God's Politics

God's Politics


Jim Wallis: The Family Research Council vs. Lou Dobbs

posted by gp_intern

In the midst of my “conversation” with Lou Dobbs, an unlikely organization has spoken out on the behalf of myself and other religious leaders of the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Give the Family Research Council credit for making a clear non-partisan appeal in defense of faith-inspired activism:

CNN host Lou Dobbs is a man of strong opinions – but last week he offered a wrong opinion. Dobbs challenged the First Amendment rights of pastors and asked his viewers in an online poll whether they believe “churches and religious institutions that engage in political activity should have their federal tax exemptions revoked.” He attacked church leaders for speaking out on the immigration debate.

There is much disagreement on immigration, but these leaders have every right to express their views. Last year, Lou Dobbs said the “intrusion of religion into our political lives, in my opinion, should be rejected in the same fashion that we constitutionally guarantee government will not interfere with religion.”

Throughout American history, church leaders have spoken out on the vital moral issues of the day – whether it be slavery, civil rights, or in defense of the family and the dignity of human life. One of the enduring lessons the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught is the power a religious community can have in society. Reverend King said, “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(29)
post a comment
Joe Garcia

posted May 18, 2007 at 6:45 pm


Somewhat of topic but nonetheless relevant to religion and current events: Our Age of counter-Enlightenment: Ratzinger & FalwellDuring a recent trip to Brazil, Pope Benedict XVI delivered an address in which he reaffirmed the theological, political and imperialistic values of the Roman Catholic Church. In his address, the Pontiff recited an exegesis of ills that beset humankind; however, he demonstrated either a case of selected amnesia, total ignorance, or a laughably revisionist view of Western Civilization. The most troubling aspect of Benedict s historiography is its similarity to the socio-economic models he condemns capitalism and Marxism, in a rage against material concerns, noting, they falsify the notion of reality by detaching it from the foundational and decisive reality which is God. It is the end of such palliative pap as well as other systemic relics of the pre-Enlightenment which were to be addressed by the Second Vatican Council. The conclave s raison d tre was to breathed new life into a moribund and reactionary institution. Its spirit did briefly spark a renewal, revitalization and seemingly an acceptance within the Church that certain aspects of modernity required integration, particularly since some of its past actions were either wrongheaded theology or the pursuit of patently immoral geo-political policies.These realities as well as its current articulation of what must be categorized as a counter-Enlightenment philosophy is causative of a genuine rift between many Americans and western European Catholics with the Holy Sea. During the post-Pope John XXXIII papacies one might not be incorrect to believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit infused the conclave with its wisdom and other gifts constituted heresy.In Brazil, Benedict announced his plan to reinstitute the celebration of the Latin Mass contrary to the belief that the use of the vernacular inspires congregants to grasp the most vital dimensions of Catholicism joy, faith, redemption and celebration. This is likely to be a gesture of support for the fundamentalist Catholicity of the Opus Dei movement.Benedict s repudiation of liberation theology illustrates the Church s sense of noblesse oblige with regard to the socially dispossessed. The theological perspective that to suffer will bring reward in the next life is quite similar to the promise made to Islamic suicide bombers of their other-worldly reward.The Pope also expressed concern for the syncretism taking place between Afro-Caribbean religions and Catholicism. Here, the His Holiness displays a total or feigned ignorance of Latin American history. This syncretism developed five-hundred years ago with the Spanish invasion of Latin America, and in Mexico, for example, the Jesuits imbued the attributes of Mesoamerican spirituality within Christian theology. We see this manifested in Santeria and other belief systems.It is, in spite of the Pope s belief to the contrary, the repudiation of liberation theology which is fostering an increase in Pentecostal conversions. With its malevolent view toward a theology of emancipation the Vatican has aligned itself with oppressive anti-democratic regimes. Thus if the Roman Church refuses to act as a catalyst for social change a ritualism similar to pre-Diaspora spirituality of a similarly syncretistic nature is axiomatic.In its condemnation of liberation theology the Church s rationale is patently clear. An important teleological aspect of it is the inculcation of a system that provides the analytic processes needed to think critically and systematically apply these skills to everyday life. Such a consciousness raising process would obviously enkindle a movement for political reform and unmask the complicity of the Church. For contrary to Benedict s message it is oppressive regimes in concert with the Vatican s real politick rather than a theology that does not falsify the notion of reality. Contrary to Ratzinger, the disassociation of temporal reality from spiritual wellbeing is a post-Enlightenment quandary. The question is will we address spiritually as an evolutive quality or will we revert to the pre-Enlightenment notions of biblical inerrancy, literalism and other fundamentally anti-intellectual tenets of medieval Catholicism and its contemporary manifestation within radical right fundamentalism.Adherents of the counter-Enlightenment lost one of its seminal leaders this week with the death of Jerry Falwell. How a historical chronicler interprets Falwell s role in American history will be a determinative factor in whether Enlightenment philosophy and its inherent notion of progress will survive.(A former Democratic political consultant, Joe Garcia writes political, art and cultural commentary. His writings are available online at http://garart.org. Readers my also be interested in my essay Deserted Catholic. He was also a member of the Franciscan Order of Friars Minor.)Technorati Profile



