Jim Wallis is criticizing Democrats for not being more religious. Discomforting.

[madfloridian]

I don't like his response to Kos here. I really don't. He sounds entitled to tell us what to do because he's Christian. This is the tone I fear. I don't think he means it that way, but it sounds almost like someone using talking points from the GOP.

Jim Wallis: Dear Kos, Can the Left Stop Shooting Itself in the Foot?

I think the religious community is having more than a little impact on our Democrats. They even have Howard Dean seeking evangelical voters more than IMHO he should. More than is warranted.

Jim Wallis sounds like he thinks Democrats must be religious. I don't like that sound. We don't have to do that. I find this part upsetting...the part he directed at Kos. I read the Kos post, and I agreed with it. I think Wallis is getting a sense of entitlement to get involved in the party.

When I listen to Welton Gaddy on AAR's State of Belief, I get back the old feelings of comfort and trust that I once felt in my Southern Baptist church. I don't get that feeling while reading this post by Wallis. I makes me uncomfortable, he is judging us.

Wallis talks of the "secular left" as if there were something wrong with it. I don't think so. I think secular is fine, I think religion is fine...both have their places.

Wallis and I disagree here:

As a progressive Christian, I always wondered why many on the secular Left felt it necessary to cut off potential political alliances with progressive religious people, to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes, and to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force – as in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, establishing child labor laws and social safety nets and, of course, the civil rights movement. In recent years, the Left and even the Democrats managed to appear hostile to faith and to people in faith communities. Regardless of what one’s views of the divine are, that’s called shooting yourself in the foot.

He is sounding like the Christians who control the GOP have sounded. I feel uncomfortable reading that.

I am going to start referring to myself as a Christian without a church right now, but as a political "secular progressive."

That shows I separate the two areas of my life, which is how it should be.

[zulchzulu]

1. Jim Wallis needs to get familiar with Matthew 23:27-29 again

Matthew 23:27-29:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

Please, ferchrissakes (no pun intended), don't wear your "religion" on your sleeve.

[USA_1]

12. 'don't wear your "religion" on your sleeve'

I agree with that statement. However, I reiterate a point that has been discussed previously on this forum: that it is the Democratic party program that more accurately reflects biblical teaching. Therefore, the Dems would be a lot wiser if they again used that Bible in their social discourse as they did under FDR and well into the 1970s. I have always said that once the Dems abandoned the Bible in their social discourse, it marked the end of their control over Congress and USA politics. Once the Pukes adopted it and twisted its teachings to comply with their warped views, they succeeded in fooling the majority of the USA population and in nearly destroying our great Land.

The Bible is the best asset the Dems have. Now use it once again and the USA will be better off.

[madfloridian]

24. Why must we do that?

Why can't our programs and goals just be accepted because they are right?

This country has changed in this respect. The religious people tell us what is right and wrong, because the bible says so. The bible has some very weird verses that if one takes literally could cause real problems.

[Jack Sprat]

34. Good points. Especially the teachings of Christ

more accurately are reflected by the Democratic Party. The Republicans don't have any solid to stand on when it comes to Godliness or anything holy. They just have a loving Mass Media that blesses their lies and distorts the truth.

[liberaldemocrat7]

48. I'm a Jewish person. I belive in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

While I respect Jesus as a prophet and a good man I do not consider him my savior, nor God.

I consider Moses the deliverer of my people and he's not God either. I believe in God. I don't consider myself very religious, unless you consider treating people with respect based on their behavior and also giving charity as my religion, then I appear religious.


As to whether God wants people to insert widget A into area B at time C I don't believe in that.

I see the Torah as the word of God as seen by the people who wrote the 5 books of Moses. However even if they appear the word of God written in the life and times of Moses, we now live in the 21st century. We should keep some of the principles from then and adapt other principles we create and discover now.

As for asking people like me to act more religious by a well intentioned Christian progressive, I would have to say no. Noone but God will dictate to me how to live my life.

If Reverend Wallis wants to live a religious life then I applaud him, especially when he speaks out to help the less fortunate and the middle class in our country.

As long as I obey the laws of this country and treat people with respect based upon their behavior, I will do as I please.

[LiberalFighter]

55. Hope you know something about this...

Do any of the writings Torah... Talmud or other writings mention anything about Lillith and Adam before Eve?

[Tellurian]

71. No, wear your Religion on your sleeves..

the mark of a hypocrite, referencing the OP!

[papau]

2. Afraid I agree with Wallis - the "big tent" seems to want to make progressive religious folks agree

to constantly listen to nasty anti-faith diatribes - and in a 94% non-atheist nation, that is at least counterproductive.

I don't think Jim Wallis is saying that he thinks Democrats must be religious

I think he is saying Democrats must respect the religious and their views and give up on the idea of throwing crap at the beliefs of those whose vote we want.

[madfloridian]

9. Could you show me the statistics on that 94%?

Thanks.

[papau]

14. There are many polls - with different wordings and slightly different results - here's the

ones I was referring to:

A 2000 Newsweek Poll of 752 U.S. adults, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that 94% of those surveyed believed in God, while 4% did not and 2% were unsure.

A 1998 Harris Poll of 1,011 U.S. adults found that 94% of those surveyed believed in God.

[madfloridian]

21. That doesn't mean they all want religion structuring their life.

It means they believe in God. There's a difference.

[NashVegas]

118. The Question is Asked Incorrectly

It should be a series of questions:

Do you believe the god Jehovah exists or ever existed?

Do you believe the god Jehovah is the creator of the universe?

Do you believe the god Jehovah has a role in modern society?

[keopeli]

16. It's more likely in the 80s

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/29/opinion/main2053026.shtml

Is America getting more secular? Not according to a new survey on Americans' religious beliefs, "American Piety in the 21st Century," published this month by Baylor University. According to the Baylor survey, 82 percent of Americans are Christians, 90 percent believe in God, 70 percent pray regularly, and half attend church at least once a month.

(That's a quick one to look up on google. Just type in "percentage of americans who are christian")

There are many polls on this topic, but most put the number in the 80s these days and moving up (yes, up).

The point of the post remains in tact, even at a smaller number, when you assume the vast majority of the "other" people, whether non-religious or religious minorities, already vote Democratic. Really, almost all the people Democrats need to win over are Christian.

Peace

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. It's a much larger number

I went to the Baylor University website and found the original survey. Only 10.8% have no religious affiliation, but of those, 62.9% say they believe in God. So the atheist/agnostic figure would be only about four or five percent.

Interesting side note from the Survey: 80.6% of conservative Christians believe that gay marriage is always wrong (20% approve?), but only about 8% believe that divorce is always wrong. Funny how the "biblical literalists" can be so selective in their reading, isn't it?

[More Than A Feeling]

41. Who? Name some names of people who want to "make" you

, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and others listen to such things?

[Solon]

53. You are confusing religious with Christian....

94% of people in this country may believe in a God of some sort, but that doesn't necessarily make them Christian, and when Democrats start sounding like the Christian Right in this country, Non-Christian Theists get really uncomfortable. In addition to that, "big tent" posts like yours seems to indicate you only want Christians under that tent.

[NashVegas]

117. I Think Wallis Has It Backwards

It's the progressive evangelicals who need to reach out to us.

Where were they when the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition were seeking and assuming power?

What were/are they saying when fundies were/are working to remove women's rights to have control over our own bodies in terms of abortion and birth control?

I know there are several gay-friendly churches out there - is Wallis' one of them?

[The Magistrate]

3. This Is Politics, Ma'am

Most people in this country identify themselves as Christian, and religious. Not all of them, probably not even a majority of them, are dyed in the wool conservatives. Many consider themselves quite progressive and liberal, and do feel this is dictated to the by their religious beliefs.

