God's Politics

God's Politics


A Coalition of Conscience by Jim Wallis

posted by God's Politics

I am in the U.K. for a family holiday. We’re celebrating the 50th wedding anniversary of my wife Joy’s parents, and our 10th anniversary, in her home country. Everyone here is quite impressed with Gordon Brown’s first few weeks in office and the leadership he has shown around the terrorist attack that came just days after he took office, the domestic crisis of flooding, another outbreak of foot and mouth disease among cattle, and his first visit to the United States since becoming the British prime minister. The British press reported how professional Brown was with President Bush, affirming the U.K./U.S. relationship for the long term while keeping the American president suitably at arms length—a great relief for the British people, who almost universally feel that former Prime Minister Tony Blair was much too close to Bush and his policies in Iraq. That Brown made his visit to the U.N. Secretary General in New York the highlight of his trip, and not his time with Bush in Washington, pleased the British public.


In his speech at the U.N., Brown helped to make some real breakthroughs on both Darfur and global poverty. The British newspaper The Guardian reported his description of the situation in Darfur as the “greatest humanitarian disaster” the world faces today, and his announcement that the U.K., France, and the U.S. would submit a resolution to the Security Council mandating a peacekeeping force. The resolution was passed later that same day.


But the heart of his speech was global poverty and the challenge of meeting the Millennium Development Goals. In the text of his speech, Brown said that after seven years “it is already clear that our pace is too slow; our direction too uncertain; our vision at risk. … We cannot allow our promises that became pledges to descend into just aspirations, and then wishful thinking, and then only words that symbolize broken promises.”


He then challenged his audience:



And so my argument is simple: The greatest of evils that touches the deepest places of conscience demands the greatest of endeavor. The greatest of challenges now demands the boldest of initiatives. To address the worst of poverty we urgently need to summon up the best efforts of humanity.

I want to summon into existence the greatest coalition of conscience in pursuit of the greatest of causes. And I firmly believe that if we can discover common purpose there is no failing in today’s world that cannot be addressed by mobilizing our strengths, no individual struggle that drags people down that cannot benefit from a renewed public purpose that can lift people up.


To find that common purpose, he said:



Our objectives cannot be achieved by governments alone, however well-intentioned; or private sector alone, however generous; or NGOs or faith groups alone, however well-meaning or determined—it can only be achieved in a genuine partnership together.


After addressing governments and businesses, the prime minister went on:



Let me say to faith groups and NGOs—your moral outrage at avoidable poverty has led you to work for the greatest of causes, the highest of ideals, and become the leaders of the campaign to make poverty history. Imagine what more you can accomplish if the energy to oppose and expose harnessed to the energy to propose and inspire is given more support by the rest of us—businesses, citizens, and governments.


It was a challenging and inspiring speech. I think we may have a real leader here in the U.K.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(34)
post a comment
sarahElizabeth Mackay

posted August 9, 2007 at 6:22 pm


May I point out that Gordon Brown I the son of church of Scotland minister so he has grown up with an awareness of global poverty.
Also his father’s church was in Kirkaldy the home of Adam Smith, economist who wrote The wealth of Nations.
S Mackay
Scotland



report abuse
 

Pat Blair

posted August 9, 2007 at 6:37 pm


I wonder what did Gordon Brown have to say about ending the Palestinian poverty which has been a product of Israel’s illegal and immoral Occupation of Palestine? We are well aware that being a ministers son or professing to be a Christian(Bush) has nothing to do with human issues.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 9, 2007 at 9:50 pm


Here we go again with the Bush Bashing, as if he was the one that established the modern state of Israel. Living in MN – we have already been told that it is Bush’s fault for the I35 bridge falling down.
Arms length – highlight -
Bravo Wallis – your writing never lets me down – it is very predictable.
Given the chance – I bet you people could come up with the evidence that Bush is responsible for Diaper Rash.
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 9, 2007 at 10:35 pm


“Here we go again with the Bush Bashing, as if he was the one that established the modern state of Israel. Living in MN – we have already been told that it is Bush’s fault for the I35 bridge falling down.”
Correction. It was Pawlenty’s fault. The nearest Republican available rule applies.
“I wonder what did Gordon Brown have to say about ending the Palestinian poverty which has been a product of Israel’s illegal and immoral Occupation of Palestine?”
Ugh… What is it with the political left?