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted May 18, 2007 at 7:22 pm


This is not a church and state issue. The State cannot have an “official religion.” It does not prohibit people of faith, or ministries. That would be a first amendment issue, because you are denying the right solely because or religion. It seems come people forget that part of the amendment. The reason this was put into the constitution was to give religious freedoms and protect churches from governments, not govt from churches. If Lou wants to talk about churches not supporting specific candidates that is a legit discussion, but he also needs to talk to all non-profits not just churches.



report abuse
 

Gerald Shenk

posted May 18, 2007 at 8:22 pm


While Lou Dobbs usually makes a lot of good sense in the economic marketplace, his grip on the marketplace of ideas seemed rather tenuous when he argued last week against the right of religious leaders to speak out on political concerns. I was dismayed at his grandstanding against the freedom of speech for religious purposes in the political realm. Thanks for giving some airtime to the Family Research Council in their principled retort.



report abuse
 

Russell

posted May 18, 2007 at 9:12 pm


I believe has the right to speak out on issues that are clear cut. Things like slavery and other clear injustices, however, immigration is not one of those issues. What about the millions of people that are trying to enter this country legally? Where is their justice? I do not totally agree with Mr. Dobbs that the church has no right to speak out on political issues, but I do agree with him in this case.



report abuse
 

Hali

posted May 18, 2007 at 9:21 pm


Russell, Many religious leaders believe that immigration IS a clear-cut issue (for many reasons, not the least of which is the repeated Biblical exhortation to be hospitable to the foreigner). Of course, not all religious leaders agree. Not all religious leaders agreed about slavery, either. Who has the right to pick and chose which issues are “clear cut”? You? Lou Dobbs? The Family Research Council? Sojourners? The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of/from religion and freedom of speech. If you don’t like what people have to say, you have every right to refute them, but you don’t have the right to prevent them from saying it.



report abuse
 

Doug7504

posted May 18, 2007 at 10:04 pm


Lou Dobbs has strong opinions-usually trumpeted loudly. This drummer of the conservative cause too often selectively attacks any institution whom he deems unworthy of existence in his conservative world, ignoring some of the shadier organizations which the new conservatives have spawned. like Blackwater. Too bad. Well, Lou, according to you and many other conservatives, you’re fighting to free most of the world from various bogey-men. If this is your version of freedom, Jesus protect us from it! I wonder how Dobbs would react if conservative organs like Focus on the Family and others had their tax-exempt status challenged by the “liberal left”?Perhaps he should stick to economics.



report abuse
 

Blake

posted May 18, 2007 at 10:36 pm


Doug7504, Dobbs wouldn’t care of FOF had their tax-exempt status challenged. That’s the point. And, he supported Kerry in ’04. So I’m not sure that he can be labeled a conservative.



report abuse
 

Cads

posted May 19, 2007 at 9:10 am


As a non-religious person, I too have always wondered why churches and charities are tax-exempt. It seems as though I’m paying more than my fair share in taxes to support religions and charities that I oppose, or at best, am neutral. Lou Dobbs is absolutely correct in his belief that religion should stay out of government. Iran comes to mind.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 19, 2007 at 9:30 am


“Lou Dobbs has strong opinions-usually trumpeted loudly. This drummer of the conservative cause too often selectively attacks any institution whom he deems unworthy of existence in his conservative world” Lou Dobbs is not a conservative. He is a populist. Big difference.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 19, 2007 at 8:57 pm


Cads, “Lou Dobbs is absolutely correct in his belief that religion should stay out of government. Iran comes to mind.” -Jim Wallis is absolutely correct in his belief that religion should be active in government. The Soviet Union and China come to mind. -Regardless of tax exemption, the Church needs to be actively involved in the political sphere. Churches should be willing to sacrifice their tax exempt status in order to maintain their integrity….