Appeals like this are in fact a corrallery of Gov. Dean's "fifty state strategy" approach. The basic thrust of this idea is to cede nothing to the enemy without a contest, and it is best applied not only geographically but demographically. This is an example of its application in the latter sphere.

[madfloridian]

11. Do you have the statistics on that?

:hi:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

51. Allow me...

This from the Pew Charitable Trust Surveys

http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf">2004 Survey

Highlights:

Evangelical Protestants = 27% Democratic (They're not all Republicans!)

Modernist Evangelical Protestants = 44% Democratic (only 30% Republican)

Latino Catholoic = 61% Democratic

Atheist Agnostic = 54% Democratic

[The Magistrate]

59. Thank You, Sir

[SaveElmer]

64. Bingo...

Right on...a point that was made by many of us a number of months ago when Howard Dean was having a dialogue with fundamentalist groups. Leave no stone unturned....

[rwenos]

4. Uhh . . .

Do not judge lest ye be judged.

And what was that one about praying in a closet, instead of in the public market?

O why must people fetishize religion? It's so beautiful just as it is.

[Thevenin]

5. I am comfortable with Jim Wallis

Believe me - I am the furthest thing in the world from a Conservative, Evangelical, creationist, pro-lifer. But, I have met Rev Wallis, and I am comfortable with the Unitarian Community, the Reform Jewish Community, the United Church of Christ, and Glide Memorial Methodist Church up in the City, by example.

And I agree 101% with Rev Wallis's position that

As a progressive Christian, I always wondered why many on the secular Left felt it necessary to cut off potential political alliances with progressive religious people, to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes, and to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force – as in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, establishing child labor laws and social safety nets and, of course, the civil rights movement. In recent years, the Left and even the Democrats managed to appear hostile to faith and to people in faith communities. Regardless of what one’s views of the divine are, that’s called shooting yourself in the foot.

[keopeli]

10. Welcome to DU, Thevenin. Thanks for your thoughts - good post. n/t

[papau]

39. I agree :-)

:-)

[w4rma]

6. I don't see anything wrong with his statement. "secular left" isn't used negatively.

He's just stating the situation:

Many on the secular Left feel it's necessary to cut off potential political alliances with progressive religious people.

I'd rather see the word "some" or "a few" used, but I know that "many" is probably more accurate, currently.

[keopeli]

7. Don't worry too much, he has many more good points than bad.

My focus right now is on the children of fundamentalists. Fundamentalist Christians will always be Repubs while we walk this planet. A voice like Wallis' is one that promotes dialogs. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think the Repubs need a serious and neutral voice of reason that they will listen to. On the whole, he's a good guy. He gives a lot of focus to poverty in the US.

The US is has an enormous Christian majority. That means a lot of Democrats are Christians. Over the last several decades, a large majority of the Christian Democrats have humbly and vigorously defended minority opinions for noble reasons based on their Christian faith, all the while acknowledging their own humanity.

I have no problem with the idea of encouraging more support for the voice of tolerant Christians in the Democratic Party. In fact, if it was a genuine effort, it might completely abolish the Republican Party as we know it today. But, that's just my opinion.

Peace.

[madfloridian]

8. I don't expect people to agree. I just think we are heading...

in the same direction the GOP did when their party was beginning to be controlled. Two years ago Falwell announced they controlled the party. And they do. He was right.

I have my fears because of the things that happened locally. A neighbor yelling at me in my home that we must not question Bush's authority he was chosen by God.

The SBC church telling us we were unpatriotic. My father and mother before they died gave their whole lives to building and leading two Baptist churches here.

I grew up that way. I see danger in the way our party is heading, but I also know that most won't agree.

I don't especially care if anyone agrees because I have seen the dangers locally when religion takes over all aspects of a party.

[papau]

17. respecting religion enough to get out of someones face with anti-religious comments is not

called being taken over by the religious.

[madfloridian]

20. Someone else called me anti-religious today. I resent it.

It misses the point of what I am saying. I am a very religious person who doesn't want what is properly secular and properly religious to be forced to mix by either side.

[papau]

36. no one called anyone on this thread anti-religious. Wallis said, and I agree,that some Dems are into

getting in the face of the religious and telling them how wrong they are to believe in God and how wrong all of their beliefs are and how religion is the main source of society's ills.

To be Dem is to want exactly what you want - no forced mixing of what is government (secular) and what is properly religious.

[madfloridian]

28. You are saying people can't criticize religion? I think you are.

And I think that is a danger we face. In fact it already seems to be here. Twice today people have said I am being anti-religion.

That is an effort to keep me from being critical of those who try to insert it in politics.

[papau]

37. The insertion of religion into politics that I am critical of is the dumping on the religious -

nothing else is in my thread.

Those that want to blast religion have at it - just don't hide under the umbrella of the Democratic Party. For what ever reason the blasters of religion have to blast religion, they have no right to try to include the prestige of the Democratic Party as an asset in their fight with God.

I can't think off hand of a single Democratic Party member that would make any effort to keep you from being critical of those who try to insert religion into politics.

Democrats set up a system for handing out money to do good that did not say the religious were bared from getting that money and handing it out to do good. We barred any religion from forcing folks to declare a belief in order to get the handout. But we also said that the religion is not forced to abandon public prayer in front of those getting the handout.

Then some Dems said that seeing the giver of the handout praying is something that should be banned if the giver wanted the ability to help the government in its hand out efforts - and that is where the "secular went too far in pushing religion out of public life" mantra began.

Wallis, and again I agree, that the extra steps taken to appease the atheist minority in the Democratic Party went to far - and we should go back to the simple rule that you can't force your belief on any person you are helping with the handout funds.

[keopeli]

18. Well, wherever you are, that's enough to put anyone off from religion.

My whole entire family is conservative republican fundamentalist christian and I'm the gay son. I know the voice of Christian pastors can be overly strong. I know about cowardly citizens calling you names for NOT supporting Bush - even my mother did this to me.

Here's the deal - my folks just might listen to this man. More importantly, my 15 and 25 year old nephews might listen to this man as they suit up in their military uniforms. I've listened closely to Jim Wallis, I've spoken to him personally, I've heard him speak and I feel he's a good soul. If Jim's God can just keep him from becoming corrupted, he might be a good voice for future needs like eliminating poverty in America.

I hope I've given you a little support in knowing that you're not alone.

Peace.

[snowbear]

22. Remember this article on MSNBC...

Book says Bush just using Christians
‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

Continued: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/

-----------------------------------

[madfloridian]

23. I ordered that book. I am reading along on it.

He really did use them. But they used him as well...to gain power for their wedge issues. Look how even McCain is bowing to them now.

[KingofNewOrleans]

13. I read it over on the KOS board

and this is what Wallis wrote to Kos:

So Kos, let’s made a deal. How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith – and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can’t come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do). If we progressives, religious and secular, could stop fighting among ourselves (shooting ourselves in the foot) and join together on some really big values issues – like economic fairness, health care, and a more just foreign policy – think of the difference we could make. How about it?

There seems to be some confusion over whether Kos and Wallis weren't on the same page to begin with, but I certainly have no problem with Wallis' statement.


Now, I agree that Democrats shouldn't "wrap themselves" in the Bible to promote their agenda, but certainly it can be acknowledge as a source or inspiration(one of many) of progressivism. Certainly this differs from fundamentalists who view the Bible as the only source for their reactionary beliefs

[niyad]

15. I'd like to know to what "nasty, anti-religious diatribes" he refers. as far as I can tell here in

fundieville, all of the nastiness comes from the fundamentalist whack jobs who think they have a right to impose a theocracy on this country. quite frankly, I don't WANT to deal with the likes of hypocrites like haggard and dobson and their ilk.