report abuse
 

Tom Snyder, Ph.D.

posted August 9, 2007 at 11:06 pm


Re: Global Poverty
The socialism of the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe has virtually destroyed the economy of that poor country, according to Christians like Peter Hammond of Frontline Ministries. So, the leftist solutions of people like PM Brown, H. Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Hussein Obama for poverty and healthcare don’t look all that promising, rationally or empirically, much less biblically since the Bible actually favors private charity and hard work as the two solutions to poverty and neediness, as in healthcare. And, I do not favor farm subsidies either, though I do think government policies should encourage food production, manufactuaring, small business, and Research & Development so that people, including members of churches, can have the money and property to help those who are poor, needy, truly elderly, and truly disabled. All you rich “progressives” out there can start by sending me a little cash! I have some preventative medical tests I need to do.
http://www.answers.org



report abuse
 

mark

posted August 9, 2007 at 11:34 pm


Tom Snyder doesn’t indicate what he got his PhD in, but his education doesn’t seem to have been adequate for him to understand the gaping difference between Mugabe and Brown. Fwiw, Brown managed policies of creeping privatisation (of hospital buildings and of the London Underground, amongst other things) when he was chancellor of the exchequer. Mark



report abuse
 

mark

posted August 10, 2007 at 12:05 am


Yes, Jim, Gordon Brown does seem to be an improvement. I suspect that he does actually care enough to want to put an end to poverty.
But there are also reasons for concern. Hardly had he got into power than he approved – without parliamentary debate – the use of British territory for Bush’s world-imperilling star wars project; and pushed for longer periods of detention without trial.
And, despite what you say, the message I’m getting from friends and family in Britain is that he waited far too long before releasing funds to support flood victims.
After 10 years of Tony Blair’s spin, toadying to big business and near-100% blind subservience to the US neocons’ aggressive self-aggrandising agenda, Gordon Brown has got to be an improvement. But he is already showing his flaws.
There’s one other way in which you appear to take a rather different approach from me, Jim. To me, what politicians say is a lot less significant than what they actually do. It’s going to take a lot more than a political speech expressing the right sentiments to sway me towards actively supporting him – such speeches have so often been used as cover for doing the exact opposite. Let’s wait to see what Gordon’s record as PM turns out to be – in his deeds, not in his words. When he achieves the elimination of unjust trade tariffs against poor countries, I will be more impressed…
Mark
(British citizen, Canadian resident)



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 10, 2007 at 1:29 am


“world-imperilling star wars project;”
Please explain, both how this constitutes a “Bush project” and how it imperils the world. Thanks.



report abuse
 

mark

posted August 10, 2007 at 4:19 am


It was originally a Reagan project, but was horrendously expensive and unreliable, so his more pragmatic successors switched off the funding… until dubya revived it.
It constitutes a direct and blatant violation of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, and hence an reason for provocative actions by Russia (or ultimately China) in response.
It is implausible to suggest that it could ever wipe out all the missiles that any hypothetical enemy might fire. If it ever works, it will be as part of a nuclear war fighting strategy, cleaning up the few remaining retaliatory missiles after a devastating US first strike: hence it makes a first nuclear strike policy more likely.
It also perpetuates the US occupation of the host countries, and the distortion of their foreign policy.
Mark



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 10, 2007 at 8:37 am


It constitutes a direct and blatant violation of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, and hence an reason for provocative actions by Russia (or ultimately China) in response.
–The treaty that was already dissolved along with the dissolution of the USSR?
If it ever works, it will be as part of a nuclear war fighting strategy, cleaning up the few remaining retaliatory missiles after a devastating US first strike: hence it makes a first nuclear strike policy more likely.
–You seem pretty certain about this. How bout the possibility that it could be used to defend us against an attack and that’s actually a good thing?



report abuse
 

Andy Smith

posted August 10, 2007 at 9:10 am


“And, despite what you say, the message I’m getting from friends and family in Britain is that he waited far too long before releasing funds to support flood victims.”
As a UK resident of one of the flood-affected areas, No the _Government_ didn’t wait too long. please remember, Brown is a Prime Minister, NOT a President – all decisions are made on the basis of the collective responsibility of the Government, not the decision of an individual.



report abuse
 

sonny c.