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted May 19, 2007 at 11:08 pm


I see nothing wrong with religious leaders speaking out on behalf of people . Illegal Immigrints are in a hard place , coming from poverty we can not invision , to being illegal and having to commit a crime to better their lives . What the church and religious leaders have to realize , as Jerry Falwell and his supporters learned , their comes a price in politics . First it is just as compassionate to believe illegal immigration hurts us all in the long run , hurts the illegal , hurts the blue collar worker and his family here , allows corporate and small business owners to take advantage of the illegal , renters do not have to worry about being reported for not taking care of their rentals becauase they know illegals do not want to be associated with the police . And so on .Also in politics you will be raked over the coals and peole will paingt you as a loon or a evil in order to put public opinion against you . So is the price worth it , that is up to every individual , I prefer to believe Chritsians should be involved , but am leary about supporting one religious group in politics.The Bible shows a reference when Christ walked away when the people came to him for that purpose .



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted May 20, 2007 at 12:39 am


Mark P, Thanks. My wife is a Baptist. We don’t agree on everything – in fact, we don’t agree about a lot of things – but we agree about the important things. Peace!



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted May 20, 2007 at 1:09 am


Mark P, I am not sure I totally agree , because I believe the first priority of the church is to the Gospel and reaching out to those in need.I can see how that could be from a political viewpoint so I guess it is why we have so many discussions on it .As far for the non believers not wanting tax excemption for churches , how many organizations from the left or right that promote “education” dealing with homosexuality to abortion issues are there that are totally secular ? But political ! They are tax excempted also . Some how secular otganiztions promoting issues from a political view point that are receiving tax exemptions should be part of the government policy dealing with the subject also . You exempted them in your opinion interestingly .



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 20, 2007 at 2:27 am


Mick, “I believe the first priority of the church is to the Gospel and reaching out to those in need” I agree, I just don’t think that’s where it stops. That’s where it starts…



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted May 20, 2007 at 8:11 pm


Mark , That does make sense . But I am more concerned about politics stopping people where it starts , from ever accepting Christ . I really don’t think political views have much to do with that . I am not talking of individual particpation in politics. I am talking about political views that are associated with Christ dealing with issues that a believer of the Gospel could honorably and honestly take to heart, but from both sides of the issue . My concern is that is an unbeliever sees the Church taking positions they feel in their heart are the correct ones , could that hurt the chance they will some day accept Christ ?



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 20, 2007 at 9:23 pm


Mick, It’s a valid concern, for sure. The Cross is supposed to be a stumbling block, but that doesn’t mean we need enhance that :). Truth and Gospel are scandalous and offensive enough without having to throw in political positions that might not be clear cut from Scripture. I’m not sure what the balance is, but if arguing economics will turn a soul away from Christ, I’ll stop arguing economics. I think we need to constantly in prayer, in tune with the leading of the Spirit… to speak on debatable issues with prudence and discernment. This is a difficulty on both sides — my mother is a vehement Republican who at times views Democrats as anathema (she is getting better, I think… it helps that they no longer have FOX News, hah). But then I have friends who are susceptible to viewing conservatives as demonically devoid of compassion. As fellow believers, we need to exhort one other to love and good deeds, to compassion and perseverence in the faith… we just also need to remember differences in the practical application of compassion do not necessarily mean differences in levels of compassion.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted May 21, 2007 at 7:17 am


Cads Not sure which discussion you were referring to . . Speaking about what people of Faith should be doing and what they should be not doing in the political world was very much about what Dobbs was speaking to . The First Amendment allows religious speech , but that does mean its appropriate . Regardless if it cost them money or not . Expanding the subject matter to if it good for the church is indeed appropriate . Usually you will get this kind of conversation when it is a religious blog , with religious people , on a religious subject .This is part of the original subject . CNN host Lou Dobbs is a man of strong opinions – but last week he offered a wrong opinion. Dobbs challenged the First Amendment rights of pastors and asked his viewers in an online poll whether they believe “churches and religious institutions that engage in political activity should have their federal tax exemptions revoked.” He attacked church leaders for speaking out on the immigration debate.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted May 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm


FRC is right on. Dobbs sounds ridiculous saying religious leaders don’t have a right to speak their minds about political issues. The First Amendment gives them that right and only prohibits the state for directly supporting particular churches. It doesn’t prohibit churches and their leaders from speaking out. Also, I forgot who above called Lou Dobbs a conservative but I don’t think that’s a proper description of his views. He’s more of a populist.