[Arugula Latte]

25. Yes -- where are these supposed anti-religious rants by Democratic politicians?

I've never seen or heard one.

Yes, many of us here are critical of religion. But that's called freedom of speech. I'm sick of being told to shut up and put up with religious extremism.

[Bill McBlueState]

44. good point

People need to distinguish better between 1) anti-religious rants by notable Democratic politicians and 2) anti-religious rants on an internet message board. The first kind could cost us votes; the second kind is the oppressed blowing off steam and won't generally cost us votes.

[beachmom]

66. Thank you, Niyad. You hit it right on the nail.

True, there are some individuals who make fun of religious people (like, say, Bill Maher) and there's also Sam Harris -- The End of Faith (although he goes after Muslims, too) but this is hardly from the "Secular Left". There are plenty of atheists who vote Republican (probably the Libertarian wing) and religious people who vote Democratic.

But the real hate comes from the fundamentalists of all religions, with the cruelest one of them all, Osama bin Laden, turning that hate into murdering nearly 3,000 of our people. This kind of thinking is a threat to our society and to the world. If it's about love, then I don't care where it comes from -- secular or religious values. But if it's about hate, then there is NO place for it in this world and we should campaign against it. I'm not going to appease the haters for a vote they'll NEVER log.

[madfloridian]

19. Why was it important to him that the "secular left" be defeated?

Why can't we accept that people who are not Christians have a place in the party as well? I find this confusing.

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. A significant number of candidates elected are social conservatives on issues of life and family, economic populists, and committed to a new direction in Iraq.This is the way forward: a grand new alliance between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, one that can end partisan gridlock and involves working together for real solutions to pressing problems.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/11/jim-wallis-defeat-for-religious-right.html

Those social conservatives were referred to because they will go along with the religious right on curtailing women's rights to abortion and contraception and rights of the gay community.

Their goal, and that of Governor Dean, who is going along with this is to take all these issues off the table.

Ok, that's fine. But the other side is NOT taking them off the table at all, and our Democrats are ignoring what they are doing.

This week I posted about the SD abortion bill passing the House, Florida lawmakers who won't vote to give rape victims contraception. Someone posted about the VA law about to pass that would make abortion a felony.

Our local group is going to mainly be concentrating on the African American churches here to get their vote. However, that poses a problem. The pastors mostly preach from the pulpit against gays and abortion rights, and one even told his congregation NOT to vote for Rod Smith because he believed in gay rights and thought women had a right to choose. And they did not vote for him.

So if our side takes the issues off the table, fine and good. But the other side is pushing as hard as they can to get laws passed and rights curtailed.

I object to that. I do not like that he is proud to get social conservatives elected.

[madfloridian]

26. An example of a consultant's ideas on this, the kind of thing Gaddy criticized.

I take his position on this. Here is the article:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30616FA35550C758EDDAB0994DE404482

The midterm elections were a ''proof point'' for arguments that Ms. Vanderslice had made two years before, said Mike McCurry, a Democratic consultant and former spokesman for President Bill Clinton who worked with Ms. Vanderslice on the Kerry campaign. For the Democrats, Mr. McCurry said, Ms. Vanderslice and her company ''were the only ones taking systematic, methodical steps to build a religious component in the practical campaign work.''

Democratic officials in several states said Ms. Vanderslice and her business partner, Eric Sapp, pushed sometimes reluctant Democrats to speak publicly, early and in detail about the religious underpinnings of their policy views. They persuaded candidates to speak at conservative religious schools and to buy early commercials on Christian radio. They organized meetings and conference calls for candidates to speak privately with moderate and conservative members of the clergy. In Michigan, they helped the state's Democratic Party follow up on these meetings by incorporating recognizably biblical language into its platform. In Michigan and Ohio, they enlisted nuns in phone banks to urge voters who were Catholic or opposed abortion rights to support Democratic candidates, with some of the nuns saying they were making the case in religious terms.

Using nuns to call and insert language about opposing abortion rights while calling for Democratic candidates...not right. She advised Casey and Heath Shuler among others.

Here is Welton Gaddy's response which I appreciate:

But Ms. Vanderslice's efforts to integrate faith into Democratic campaigns troubles some liberals, who accuse her of mimicking the Christian right.

Dr. Welton Gaddy, president of the liberal Interfaith Alliance, said her encouragement of such overt religiosity raised ''red flags'' about the traditional separation of church and state.

''I don't want any politician prostituting the sanctity of religion,'' Mr. Gaddy said, adding that nonbelievers also ''have a right to feel they are represented at the highest levels of government.''

To Ms. Vanderslice, that attitude is her party's problem. In an interview, she said she told candidates not to use the phrase ''separation of church and state,'' which does not appear in the Constitution's clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion.

[papau]

38. Gaddy's non-believers right to feel represented by government meets the

right of the religious to not be discriminated against in government handout programs or in government activities.

Saying that givers of handouts may not pray in front of the recipients lest they be converted is a sop to the atheists that was not needed, but which was supported by Dems trying to prove how into committed to separation of Church and State, as defined by atheists, they were.

The founders put into the Constitution's clauses the rule that there could be no establishment of a national religion, and a rule that no law could be passed that hindered the right to practice a religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not say that helping the government with handouts means you must not pray - which is what the atheist agenda, sponsored by some Democrats, pushed through - or at least Democrats are thought by the public as the people that pushed this idea through regulations and laws.

[Solon]

50. So, you are saying you have no problem with the government SUPPORTING religious activities?

And you are on this board for WHAT reason again, may I ask? Because, as far as I can tell, if through MY taxes, the government supports RELIGIOUS activities, then THAT is a violation of the Establishment clause.

[papau]

100. Doing charitable work is doing a religious activity? Or are you saying only atheists are allowed

to do charitable work that is funded by the government?. Or are you saying that when doing charitable work you must give up your right to say anything religious? Is banning religious talk the American way these days? Or is the banning of religious organizations from government funds dedicated to charity a bias against the tax dollars of the religious.

Are we to discourage religion by using government money to establish - in violation of the Constitution - the atheist belief system? Simply by giving the government imprimatur on the idea that God can not be discussed in a charitable situation in effect endorses those who want God out of public life.

Are we not favoring the atheist belief system by making it seem that those doing charitable work are not religious. When charitable work by Churches is reduced because government money given charities is given to non-religious organizations and is not shared with all doing charitable work, is this not bias against the religious?

Why do your taxes have a larger vote on which charity hands government money out than the vote given my taxes?

And why are you on this board if you favor government biases against a group?

[Solon]

101. You seem to confuse Secular with Atheist...

My first problem with the system, as practiced now, is that, apparently, only Christians need apply, there are plenty of non-Christian groups that have charities, oddly enough, very few are approved for federal money. In addition to this, if you accept federal money, you should HAVE to play by the rules, you can run a soup kitchen without preaching to those trying to fill their bellies, and you can run a clinic without preaching to the sick, so DO SO. This also applies to Atheist groups as well, so I don't see a problem here.

We either treat all groups equally, when handing out federal money, or we don't hand it out at all, what you are demanding is that a CERTAIN religion should be given PREFERENTIAL treatment by the government. That is simply unacceptable.

[papau]

106. it is the rules one "has to play by" that we are discussing. There is no "certain religion" in my

posts that I am supporting over any other religion - or for that matter - over any non religious social service effort.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where in the above does it say Government money set aside for charity can not go to a religious institution if the religious institution agrees to set up a non-proselytizing method of getting that charity to the poor?