posted August 10, 2007 at 10:05 am


War is always the easy answer to complicated problems. Patience, a Divine virtue, has always been in short supply among humans.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 10, 2007 at 10:28 am


” hence it makes a first nuclear strike policy more likely”
Not really. We don’t use nuclear missiles because of the inordinate damage they inflict, not because we fear retaliation, per se. If engaging us in nuclear war means dealing with a nation that has the capacity to destroy your nuclear weapons, you are not going to let the conflict elevate to that level.



report abuse
 

Ross

posted August 10, 2007 at 10:38 am


I think it’s hilarious reading these comments that follow another Wallis column flattering Brown (btw, did you know that Wallis has met Brown? He did!). Everyone has their own little pet issue (Zimbabwe, Israel, missile defense?, Darfur) that they bring up and quickly sidetrack the discussion.
Basically, I think it’s too early to tell what kind of a PM Brown will be. I could imagine just about any world leader saying the things that Brown has said. Actions will speak louder. (But Wallis has met Brown! He knows him!! *said in Buddy the Elf’s voice when he learns Santa will be visiting*)



report abuse
 

Matt

posted August 10, 2007 at 11:22 am


Good point sonny c. If we saw ourselves for what we truly are, spiritual beings, Patience would be our friend instead of our enemy. We’re not human beings having a spiritual experience; we’re spiritual beings having a human experience. There’s that word “humility” again. Maybe then we would actually know how to subdue the slightly deranged power mongers that perpetuate disruption and violence.
About this article: There’s no doubt that Brown can elegantly articulate altruistic social aims for the future. What liberal or religious-progressive wouldn’t believe in him? He seems to be assuming the role of poster boy for the rethinking of modern capitalism and how the West should evolve into a better society for all. But like Blair, like Clinton, like Bush, Brown believes in the liberal truth that the battle for history has been won. Despite Brown’s sincerity and apparent backing of the least among us, he’s committed to the investor community in the end. Instead of implementing change in conjunction with the common man, Brown’s lofty goals will be handed down by elitist policy. Davos, for example, indicates how the establishment truly maneuvers when it comes to social progress. How can Jim or any person at Sojourners actually think Brown will circumvent this neo-liberal decadence? Brown’s personality may not be Blair-Thatcher Lite, but he’s certainly walking, if not already running, through the same corridors of power. Are we really building bridges by continuing the same old tradition of quid pro quo deal making in the guise of meaningful, long-lasting moral/social progress? What we need are leaders who encourage all of their constituents to monitor, deconstruct and counter the system of intellectual control and corporate media dominance.



report abuse
 

Olivia Newbury

posted August 10, 2007 at 1:05 pm


Thank you Jim Wallis, and everyone who assists you, for God’s Politics. Maybe it is a fertile seed, for CHANGE, in a country gone awry.
Yesterday, I read about “God’s Gangsters” in Peru and how they have changed an entire city. See the Internet for more info. Maybe you can create a branch of God’s Politics that would do the same in LA & other cities.
Thank you again and God bless all of you.



report abuse
 

MT

posted August 10, 2007 at 1:07 pm


I for one am heartened by Brown’s comments re: fulfilling the pledges and goals of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). One of the most important parts of the MDGs is the promise and commitment from developed nations to contribute .7% of their GNP for global poverty reduction. The U.S. has not come close to fulfilling that goal in any of the years since the MDGs were adopted. In fact, I believe that the last update from the UN on the MDGs states that no developed nation has yet fulfilled this commitment. If Brown can galvanize developed nations to meet this paltry commitment that would, in essence, make a big dent in global poverty, then I am with him! This is something that religious groups, NGOs, and governments need to engage if they take poverty reduction seriously.