report abuse
 

Violent Illegal Immigrant Gang

posted May 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm


The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD s rule against enforcing immigration law. The LAPD s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These sanctuary policies generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities. Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. We can t even talk about it, says a frustrated LAPD captain. People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics. Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals]. Neither captain would speak for attribution. But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of a much broader disease: the nation s near-total loss of control over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and, ultimately, the very idea of national borders. It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has become that to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a police official asked to violate this powerful taboo will give a strangled response or, as in the case of a New York deputy commissioner, break off communication altogether. Meanwhile, millions of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view, utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law. I asked the Miami Police Department s spokesman, Detective Delrish Moss, about his employer s policy on lawbreaking illegals. In September, the force arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops had had the suspect in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have forestalled the rapes. We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with immigration issues, explains Moss, choosing his words carefully, because of our large immigrant population.Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples: In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens. A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico. The leadership of the Columbia Lil Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A. s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation. Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis. The LAPD and the L.A. city attorney recently requested an injunction against drug trafficking in Hollywood, targeting the 18th Street Gang and the non gang members who sell drugs in Hollywood for the gang. Those non gang members are virtually all illegal Mexicans, smuggled into the country by a ring organized by 18th Street bigs. The Mexicans pay off their transportation debts to the gang by selling drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line of work is and stay in the business. Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these non-gang Hollywood dealers, as the city attorney calls them, but the gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the street as a border brother ) for his immigration status, or even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early 2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city s sanctuary policy. The ordinarily tough-as-nails former LAPD chief Daryl Gates enacted Special Order 40 in 1979 showing that even the most unapologetic law-and-order cop is no match for immigration advocates. The order prohibits officers from initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person in other words, the police may not even ask someone they have arrested about his immigration status until after they have filed criminal charges, nor may they arrest someone for immigration violations. They may not notify immigration authorities about an illegal alien picked up for minor violations. Only if they have already booked an illegal alien for a felony or for multiple misdemeanors may they inquire into his status or report him. The bottom line: a cordon sanitaire between local law enforcement and immigration authorities that creates a safe haven for illegal criminals. L.A. s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s policing discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior. Pick up a law-violator for a minor crime, and you might well prevent a major crime: enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers. Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation, against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members all the time flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can t touch him, laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him but not for the immigration felony. Though such a policy puts the community at risk, the department s top brass brush off such concerns. No big deal if you see deported gangbangers back on the streets, they say. Just put them under surveillance for real crimes and arrest them for those. But surveillance is very manpower-intensive. Where there is an immediate ground for getting a violent felon
off the street and for questioning him further, it is absurd to demand that the woefully understaffed LAPD ignore it. The stated reasons for sanctuary policies are that they encourage illegal-alien crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops without fear of deportation, and that they encourage illegals to take advantage of city services like health care and education (to whose maintenance few illegals have contributed a single tax dollar, of course). There has never been any empirical verification that sanctuary laws actually accomplish these goals and no one has ever suggested not enforcing drug laws, say, for fear of intimidating drug-using crime victims. But in any case, this official rationale could be honored by limiting police use of immigration laws to some subset of immigration violators: deported felons, say, or repeat criminal offenders whose immigration status police already know. The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from immigration reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else in immigration policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating it, even at the expense of ignoring the law and tolerating violence. In 1996, a breathtaking Los Angeles Times expos on the 18th Street Gang, which included descriptions of innocent bystanders being murdered by laughing cholos (gang members), revealed the rate of illegal-alien membership in the gang. In response to the public outcry, the Los Angeles City Council ordered the police to reexamine Special Order 40. You would have thought it had suggested reconsidering Roe v. Wade. A police commander warned the council: This is going to open a significant, heated debate. City Councilwoman Laura Chick put on a brave front



report abuse
 

God's Politics Moderator

posted May 21, 2007 at 7:41 pm


“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” (Ephesians 4:29) This message thread has been visited by a God’s Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts. Click here for a detailed explanation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct: http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp which includes: Courtesy and Respect: You agree that you will be courteous to every Beliefnet member, even those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person’s ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members. You agree not to engage in derogatory name-calling, including calling anyone evil, a liar, Satanic, demonic, antichrist, a Nazi, or other inflammatory comparisons. Disruptive behavior: You agree not to disrupt or interfere with discussions, forums, or other community functions. Disruptive behavior may include creating a disproportionate number of posts or discussions to disrupt conversation; creating off-topic posts; making statements that are deliberately inflammatory; expanding a disagreement from one discussion to another; or any behavior that interferes with conversations or inhibits the ability of others to use and enjoy this website for its intended purposes. Vulgarity: You agree not to display words, information, or images that are vulgar, obscene, graphically violent, graphically sexual, harm minors in any way, exploit images of children, or are otherwise objectionable. Copying Content: Beliefnet discussions are intended for interactive conversation; members are encouraged to express their own ideas in their own words, not to parrot the words of others. You agree not to create posts that consist substantially of material copied from another source. Help us keep the conversation civil and respectful by reporting inappropriate posts to: community@staff.beliefnet.com



report abuse
 

Steven K.