The current "separation" began in the 60's and went too far, in my opinion - a decade later the Salvation Army was being told to not say grace when feeding the poor.

Last I looked the vast majority of federally administered social service programs' dollars go to federal help of non-religious do good organizations. However Esther Kaplan says that former director Jim Towey admitted in 2004 that "no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/10/int04057.html and I believe her. As to non-Christian groups that have charities that today are refused participation in government charity giving, what was the program and what was the proposal they made, and how did it differ from the proposals of those allowed to help the government hand out money to the poor? If there can be shown that there is today a bias against non-Christian organizations, I will join with you on a trip to DC to try to stop it. I totally agree that this should not be limited to Christian organizations.

Note that "community organizations" are included in the announcement of where DHS FBO money went:

"In March 2006, President Bush signed Executive Order 13397 creating the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Created in response to Hurricane Katrina, the Center is charged with coordinating DHS's efforts to remove regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and community organizations in the provision of disaster relief and recovery services."

Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect the concept of separation of church and state

* They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
* Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
* FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13)

[Solon]

108. I have a question...

The current "separation" began in the 60's and went too far, in my opinion - a decade later the Salvation Army was being told to not say grace when feeding the poor.

Can you please define what is too far, the fact that students now don't have to bow their heads to a Teacher's God in public school, or the fact that the Bible isn't used in religious bible study in public school?

Also, if the Salvation Army was receiving public funds at the time, why would it be a bad thing that they can't say grace in front of the people they are supposed to help?

Also, you seem to have forgotten that a few FBOs were sued because they didn't keep up with their end of the bargain, they proselytized, in other words. Besides, I never said that they couldn't receive the money, as long as they don't proselytize, but also they shouldn't be able to discriminate in either employment or who they help. My problem is how this works in practice, and the lack of oversight in the administration of the program, which was highlighted in the GAO report that was released in June of last year.

The most I can find about Non-Christian religious groups getting any grants is a newsletter from a Hindu Organization to assist Hindu Charities in trying to qualify to receive federal grants from the OFBI. As far as I can tell, this hasn't been granted yet, call it undetermined.

[papau]

109. What went too far were the gov actions to remove religion from daily life

in the public square and to confine religion to church services and gatherings.

The "teachers God" is eliminated - but the silent meditation is deemed also "bad" - that is going too far.

Religious instruction is eliminated, but religious history and study of comparative religions is also "bad".

Of course there should not be discrimination in who they help, but the Courts have always ruled in the past that a religious organizations are entitled to hire their own to the exclusion of others (resolving the competing rights of religion and the rest of the Constitution is over my paygrade, but why change what can be done - and can't be done - by religious organizations as we did post the 60's? I suspect this is the legislating from the bench that so upsets folks, since civil rights activism from the bench does not stir up any great emotion these days).

Most folks do not see how forbidding the Salvation Army to say grace at their soup kitchens is a Constitutional requirement, and consider the order "going too far".

We can agree that there was and may still be a problem in how this works in practice, and that there should be no lack of oversight in the administration of the program.

As to FBO applications and outcomes, I can't find a central source, and I can't find a source for most individual areas of the government - a situation I think we'd both agree should be changed so that there can be oversight by those outside of the government.

The Democratic Party should of course not advocate forced prayer in schools, but it should also not be seen as trying to push religion out of public life - IMHO.

[Solon]

110. Who says those are bad?

They weren't forbidden by any court documents I ever heard of, in some cases, School Administrators may go too far in that direction, which leads to lawsuits, oddly enough, filed by the ACLU on behalf of Student Religious prayer groups and stuff. The "Moment of Silence" stuff is considered a "gray area" though, in most cases, its rarely contested unless coupled with some Administrators who call it a "backdoor" for mandatory school prayer. Administrators going too far in the OTHER direction, in other words.

In addition to this, I was in High School in the mid 1990s, and, while we never had "moments of silence" on any regular schedule, one student was killed in a car crash, less than a block from the school, and we had 5 minutes of silence because of what happened to him, no one complained about that. As far as Religious history and comparative religion courses, well, we didn't have SPECIFIC courses on either subject in school, but the subject itself wasn't shunned in school either. I remember, for a Social Studies course, we had a Hindu priest come in as a speaker in our auditorium for a presentation on World Religions, he was also a representative of the Interfaith Alliance, which is probably why he was picked. I don't see anything wrong with this, as long as its done in a balanced manner.

As far as Religious Groups and Federal Funds, Religious groups are EXEMPT from all Civil Rights laws, that is true, however, I believe that once they receive government assistance of any sort, the CHARITY should abide by those laws themselves. I'm not talking about in Churches or Temples, obviously, but in the charitable organization itself, which, according to the rules, shouldn't be in a place of worship, and should be incorporated OUTSIDE the church itself, even if there is overlap. Kinda like the difference between Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church itself, they are incorporated in different ways, mostly for practical reasons.

As far as the Salvation Army, they get the same deal, none of these groups are REQUIRED to have federal assistance, if they want to run their charities their way, then they should be on their own.

Generally speaking, no one wants to completely suppress religious expression in the public, but, and this is mostly a note of caution, elected officials should bear in mind that its not appropriate to use religious language on the floor of Congress, or in Town Meetings, etc. There is a time and place for everything, and when a politician is working in an official capacity, they should keep this in mind.

[papau]

111. we disagree on what is the appropiate tone for the public square - no problem n/t

n/t

[riderinthestorm]

104. I Do find it problematic that people representing my govt.

the one I pay my taxes too, that I expect to ensure there is a clear line dividing church and state, would be okay with government representatives praying whenever they distributed their charity.

"Saying that givers of handouts may not pray in front of the recipients lest they be converted is a sop to the atheists that was not needed, but which was supported by Dems trying to prove how into committed to separation of Church and State, as defined by atheists, they were."

This isn't a "sop" to atheists, it simply means that when my govt helps Katrina refugees for example, they are doing it professionally and without religious pressure or bias. Praying while handing out water bottles, food, clothing, blankets etc. DOES strike me as problematic. It's even more problematic that only Christians need apply to distribute charity for our government....

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

29. I resent the generalizations and stereotypes

I resent the generalizations and stereotypes, it just feeds into the RW's generalizations about the left.

Not all "left" are "secular Left".

Many on the left have religious beliefs. Heck, 90% of the country believes in God.

"...to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes.."

I guess it depends on who said it and what was actually said. Over broad and vague.

"...to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements .."

Who on the left is ignoring Reverend Martin Luther King, the Berrigan brothers, the clergy in the 60's who marched against the war and for civil rights? I think most progressives are keenly aware of socially conscious religious activists in the movements he cites.

"In recent years, the Left and even the Democrats managed to appear hostile to faith and to people in faith communities..."

Geez, more generalizations almost like whining now.

Here is the crux, now it's coming, the straw man argument:

"Regardless of what one’s views of the divine are, that’s called shooting yourself in the foot."

Ok, let's assume that there have been progressive complaints about religious right wing extremists, that is a political complaint and not a complaint about the divine.

Can he mean that if we disagree with the politics of pat robberson, fatty fatwell, Jim The dogbeaterdobbins that this equates tom some particular view of the "divine." Only if he thinks the divine speaks through them.

When people have a spirituality or faith I think most on the left respect that as a personal matter of faith. But when faith becomes an excuse to politic, sermonize for votes, to collect money for candidates, to have political lobbying and PAC's- when religion crosses the line and becomes politics it deserves to be treated as any other political position.

We render to God what is Gods and to Caesar what is Caesars. It is when the religiousRW allies itself to a political party that the opposition has the right to dissent politically.