report abuse
 

mark

posted August 10, 2007 at 1:19 pm


Jesse says:
“The treaty that was already dissolved along with the dissolution of the USSR?”
No, Jesse, neither the ABM treaty nor any other treaty entered into by the USSR was dissolved when the USSR ceased to be. They were inherited by the successor states, and in particular by Russia.
Jesse also says:
“How bout the possibility that it could be used to defend us against an attack and that’s actually a good thing?”
It can only defend against ICBM attacks, not any other delivery system. So no use against a terrorist group. To defend against a small rogue state with ICBMs would require a substantially simpler set of installations than is currently being railroaded through. The plan that is being revealed at the moment is clearly aimed not at the likes of North Korea but at Russia, and no missile defence shield would be capable of stopping every Russian missile in existence in the event of an all-out attack. And for even one to get through would be a global disaster.
NATO nuclear strategy from the 1970s until 1989 was focussed on development of a first strike capability, replacing MAD (mutual assured destruction) with NUTS (nuclear utilisation scenarios). This is what the Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe were about; it is what the substantially increased accuracy of ICBMs and SLBMs was about; it is what the massive proliferation of (independently targeted) warheads was about. All those – extremely expensive – developments were aimed at obtaining the ability to wipe out all of the USSR’s military facilities before they could retaliate, thus eliminating any deterrence effect that the Soviet nukes may have had.
While START resulted in significant reductions in warheads on both sides, it still left the basic NATO nuclear structure intact. And research into new types of nuclear device continues in US laboratories – if nukes were for deterrence only then there would be no need to go beyond the designs that the military already has.
Now, I suspect that the current plans are more about whipping Russia into line through massive threats than about plans to actually carry out those threats. But the message is clearly one of “we will soon have the ability to take you out completely, and we won’t be afraid to use it.”
That might have been the norm in Texas in the 19th century. It shouldn’t be the norm in international relations today.
Mark



report abuse
 

mark

posted August 10, 2007 at 1:42 pm


Andy Smith says:
“As a UK resident of one of the flood-affected areas, No the _Government_ didn’t wait too long.”
Andy – I bow to your superior knowledge on this.
Fwiw, the negative comments I heard about government response were about the Yorkshire floods, not the more recent ones in the Severn and Thames valleys. (In fact, I’ve had unfavourable comparisons between the two response times made to me by disgruntled northerners…)
But I’m no longer on the ground there, and what I’ve been told may not be entirely accurate…
“please remember, Brown is a Prime Minister, NOT a President – all decisions are made on the basis of the collective responsibility of the Government, not the decision of an individual.”
All that is needed to get flood relief approved and initiated is a meeting of a handful of cabinet ministers and a couple of advisers. There are contingency funds for this sort of thing. Personally I think it should also go through parliament (as an emergency bill) if parliament is sitting, but I’m not sure that it ever does. So I’m not sure I see the relevance of that particular comment.
In any case, the British prime minister is to a large extent free to take executive action as the senior appointee of the crown – a situation which I’m glad to see Gordon is planning to partially rectify.
Mark



report abuse
 

JH

posted August 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm


I am always pleased when I hear speeches that reflect not only basic literacy on the part of the orator, but a nuanced understanding of social, economic, and political realities tending towards justice on these fronts.
One should hope that Brown’s courageous speech gestures towards new democratic possibilities in the real world- afterall, diplomacy is almost a forgotten byword in this climate of euphemisms and triumphalism.
JH, Canada.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted August 10, 2007 at 4:02 pm


No, Jesse, neither the ABM treaty nor any other treaty entered into by the USSR was dissolved when the USSR ceased to be. They were inherited by the successor states, and in particular by Russia.
–Okay, so we withdrew from the treaty, then. Your point about this constituting a “direct and blatant violation of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty” would only make sense if we were on board with this treaty. We are not. History (in particular, the fall of communism) would also argue with you over the fruitfulness of a tough approach with Russia.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 11, 2007 at 11:08 am


History (in particular, the fall of communism) would also argue with you over the fruitfulness of a tough approach with Russia.
That’s a bit inaccurate. For openers, the Soviets were always far more afraid of us than we were of them — they, after all, had experience with foreign invaders. Second, many Cold Warriors did want Reagan to bomb the Soviet Union; to this day they resented him for, essentially, causing it to break up non-violently. (His “tear down this well” speech represented poliical theatre than anything else — he knew it eventually would come down.)