posted May 21, 2007 at 9:52 pm


Thank you, Jim, for stepping across the metaphorical theological aisle and highlighting this article. Dobbs has long stood on his soap box in belittling the contributions that hard-working Latinos make to the U.S. social, theological, and economic fabric. He has a right to speak his mind, and we, the church, have our right as well.



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted May 21, 2007 at 11:09 pm


Several posts have labeled Lou Dobbs a “populist.” Jim Hightower calls himself a “populist” but I don’t see that he and Dobbs have much in common. Any enlightenment?



report abuse
 

Wayne

posted May 22, 2007 at 2:53 pm


Violent Illegal Immigrant Gang | 05.21.07 – 10:23 am | # “Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis.” the reason you have to wish us luck is that your statistics and anecdotes are skewed. It is no surprise that there are violent gangs in any of our major cities. It is no surprise that some of them may have a majority of undocumented people in them. What is also not surprising is that someone would try to blame these problems on the undocumented as a group. By far the majority of these workers are just that, honest hard workers. If we as a society continue to alienate and oppress such people it should also not surprise us that many of their children will turn to crime. Stop the illegal entry by allowing for legal entry. Stop the chaos by managing the borders. Stop the pursecution by allowing for the workers who are already here to become legitimate. And please stop skewing statistics to make a segment of people look like criminals. It creates unwarranted fear and hatred.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted May 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm


“This message thread has been visited by a God’s Politics Blog moderator for the purpose of removing inappropriate posts.” 05.21.07 – 1:46 pm I’m curious as to why my post, asking the relevance of the first post by Joe Garcia to the topic of this thread, was removed. There were two posts that followed, suggesting Garcia s post was nothing more than anti-Catholicism, which were also removed. (My response to one of them was not removed) Please clarify why these posts were inappropriate. The Beliefnet Rules of Conduct also state, You agree not to create posts that consist substantially of material copied from another source. Garcia s and Violent Illegal Immigrant Gang | 05.21.07 – 10:23 am posts are an obvious violation of this rule. Peace!



report abuse
 

Aaron

posted May 22, 2007 at 7:55 pm


Dobbs has long stood on his soap box in belittling the contributions that hard-working Latinos make to the U.S. social, theological, and economic fabric. He has a right to speak his mind, and we, the church, have our right as well. Ah cool, so should Dobbs get tax exempt status too? That was the whole point all you religious seem to be missing…convenient eh?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted May 22, 2007 at 11:52 pm


“Several posts have labeled Lou Dobbs a “populist.” Jim Hightower calls himself a “populist” but I don’t see that he and Dobbs have much in common. Any enlightenment?” Populism aims to stand for “the common man” against the elite. The best way to understand it is that Dobbs’ ideology reflects a concern for the largest political demographic, namely the middle class. As such, I would hazard to guess that he is opposed to many governmental programs (though i am not sure his stance), unabashedly pro-union, pro-regulation of industry. I suppose the populism and coservatism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, Dobbs’ brand of isolationist populism, borne of a regard for the American worker, puts him squarely outside of the conservative archtype.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 23, 2007 at 2:57 am


God’s Politics Moderator, I’m echoing neuro in asking for an explanation. Somehow Garcia’s post is legitimate and on-topic, despite being a Benedict smear by a bitter ex-Catholic copied wholesale from another source, but my response — which, I might add, I spent some time crafting — is inappropriate? Please explain, because I’m getting the distinct impression that mine was deleted because it comes from a position defending orthodoxy and Catholicism, whereas his was from a progressivist liberation theology bent. Thanks, Mark



report abuse
 

Steven Riggs

posted May 23, 2007 at 5:29 pm


This is the first time I’ve seen The Family Research Council to be non-partisan instead of anti-Democrat.



report abuse
 

Mark P

posted May 23, 2007 at 7:36 pm


Or maybe it’s the first time they agree with you, and that makes them non-partisan in your eyes?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.