In the 60's religious activists fought for various human rights, in the 21st century they fight to take away human rights.

What is this about? A thinly veiled threat to kiss the hand to curry votes?

[w4rma]

30. How can he be stereotyping the left? His first 4 words are: "As a progressive Christian" (nt)

[madfloridian]

31. This:

"to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes, and to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force – as in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, establishing child labor laws and social safety nets and, of course, the civil rights movement."

I think it was liberals more than Christians who did these things. I don't think he should take credit.

Also, I seldom see people going on "anti-faith diatribes" unless someone in Christian groups are taking away their rights.

It is like he is rewriting some of the history above. It is not Christians who get the credit for many of those things..it is liberals.

He is using right wing talking points against those of us who think religion is only one part of our lives.

[w4rma]

32. Actually, the Republicans were the "liberals" back before FDR and Truman.

Progressives got that stuff done and most of it was done with the help of religious institutions that were heavily into helping the poor back then.

[wyldwolf]

40. "I think it was liberals more than Christians who did these things."

abolition of slavery - "The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage" was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had strong religious objections to slavery. After 1840 "abolition" was largely an ideological movement led by about 3000 people, including freed blacks. Abolitionism had a strong religious base including Quakers, and people converted by the revivalist fervor of the "Second Great Awakening" (religious movement) in the North in the 1830s. Belief in abolition contributed to the breaking away of some small denominations, such as the Free Methodist Church.

civil rights movement - It should go without saying that the great civil rights leaders were not only religious, they were pastors.

[Solon]

57. The Abolition movement had a variety of people in it, both Religious and Non-Religious...

The Women's Suffrage Movement was started, however, by Non-Christians, in fact, many of the leaders of that movement were quite critical of the churches of the time. In fact, there was a split and then a reunification of the major suffrage organizations over religion.

The Civil Rights movement also had a variety of people in it, from its many leaders, who were clergy, to some marchers who didn't believe in any God.

In cases like Labor rights and Child labor laws, well, there were quite a few secular and Christian Socialists who both worked towards the same goals, one Christian Socialist even penned the original Pledge of Allegiance, oddly enough, it didn't mention any God.

There must be a note of caution here, however, that, in many cases, while Religious(Christian) folk DID lobby and fight for these great things, OTHER Christians fought against them as well. Many of the Abolitionists of the time voraciously criticized Christian churches who justified slavery as the "Curse of Ham", that African-Americans were the sons of Cain and Abel and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to enslave them, for it was God's will. Were those Christians, and Non-Christians, who criticized other Christians for this position, anti-Christian?

[wyldwolf]

73. yes it did, so?

The statement was: to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes, and to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force

Wallis didn't say religion was the ONLY force. But MadFloridian took issue with the mere suggestion religion played a role at all:

I think it was liberals more than Christians who did these things. I don't think he should take credit.

How could Wallis be "taking credit" for pointing out that religious people played a role in most of the social reform in the country?

[Bill McBlueState]

77. religious people have played a role in almost everything in this country

Only about 15% of Americans consider themselves non-religious (link), so by the sheer power of statistical inference you'd expect a high level of participation by religious people in American social movements.

Religious people were on both sides of the civil rights debate. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention was founded on opposition to civil rights. Same goes for gay and lesbian equality. The fact that you can find religious people on both sides of almost any social debate in the US suggests that it's not religion driving social change. There's some other factor that leads some religious people to take progressive positions and other religious people to take regressive positions.

[Solon]

78. In context of the Christian religion, and Christian beliefs...

Its usually those most removed from "traditional" Christian beliefs that are the first reformers for social movements. Whether its the idea that humans have rights, rather than privileges granted to them by a Divinely appointed Monarchs, or its fighting for abolition or any number of social issues. Quakers, Unitarians of the past, etc. were considered, even back at the beginning of this country, as "nominally" Christian, or not Christian at all.

Many of these people fought through personal convictions, and occasionally back them up with religious assertions, but, most of the time, they say things like Slavery or Jim Crow are wrong by itself before they say that God disapproves of them. The point being that while the Majority, Christian religion is a great way to POPULARIZE an idea, doesn't mean the idea itself sprung from that religion.

[bluedawg12]

116. After his first four words he stereotyped progressives.

I showed how in my thread.

[Jack Sprat]

33. Nothing wrong with your final conclusion

Because churches turned political, I lost all faith in religion and churches. That doesn't mean that anyone should lose their faith in God or even Christ, if your religion is Christian. I haven't. Religions and churches have a long history of aligning themselves with powerful armies and nations, most often malevolent.

I'm stunned that people can still look at the Dobsons, Falwells, Robertson, etal, and not realize the complete phoniness in them. All those years of big hair, big cathedrals, and them presiding over it all at the pinnacle of power hasn't filled them with the Holy Ghost. It filled them with Vanity. Their congregations should take them outside and kick their butts. I would close them all down and it wouldn't harm a thing spiritually. It might even help, since the former congregants would have to deal with getting into heaven on their works and deeds.

[mrgorth]

35. You're paranoid

This paranoia may be due to your local experiences and I understand that but what Wallis wrote is completely legitimate and he is a great ally. You are being anti-religious. This was evidenced in your visceral defense of Edwards' bloggers.

[Bill McBlueState]

45. don't brush him off so quickly

We have a long tradition of secularism in this country; that is, the separation of church and state. Brushing off as "paranoia" the OP's concern that Wallis is opposed to this tradition doesn't help anything.

There's a huge difference between secularism and opposition to religion.

[madfloridian]

47. Thank you.

Secularism is a fine thing, it is how a country really should operate. I have no criticism of secularism, and no one should really. Religion is personal, deeply personal. We should not insist others accept it.

I think from seeing the answers to the post, and the way our party is moving to court religious voters so intensely as to give up the rights of gays and women....I think we have already reached a near point of no return in that respect.

I think a few know what I'm talking about, but most even though not very religious themselves will cater to those who would control others.

I'm a she, BTW. Glad someone got what I was saying.

:hi:

I was raised in the church, for generations my family have been active religiously. It is hard to see people call me anti-religious.

[Bill McBlueState]

76. oops!

Sorry I gave you the wrong pronoun. :blush:

I appreciate the quotes you've posted in this thread. Some of the stuff Wallis says has more power to fracture the Democrats than to unite us. "The best response to bad religion is better religion, not secularism." -- eeks! Who gets to decide what "better religion" is?

[madfloridian]

83. That worried me, too. Who decides which is a "better religion."

And as I guess you have noticed, it already is dividing us.

:hi:

[mrgorth]

52. Of course there is

and that's all well and good. There's also a tradition of faith. Now, the leaders of our party, whether you agree with them or not, have decided that it behooves us to reach out to people of faith who agree with us on policy. That is not giving up any core belief (unless your core belief is atheism) but being able to speak to them in a way that shows that our polcies match their belief system. That's why we have a connection to Wallis. Noone is suggesting that we climb in bed with Falwell or any of those types. Saying that we should just try and steer away from religion entirely is politicaly naive.

[madfloridian]

58. No, they are reaching out to those of faith who DON'T agree with many of us.

And therein lies the problem.

Think about how the Falwells and Robertsons got the power over the GOP. It was not noticed at first. Now they have their legal colleges, their lawyers all over the country in places of power. Because no one paid attention.

What do you think of these statements by Wallis from his book. To be frank they bother me.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/12523/6993

"If the Democrats could take the opportunity of a political defeat to really reassess their language and style, the way they morally frame public policy issues, and their cultural disconnect with too many Americans... conventional wisdom suggests that the antidote to religious fundamentalism is more secularism. But that is a very big mistake. The best response to bad religion is better religion, not secularism." < page 66 >

And this:

"Today there are new fundamentalists in the land. These are the "secular fundamentalists" many of whom attack all political figures who dare to speak from their religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political left's most religion-fearing publications, a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics often display an amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the American "ideal". The truth is just the opposite...."