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 11, 2007 at 2:16 pm


I can always count on this site to make me laugh. How many times must liberal policies fail before people wake up. I sometimes wonder do liberals have any common sense? I think not because liberals keep advacating the same failed policies to fix every wrong in our society. More govt help. It pains me to see a so called christian site advocate such failed policies. If you really care about ending poverty stand up for the familiy the way God created it to be. It is a proven fact that children in homes that have a mom and dad will do better in every facet of life then those that don’t. Kids need their fathers. Too many liberals today minimize the impact of fathers. Christians liberal or not should never do this. This site by advocating programs such as welfare and homosexuality are clearly going against God’s laws. How you might ask? Simply put they both take the father out of the eqauation. You will never solve poverty by simply asking the govt do more. Conservative values such as less taxation, having people take responsibility for their actions will begin to do more to solve the poverty in america and the world then any liberal policy will. Still need more proof liberal policies do not work I submit to you this list of cities, New Orleans, Newark, Philadelphia, New York or any other big city where liberalism is dominant. Look at the crime rates, homelessness, etc. Liberalism creates victims and does not free anybody from bondage. Liberalism only keeps people poor, it does not set them free.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 12, 2007 at 12:08 am


Rick,
How do I make conservative policies look and sound dtupid? In Acts 2 you leave out the fact that the people pooled their resources because they wanted to not because the govt. forced them to? You also missed my point entirely. How are the policies that you support helping the poor? We have tried throwing money at poverty for how long now and it is has not worked. It sure is funny how libs like you will complain how long the war on terror is lasting but you have no qualms that we have been fighting the war on poverty with absolutely no results for about 50 years. By the way the media matters that you love to site is the most liberal site around. It is not non-partisan. I know I will not change your mind and it is not my job to but I will never understand how you can be a liberal when liberals stand for everything that the God deems to be evil. I am talking about homosexuality and abortion. We can disagree on every other thing but those two things the bible leaves no room for disagreement on. I also do not understand how any self proclaiming christian can be a liberal with what libs stand for. Bottom line is liberal policies do not work. If you disagree please site me one example where a liberal policiy has worked. I can’t for the life of me think of one in The USA and outside of the country not even close.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 12, 2007 at 9:56 am


In Acts 2 you leave out the fact that the people pooled their resources because they wanted to not because the govt. forced them to?
In the sermon I heard last night, economic sharing was a sign that they were obedient to God. But rich churches and Christians today don’t even do this and in fact complain about how much they have to lay out because they spend more than they take in.
It sure is funny how libs like you will complain how long the war on terror is lasting but you have no qualms that we have been fighting the war on poverty with absolutely no results for about 50 years.
The War on Poverty was sabotaged by 1) the war in Vietnam and 2) right-wing activists. It actually was working until Reagan came along — and do you know what? The poverty rate then went UP!
I know I will not change your mind and it is not my job to but I will never understand how you can be a liberal when liberals stand for everything that the God deems to be evil. I am talking about homosexuality and abortion.
As if those were the only two issues we need to address. Well, guess what? The Church, thank God, is moving away from dealing with those two hot-button issues exclusively. Abortion, BTW, is not mentioned in the Bible — conservatives hijacked it in 1978 so that they could sound “noble” — and homosexual behavior is mentioned in the Scriptures only about half-a-dozen times and only in the context that it’s something God’s people don’t do.
As for Media Matters for America, you should know they do by far the most thorough research of any media watchdog, to the point that the conservatives are deathly afraid of them. You listen to right-wing talk show hosts — they lash out against it because they know they’re lying and hate that someone is calling them on it.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 12, 2007 at 3:34 pm


Rick,
Again this where you and I disagree. I find it appaling that you would thank God that the church is moving away from two of the most important issues facing our country today.(The war on terror being the most important). As like most liberals you still did not answer my question as to where any liberal ideas have ever worked. All you can do is attack because you know the truth is not on your side. Media matters is run by George Soros one of the most liberal political hacks there is so I take your comments with a grain of salt. One more thing to think about, if conservatives are liars how come right wing talk radio is thriving while liberal institutions like all the major (liberal) newspapers are loosing readers and revenue. Not to mention bankrupt Air Anmerica. People want the truth and thaks to talk radio now have a place to get it. In truth liberals are scared of conservatives. When you have the truth on your side you have nothing to be afraid of. How sad for a christian to believe that homosexuality and abortion are hijacked by the right wing. All I care about is the truth something which you care nothing about. Everything to libs is political. We are indeed living in the end times when people are calling evil good and good evil. Please Rick wake up before it is too late. The truth is I know that Republicans are not perfect but according to how I read the bible they share more of my values then the Dems do. Not that it matters but apparently about 80 percent of Christians think the same way I do. I really do feel for you Rick. Have a blessed day.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted August 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm


Doug,
I’m sure you have good points sometimes, and this nation needs a diversity of opinions to come to the right solutions to our problems. However, rhetoric such as
“I can always count on this site to make me laugh. How many times must liberal policies fail before people wake up. I sometimes wonder do liberals have any common sense?”
do nothing to advance your opinions, much less the discussion. Do you really think anyone here (with liberal leanings) will listen to you if you start off with insults? It really is not that difficult to use a respectful tone. Please reread your posts before you send them and remember you are writing to children of God who are your brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don’t think liberals have all the answers anymore than I think conservatives do. Not all liberal ideas match well with the Bible, but neither do all conservative ideas. One liberal idea that is Biblical is care and concern for the poor. You may not like the methods proposed by liberals to care for the poor, but tell me, can you at least agree that caring for the poor is a Biblical principal? I await your thoughtful response.
Thanks.



report abuse
 

Bob Ouradnik

posted August 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm


It is regretful that space limitations did not allow Jim Wallis to print the whole of P.M. Gordon Brown’s speech to the UN on July 31th. It covered a far greater range of issues than the two – Darfur and poverty – that Jim highlighted. More important, Brown did include a primary role in the relief of poverty for the national and international corporations. The changes Brown wants are not simply laid upon the shoulders of government, ngos and faith organizations but also upon those who currently are the rich and powerful.
That is important, for no significant change in poverty will occur without a major change in the systemic faults created by inadequate international law and order, unmonitored internet money transfers, highly mobile corporate headquarters that diminish social responsibility, out-sourced employees and facilities that reduce legal responsilities, etc. A situation not unlike the days of the 1870-1900 Robber Barons now exists where the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands increases . No centers of power representing the poor person exist today. There are no international trust busters or labor unions to balance the power held by the shrinking few.
Since those with power do not give it up voluntarily, the movement to make change will not come from preaching. It must come from the development of new ways to again harnass the power of the people, as in the labor union or the civil rights movement. What is needed is a hundred Saul Alinskys.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 12, 2007 at 10:49 pm


Again this where you and I disagree. I find it appalling that you would thank God that the church is moving away from two of the most important issues facing our country today.
The early church never addressed them directly, if you noticed. It had bigger fish to fry.
Media matters is run by George Soros one of the most liberal political hacks there is so I take your comments with a grain of salt.
Categorically false — its CEO is David Brock, who wrote scurrilous stories about Bill Clinton in a number of magazines, savaged Anita Hill in a book and did other things before he realized he was lying and being lied to. Also, Soros has never given a dime to Media Matters (contrary to what you have heard).
People want the truth and thaks to talk radio now have a place to get it.
No, they’re told what they want to hear, basically that “it’s everybody else’s fault,” and that has caused more division in this country than anything. In fact, talk radio harbors some of the biggest liars in the media today — they hate Media Matters because they expose them as such.
The truth is I know that Republicans are not perfect but according to how I read the bible they share more of my values then the Dems do. Not that it matters but apparently about 80 percent of Christians think the same way I do. I really do feel for you Rick.
It is prcisely my solid understanding of the Scriptures that causes me to reject much of the conservative Republican agenda. And, truth be told, most conservatives couldn’t care less about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As for “80 percent” of Christians thinking the same way you do, for openers, you should understand that 90 percent of African-American Christians, of which I am one and which make up a significant portion of the Body of Christ, certainly do not, because they know who there enemies have always been. The last general election should give you pause to make such blanket statements.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 13, 2007 at 11:06 am


