actually, most of the events I listed happened recently, and I stand by my statement that it is hypocritical for Sojourners not to mention them.
Do you think it is hypocritical, or would you rather not address that point as it is fairly obvious that I am right about this.>
Posted by: kevin s. | November 8, 2006 10:49 PM
You think the Republican scandals of this administration are just par for the course?
Just watch the the most corrupted administration in American history get their indictments in the coming months.
The next most corrupted was the Reagan administration.
You ain't seen nuthin' yet.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2006 10:59 PM
Kevin -- I suppose it would be hypocritcal of Sojourners to avoid discussing a scandal that involved Democrats, if that actually had happened. But I don't see that it has. The newsworthy scandals in this election cycle (2004-2006) were all GOP, as far as I can tell. It seems to me that the God's Politics blog has commented on the scandals that happened after it went on line. (The most recent one you cite is the McGreevey affair, I think. And that happened before this blog went on line in September. I'm not sure, but I think Wallis did publish an article in the Sojourners magazine that was critical of Jefferson on the bribery allegations.) In any event, Wallis & Co. surely do not have an obligation to go back in history and comment on every instance of bad behavior by an elected or appointed official. If they did, we'd never speak of current events, now would we? We'd just be talking about ancient history.>
Posted by: Julie | November 8, 2006 11:15 PM
Maybe the reason Kevin is only able to mention old Democratic scandals is because of the scarcity of new ones?>
Posted by: sholmgren | November 8, 2006 11:30 PM
The democrat scandals Kevin cites are not only historical but misrepresented as well.
Kevin should carefully reexamine the political party he supports before complaining any more about partisanship on this blog.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 12:46 AM
"Just watch the the most corrupted administration in American history get their indictments in the coming months"
They're finally going to indict members of the Clinton administration? It's about time!>
Posted by: Gordon | November 9, 2006 2:01 AM
Gordon,
The Clinton administration was squeaky clean in comparison with Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2.
Total up the indictments and you will see.
Ken Starr spent $70 million of taxpayer money and after four years, came up with zero indictments.
.>
Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2006 2:17 AM
the tone of this post was just not necessary. i am really disappointed. i hope this was just a glitch for mr. wallis. i am so tired of the gloating and partisanship on both sides. ugh. especially as christians.>
Posted by: zuzuspetals | November 9, 2006 2:22 AM
For a while I have been enjoying a Sojourners as its writers seem to offer a new perspective to Christian life. Jim's bashing of James Dobson, is a let down. I hope he checked on his facts before he made those comments.
We have a common enemy, and the last time I read my Bible, the enemy is a malevolent being who wants God's people to point their guns as each other.
Dan>
Posted by: Daniel | November 9, 2006 5:55 AM
Jim,
Are your a Molech worshipper or Neo-pagan Neo-Roman.
You ceratinly do not "look" or sound like a Christian.
This rise of evil has happened many times in history. Liberals and progressives are nothing new on the stage of history.
You support Korah's rebellion or Lot's neiggbors. And certainly are a supporter of the New Nerodian life and lifestyle.
May God soon reach through your seared mind.>
Posted by: Donny | November 9, 2006 2:24 PM
Jim's reference to Dobson's motivation of holding on to political power is an apt one. It just shows us what a minefield politics is for Christians. I might be helpful to remind you Jim, that you are walking through the same minefield. Both you and Dobson have considerable political power.>
Posted by: Jim | November 9, 2006 6:01 PM
Everyone on this post has had something to say about him and these right wing thugs. I do not believe that anyone can make someone be committed to their marriage or prevent a woman from having an abortion. I really dont care who does what these are all personal decisions that each one of us has to make on their own, Why is it other folks business what these guys do. On the one note no one on this post mention how many of these right wing thugs claim to hold the highest christian values over everyone else have you not notice some of the comments they have made over the last six years? do you not realize that turning down the minimum wage goes against family values? do you not realize that war is a family value issue how many soldiers have died as well as Iraqis lost their lives whole families gone over a lie and no says anything about that. It seems Jim was pointing out these hypocrits. Kennedy never once said anything about being better than anyone else did he? Nor did Clinton mention that his religious views were more deserving thatn anyone else did he? These right wing hypocrites got what they deserve. The problem with organized religion it has destroyed critical thinking in this country people do not know whether they are coming or going. Personally they all need to lose their tax exempt status than you will see how political they will become.>
Posted by: cheryl j | November 11, 2006 12:56 AM
Well, apparently, Jim you have plenty of right-wingers reading your blog. They don't seem to like your calling Dobson what he is.>
Posted by: Kay Shively | November 13, 2006 9:38 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?