Why is he so critical of those who are secular? Where is that going to lead? It bothers me.

Katha Pollitt of The Nation had concerns in 2005 as well. It is not just paranoid little me (what would DU do without me to call paranoid).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/24/opinion/main668896.shtml

"By a remarkable act of providence, God's politics turn out to be curiously tailored to the current crisis of the Democratic Party. God, like many of the black, Hispanic, Catholic and working-class voters who voted for Bush in 2004, is an economic progressive and a family-values conservative. He doesn't like "pornography," divorce, abortion or gay marriage (civil unions are OK). It's interesting that in his earlier book The Soul of Politics Wallis cited numerous women theologians, while God's Politics mentions not one. Perhaps this is because the liberationist theologians he wrote about in The Soul of Politics are mostly very strong feminists who think women are capable of making moral decisions about childbearing and that abortion can be one such decision. Wallis constantly accuses "the left" of resisting "moral" arguments. I would say it is he who resists fully engaging moral arguments that differ from his own."

[madfloridian]

46. That is passing judgement on my personal religious views.

See, that is what I am talking about. I did defend the free speech of Edwards' bloggers. Did you? I think they have as much right to free speech as Christians do, don't you?

I have often been called paranoid here, and worse. I said I did not expect others to agree. Maybe, just maybe, a woman somewhere who can't get birth control because of the religious views of a doctor or pharmacist or a nurse....maybe she might agree that too much of religious views are being inserted into personal lives of others.

Our party says take it off the table, women's rights, gay rights. Their party says hey since they are taking it off the table let's go for it.

And they are in so many ways.

Thanks for the kind and fair words, Gorth, much appreciated.

[PassingFair]

49. rofl "You're paranoid"

"This was evidenced in your visceral defense of Edwards' bloggers."

THIS from someone who lists "Irish Republicanism" as a "hobby"!

:rofl:

[mrgorth]

70. What does the self determination of the Irish people

have to do with utter fear of democrats being able to use faith to connect with people?

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Have any of these people actually ever READ

Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Paine? Age of Reason? Enlightenment? Any of this ring a bell? Didn't think so.

[baldguy]

43. The same criticism should be made of the GOP.

People who denigrate peace and promote war, who think God's blessings are primarily material in nature, and who think lying is a sacrament, have no understanding of Christs' message.

[NoPasaran]

54. Help me out, please

Who is Jim Wallis and why should I care what he thinks?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. Wallis

is a liberal activist, minister, and founder of Sojourners magazine. He's been around for years, but he recently bubbled into the political consciousness with his book "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."

After the "Values Voters" buzz of the 2004 election, Wallis became an in-demand speaker and consultant at liberal and progressive organizations. His thesis (and I'm grossly generalizing here) is that conservatives have shamelessly distorted the Christian message for political gain, and that the liberals have become religiophobic and unable to find the common ground that exists between progressive and Christian values.

And you should care about what he thinks because he's a pretty smart guy and makes several good points.

[madfloridian]

60. Yes, he is very smart and a good man. But why...

is he so against those who don't think religion should be front and center of poitics?

See the quotes from his book I posted above about his feelings about two groups...both of which I belong to proudly. The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

He is a good man. I am a good woman, but I don't belong to a church since the Baptist supported the war. I think he is too critical of those who don't want religion in charge of our policies.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

63. That's not what he's saying...

not by a long-shot.

Just sticking to the blog post, he's saying specifically that the Democrats should never "get religion" or to manipulate faith for political purposes, "simply mimicking what the Republicans have done so shamelessly." I think I can speak for Wallis when I say that religion shouldn't be "front and center" of politics or used as a campaign slogan or a cheap gimmick to lure voters.

I can assure you that Wallis isn't not opposed to the work of the ACLU or Americans United (whose Executive Director is an ordained minister, by the way). He's saying that these organizations (and other individuals) have taken an extreme position with regard to politicians making religious utterances in public. In Wallis' view, they are fundmentalists with regard to the seperation of church and state, taking it to include even their public discourse. Note: I think Walis overstates the case in this regard.

Wallis' overarching point (in the blog post and in his book and other writings) is that the progressive agenda is much closer to mainstream Christian values than anything the Republicans have to offer. He's suggesting that Democrats should learn to "speak the language" of faith when talking to these voters and to expand their defintion of "values" to include protecting the environment and caring for the sick and the poor. If we can do that, we'll win their votes just as we always have.

[madfloridian]

65. He is very critical of those groups. There is not admiration for the ACLU

or the United for Separation group. I read it quite differently.

""Today there are new fundamentalists in the land. These are the "secular fundamentalists" many of whom attack all political figures who dare to speak from their religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political left's most religion-fearing publications, a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics often display an amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the American "ideal". The truth is just the opposite...."

What he is saying is just not true. I don't mind how much politicians talk about religion, most people don't. It is when they start governing with it, and making those who disagree not welcome.

Wallis makes me feel like I am not acceptable since I parted with my church over the war.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. Then you're hypersensitve on this issue

and I really can't help you.

But I've read Wallis' book and I subscribe to Sojourners. Wallis is all about making common cause between atheist/agnostic progressives and the faith community. What you're accusing him of is the exact opposite of his agenda; you really can't take a paragraph of a very prolific writer out of the context of the rest of his work and then come to a conclusion.

With regard to the war, I think Wallis would say that your church parted company with the teachings of Jesus Christ and that you were right to leave them. And that there are many denominations (and congregations within other denominations) that have vocally opposed war with Iraq.

[madfloridian]

68. Thank you for caring so much.

That is the attitude of the very large Southern Baptist church...just go away and don't question.

Let time tell how hypersensitive I am.

It is getting to where no one dare question religious people or views.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

79. What do you want me to say?

I am not telling you that you aren't free to "question religious people" or that you should go away. I'm a Lutheran: The guy who founded my denomination pretty much made a career out of questioning religious people, so don't look to me to be casting any stones.

What I'm saying is that I'm pretty familiar with Jim Wallis' body of work, and the motives that you're imputing to him are simply not part of his agenda. I'm pretty sure Wallis would invite you to pull up a chair and be part of the discussion, just as he would encourage anybody of faith and progressive values to join in. That's his major thesis: the progressive community and the faith community have more in common than both sides might think, and he encourages them to talk about it.

From a nakedly partisan political perspective (which Wallis would deplore, but what the heck), if we can peel off 4-5% of "values voters" who have been hoodwinked into voting Republican, we're going to win a lot of elections.

[madfloridian]

82. Well, that is the goal of the party now.

To peel off those voters. The only thing about that is that we must give in on so many issues to get them to vote for us. But hey, I'm too old to have an abortion, had a bunch of kids already. And I'm not gay, so that issues doesn't affect me personally either.

But that is what we are doing now as a party. Instead of just standing for something we are going after the religious votes, and our party will pay a price in the long run.

I felt sad that with all the work we put in locally, with all the work activists put in all over the country to help get out the vote...that the chairman of the DNC said on TV that he was more proud of getting 25% of the evangelical vote than of any other group. He is being influenced now by just getting votes to win without standing up for people.

In our area that means limiting women's rights, limiting gay rights. But those don't affect me. I guess that is the attitude we need to take.

If we are going after the votes of that group, we sacrifice two groups in exchange. It does not have to be that way.