Rick,
I now understand why you are a liberal. It is certainly easier to stay a slave to the democratic party then to actually think for yourself and get off the plantation. Has it ever occured to you that the democrats need victims to stay in power. I have never understood how one group of people could be so beholden to the democratic party election after election when the problems that are facing blacks never get solved. The definition of insanity is doing something the same way over and over again and expecting different results. Every election cycle the democratic party makes the same promises to the black community and yet never solve the problem. I submit to you that conservatives are not the enemy but actually have policies in place that would actually help the black community. The problem is change is hard and most people do not want to do the hard work neccesary to overcome problems. Getting rid of welfare would be a big step in helping the black community because it would actually force fathers to stick around. Welfare has in essence replaced the father in the black community. The key to change in the black community is fathers steping up to the plate and taking responsibilty for there actions not more failed govt. programs. Black fathers by leaving there children have now reaped what they have sown. All the violence and inner city poverty, gangs, etc. can be traced back to fathers not taking responsibilty. The bible talks of this in 2 Timothy 3. I believe tha black church leaders are failing there communities by not talking about this.
As far as abortion goes I am very surprised you do not think this is a problem since black babies are more likely to be aborted then any other race. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist and that her intent for abortion was to wipe out the black race under the guise of choice? Shocking isn’t it? You are correct in that the bible does not specifically mention abortion in the bible but it does talk to murdering children which God finds detesible. What is abortion but the murder of our children? Some verses that might make you change your mind on homosexuality are 1 cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. Homosexuality is also spoken about in Lev and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part because of their immoral sexual practices(homosexuality).
As for media matters check your source George soros is a big contributor to the site. It is a democrat political site not non-partisian. By the way consevatives can think for themselves and are not just told what they want to hear. I take that back because if wanting to hear the truth is hearing what you want to hear then I stand guilty as charged. May God show you the truth Rick of what it is you are trying to find. God Bless you.
Squeaky I hope I was nice enough for you.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 13, 2007 at 1:12 pm


It is certainly easier to stay a slave to the democratic party then to actually think for yourself and get off the plantation.
You just stuck your foot in your mouth once again, demonstrating brilliantly just why blacks don’t vote conservative. FYI, we can and do think for ourselves, and the reality is that the conservatives, who now run the Republican Party, have always been our #1 enemies but don’t want to face that reality, so they blame someone else — just as they always do. In other words they, and you, just don’t get it. They have always been more “plantation” than you accuse the Democrats, and don’t think for a second that people don’t know that. Those days are over, if you haven’t noticed.
The rest of your post is not worth responding to.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 13, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Rick,
Then you are a coward. I tried to answer you with biblical quotes and you can’t or won’t respond. I guess you like the statue quo. Just remember things will not change if you are not willing to put in the hard work to make it happen. You are way moreignorant then I thought. I truly do feel sorry for you and I pray one Satan’s hold will come off you. You truly are decieved my friend. So sad. So sad.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 13, 2007 at 4:41 pm


Then you are a coward. I tried to answer you with biblical quotes and you can’t or won’t respond. I guess you like the statue quo. Just remember things will not change if you are not willing to put in the hard work to make it happen. You are way more ignorant then I thought. I truly do feel sorry for you and I pray one Satan’s hold will come off you.
You are no friend to anyone here, for starters. Second, your arrogant and condescending attitude toward people like me who don’t think like you is about as far away from Christ as anything I’ve ever witnessed, and I’ve seen plenty — to borrow from the old saying, if you were on trial for being a Christian and your conduct on this blog were introduced as evidence, you MIGHT get off. What gives you the authority to think that YOU speak for God when you clearly do not? You know what ancient Israel did to false prophets — they stoned them. And yes, I am calling you a false prophet, because you’re trying to establish your own authority rather than lift up Jesus. By your actions I can tell the difference, and so can most “non-conservatives” on this blog.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 15, 2007 at 4:07 am


Rick,
I know you really don’t need my help but I really don’t like Doug’s tone and besides I am the only green party hippy on the board so I think it’s only fair that you get a real hardcore, tree hugging, hippy, black response to some of what he is saying.
Doug,
Your comments gave me a good laugh. The pathetic thing is we would serving on the plantation as house slaves if we followed your ideas. I am not saying the democrats are good for the black community but they actually do respresent huge portions of it unlike the republican party which tends to represent other groups.
As a matter of fact it would seem that conservative ideology would do nothing to help the black community because it doesn’t care about community development as a whole. It’s more about the individual less about the community. So no thanks.
As for your really childish way of picking bible verses to support your point, I find that to be silly. Your analysis about black fathers is shallow and w/o any real depth about what is really plaguing the community. In case you have not noticed there are much bigger problems facing the urban poor than absentee fathers. There is problems of adequate healthcare, housing, jobs, and education. I am not at all saying not having a father in the home is a good thing. I do not think it is but I find your silly, trivial understanding of it to be really what’s wrong w/ conservative ideology and the republican party in general. It comes across that you don’t really know what you are talking about.
Oh and God only finds killing kids detestable when he chooses not to use it as a punishment or as the natural cycle of life. How many armies did God raise in the old testament to punish and kill kids? You can’t throw out parts of the bible because its messy and doesn’t fit your world view. God can be quite vicious when he want to be.
p



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.