But it isn't my fight now. Up to the party.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

84. Sigh....

We're not giving in on any issues. The point here is to engage moderate "values voters" in a discussion about their values and ours, to the end that they will agree that concern for the poor is more important a value than opposition to gay marriage. We want to convince these voters that providing single young women with educational opportunities, economic stability and access to birth control is a more effective way of preventing abortions than trashing someone's right to privacy.

We're done with moving to the right in order to get votes. What we're about here is moving the "political center" in this country back to the left, and you can't do that without talking to people who live in the center and changing their minds.

The Pew Charitable Trust survey that I posted elsewhere in this thread showed that nationwide, 27% of protestant evangelical voters self-identify as Democrats. And the "centrist" and "modernist" evangelicals -- those more likely to be liberal -- actually outnumber the conservative evangelicals. The fact that the faith community is waking up to the snake oil being peddled by the Republicans and voting Democratic again is nothing but good.

I appreciate that you've had some less-than-holy experiences with regard to religion. I grew up in the Wisconsin Synond of the Lutheran Church and I'll stack it up against the Southern Baptist Conference any day -- at least you didn't have to eat lutefisk!

[madfloridian]

91. Not giving in, just letting the other side have their way.

We are doing that right now. Dean and the rest of the Democrats took abortion rights off the table. They took gay rights off the table.

Ok, that is a good thing. BUT the other side is NOT giving it up. I have several threads about the SD Democrats twice trying to ban abortion, the Florida lawmakers not sure they can pass a vote to give rape victims contraception in hospitals.

Other states are moving right along with their abortion bans, and with stopping gay rights.

Just because we took it off the table, doesn't mean they did. They are accelerating their efforts every day.

We have quit fighting on the issues for women and gays, we are giving in to the voices in the party with religious views. I know we are, and there is nothing I can do or say anymore.

Yes, you wore me down. You and Gorth did it. I understand your views, but you don't have a clue what I was really saying. Instead of listening to what I was saying, what actually several are saying about Wallis and others getting such inroads into the party....it was easier to discount me.

If you don't think what happened to the GOP is not happening to our party, you are wrong. It is happening now because we have no one with the courage or stamina to stand up against their push anymore. The money of these groups is vital to our party, just like the money of the lobbyists who are turning to us increasingly.

[mrgorth]

69. Contrary to what she thinks

I like madfloridian but she is tenacious and there is simply no way in hell that you or I are getting the last word in this.;)

[madfloridian]

72. Only those who question religion are dubbed hypersensitive around here

And I was one of them all of my life...those Southern Baptists. So, I hear Jim Wallis sounding like them, I see our Democrats bending knee to him, and I fear another religious coup...but this time on our party and from another side.

If tenacious is what I am, so be it. I like that better than paranoid.

[mrgorth]

74. And you see kos disagreeing with him right?

?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

81. I'll wear her down to the nub!

[PassingFair]

90. Burn her! n/t

[madfloridian]

92. They won.

I am now the one without moral and ethical values. :hi:

[PassingFair]

94. It's OK.

We knew that, and to think you and I used to
argue that YOU were too religious!


Ha Ha Ha!

The good ol' days.

[madfloridian]

95. Funny to remember that.

Someone else who remembered that PMed me about it. They know I have had a lot of journeying to do.

I have gone back and forth because it is part of me, that Southern Baptist background. But now I know that what was there is not there anymore. I am just glad my parents aren't alive to see it.

Frankly, I hate to see Dean make it his goal to win those voters. If he does that he will not be able to stand up for the rest of the party who need voices also.

This is a world wide thing now, this conservative movement via the churches. I wondered what was happening when Baptists, Presbyterians, and Catholics joined together in Florida with lawmakers to get laws passed to deprive gays of rights and women of the right to abortion.

Now I realize it is world wide.

[PassingFair]

96. If they can't beat 'em......

I LOVED it when Dean said:

"I'm TIRED of fundamentalist preachers telling us what to do!"

I got off the couch, got my wallet out, made phone calls and
got walking and knocking doors for him.

I'd rather fight than switch myself.

The enlightenment principles that this country was founded on
mean the world to me. I have both believers AND freethinkers
in my family, and I love them all...there are NO sacred cows.
THAT is how we respect each other, by allowing free expression
and questioning.

My mother is allowed to worry about me, and I am allowed to tell her
she is delusional. It's what we KNOW.

What I can't understand is why people can't see the difference it
makes when your GOVERNMENT DEMANDS that you pay lip service to
someone else's Gawd. It's unconscionable.

I believe we will eventually evolve beyond it. This is another
last gasp of a floundering fish.

[Solon]

75. Which "Christian Values"?

That's the question, because there seem to be major points of contention between Liberal and Conservative Christians.

Most of these involve social issues, gay marriage, even the right of gays to exist in the open at all, separation of church and state, etc.

Then there are other issues like caring for the poor, health care, and others, and Liberal and Conservative Christians still don't agree. They differ wildly in HOW to take care of these issues, most of the Conservatives don't want Government programs, they want charity, no matter that the fact that charity alone isn't adequate. Liberal Christians, however, like government programs that help the poor, while the Conservative Christians donate, once a year, to "Toys for Tots" and think that's enough, and ALL that should be done.

I don't see where Democrats can make any inroads with Conservative Christians without compromising some value they hold dear, like Choice. I just don't see the point of trying to coddle those people.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

80. Ba-Da Bing!!

There are two sets of "Christian Values," and unfortunately, the most regressive set is the one that seems to get the microphone. When CNN wants a religious perspective on the news, they go to people who represent less than 20% of Christianity and far less than 20% of the nation as a whole. They trot out Pat Robertson when he is more like a cult leader than a pastor.

Wallis' point isn't to somehow appease the hard-core Conservative Evangelicals because, as you've said, they're not going to budge. However, there is a vast center of people who hold "Christian Values" like caring for the sick and the poor, creating peace and justice, and protecting and preserving the environment. THOSE are the Christians with whom even the most secular or the secular left can engage in an intelligent conversation. THOSE are the ones with whom we can find common cause and relegate the right-wing back to the fringe of society where they and their radical beliefs belong.

[Solon]

89. Actually, this is something I don't understand...

However, there is a vast center of people who hold "Christian Values" like caring for the sick and the poor, creating peace and justice, and protecting and preserving the environment.

Aren't these the people we ALREADY have on our side? Its been my experience that some, self identified, moderates, are the types who rail about God being taken out of the classroom, and other stuff, like choice, abortion, gays, etc. These Christians aren't even out and out fundamentalist, they are just social conservatives, and in my area, loyal Republicans. They may even be for Single Payer Health Care, and all those other liberal values, but there is no budging with them on social issues, but think the ACLU are a bunch of extremists.

While many are becoming disenchanted with the Republican party, they are more likely to stay home than vote for the "Godless" Democrats. And these are the Moderates!

There's also this, which I don't understand, if a Democrat politician said, "We must extend health care coverage to ALL children in this country because its the RIGHT thing to do." Why isn't that enough to win over some of these Moderate Christians, as you put? Should the Democrats go ahead and say, "We must extend health care coverage to ALL children in this country because its what Jesus would want."

I don't see why politicians should appeal to any religious authority to try to justify their positions, to me, its a mystery. Those who oppose us on certain issues aren't going to vote for us just because we invoke who they worship in speeches. I don't see why being silent on religion, in general, would cost us votes, and if some Christians need a constant reaffirmation that they are the absolute majority in this country through political posturing, that sounds like THEY have a problem, not us.

Its almost as if they are insulted by silence, talk about weak egos!

[Solon]

62. Just a tip for the Christians in this thread...

Religious is NOT a substitute for Christian, understood? You do not speak for Religious Non-Christians, so don't pretend, its dishonest at best, and arrogant at worst.

[papau]

107. True - and the 02 to 04 exclusion of non-Christian service orgs from faith based service org money

was wrong.

It appears that that has been corrected - I hope it has.

[AZBlue]

85. The Dem philosophy is, basically, Christian.

Before you start flaming me, I'm talking about the real Christian philosophy, of all people are equal, love one another, take care of one another and greed isn't good. Not the psycho fake Christian philosophy of Bush & Co.

He has an excellent point and one that I've always wondered about: why doesn't the Dem party show how much they are aligned with that outlook? Why don't we point out that the poor and the underprivileged are the focus of our party and not the GOP's? We're not changing our platform at all and I'm certainly not suggesting any candidate start quoting scripture. But, if you were to compare real Christian values with Democratic ones, they'd line up pretty well, as they did in getting rid of slavery, making women equals and protecting children.

[Solon]

98. I can answer that question...

He has an excellent point and one that I've always wondered about: why doesn't the Dem party show how much they are aligned with that outlook?

Because the Philosophy you just outlined is Humanist, NOT Christian, please don't co-opt other people's beliefs and claim them as your own. That's insulting. Also, this whole thing between "Fake" Christian and "Real" Christians is just semantics to us outsiders.

[AZBlue]

119. Yes, it is Christian.

Where did I say that it was only Christians who follow that philosophy?? Point that out and I'll say that your post isn't just another stupid knee-jerk anti-Christian post on this board. Can't find where I said that, huh?? Yeah...I thought so. That's insulting (emphasis added). I wasn't pushing Christianity, obviously - but you read what you wanted to in my post. Yup, that's definitely insulting.

The OP was talking about Christianity so that's what I was discussing as well. I was simply staying on topic, an ability you obviously lack.

If you'd civilly asked me about it, I'd have gone on further to point out that these philosophies and beliefs belong almost all religions known to man, past or present. But, since you were so uncivil with me, I don't feel the need to be civil with you. What goes around comes around - another philosophy found in all religions - and if you were truly Wiccan, you'd know that. Or haven't you heard of the three-fold rule?? (How do I know it?? Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about another's religion...)

[MissMarple]

86. Values, religious, ethical, moral....we can't ignore them.

If you think he is preaching at us instead of giving us all a heads up, well, perhaps he could have been more diplomatic. But Democrats address the bread and butter issues more than the moral and ethical concerns that many Americans have. That does need to change. The free market, unregulated capitalistic, hedonistic, every guy for himself culture promoted by the GOP and their various think tanks has helped create an unhealthy, self obsessed, materialistic environment that we struggle to raise our families in. Just making sure people have health insurance or a living wage will not do one thing to cut down on internet porn and the predators it breeds. Kids coming out of school today have little idea what our country is all about; or, perhaps I should say, what we used to think it was all about. The Democrats running for office and running the party need to address these and the other valid concerns Americans have. In a big way.

[madfloridian]

87. "Values, religious, ethical, moral"...who gets to set those standards?

I have all kinds of values, religous, ethical, moral.

I guess people are getting from this that I don't have those things because I prefer a secular government.

I do, though. I am way in the minority here on seeing warning signs when religious leaders are calling us out on criticizing them.

I realize that.

I do have standards. I don't want government or religion setting them. It's called censorship. I have seen one takeover by religious zealots already. I don't it want it to happen again like it did to my church and the GOP.

:shrug:

But because I question...people would rather think I am anti-religion and need values.

:shrug:

[MissMarple]

97. Having a public discussion about values doesn't mean the end of secular government.

And of course, values, morals, and ethics have never been under the sole control of organized religion. But many Americans are religious to some degree, and others who are not are still concerned about the condition of our popular culture. Finding a way to address these concerns is important. The goal is societal and cultural stability based on liberal democratic values, not creating a theocratic state of anyone's type.

I find it hard to believe that Jim Wallis actually wants a theocracy. There are a lot of folks in this country who are searching for guidance, for leadership, for a wholesome environment in which to raise their families. Democrats and progressives are best able to do that, not authoritarian churches or corporations run amok. They have made a cult of capitalism and it is poisoning this country. My point is that values, ethics, and morals must be part of the conversation. Otherwise the GOP and its whores will dominate the discussion and the progressives will not be heard because they are afraid of the vocabulary or of appearing to favor one "religion" over another. They will continue to appear deaf to very real worries for American families, whether or not they really are.

Gaining control of this discussion and guiding it in a way that reflects democratic values that allow all people to prosper is important.

I'm very sorry about your church. I talked with a lady from North Carolina whose family and friends had to find a new congregation for the same reason. I'd be mad, too, but, I don't belong to a church because I have trouble with dogma. I do believe in the divine. And I do believe that common values, morals and ethics are found in every healthy belief system. Those are the ones we need to be talking about, the ones that bring us all together as Americans. Redefining and promoting true social responsibility is important. The authoritarian fundamentalists and the GOP have drug that concept through so much mud it is unrecognizable. Peace.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

88. Let's examine the other side of the same coin...

"...to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force – as in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, establishing child labor laws and social safety nets and, of course, the civil rights movement."

1. Delusional President who answers to a "higher authority;" apparently the divintity wished to lead this President amok and take the country with him.

2. Ralph Reed, Jr., a Christian-right-wing Republican American political activist, known as the first executive director of the Christian Coalition during the early 1990s, we discover is embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

3. The Rev. Ted Haggard and the NAE platform included the condemnation of homosexuality -- "it is clearly con­demned in the Scriptures" -- resigns as leader of the megachurch he started after being caught with a male prostitue.

4. How about the Catholic Church and pedophilia? Or is that already passe?

Not very compelling argument when you examine just one side of a two-sided coin.

[fujiyama]

93. He's just repeating RW talking points

Dems haven't been hostile to religious groups. If anyone can give me an idea how they have, I'd love to hear it...Unless, he means by Forwarding an agenda of social tolerance and economic justice....


It's the republicans that exploit religious voters to keep them in power.

Edit:

After reading a bit more, it seems like Wallis has SOME valid points - of course it's a good idea establishing ties between secular and religious progressives. As long as the religious folks agree that you don't need faith as an ethical and moral basis in life...and secular people don't attack religious people as being "delusional" or "stupid", we can focus on the issues we have in common...

[madfloridian]

99. More....

More:

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/11/jim-wallis-for-record.html

"I got some critical reactions to a very short blog I posted the day after the election, titled “A Defeat for the Religious Right and Secular Left.” It was too short, and perhaps titled badly, because I had to abruptly leave Washington when my Dad suddenly died. I certainly did not mean that “secular” people (among whom I count many close allies) didn’t or shouldn’t share in the progressive victory OR that religious and secular people shouldn’t build important coalitions around key issues (they must). What I simply meant was that the Religious Right had suffered a major defeat and no longer controlled the political agenda for people of faith AND that those on the Left who have too often disdained the role of religion in politics, the participation of the faith community, and even the “moral values” conversation itself (probably better named “secular fundamentalists”) lost some of their control of the process too. Democrats were far friendlier to faith than they have been in the recent past and the results were clear — as both religious and secular people on the progressive side should celebrate. As my colleagues noted last week: “this election saw many Democrats win who speak openly about their faith, and how it informs their political views.”

I’ve often thought that “religious fundamentalists” had too much influence in the Republican Party and that “secular fundamentalists” had too much influence in the Democratic Party. Senator Barack Obama made similar comments in his June speech on faith and politics at the Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference this past spring, and says the same in his new book (he got some of the criticism on the blog too, as he has in the Left blogosphere before). I believe both groups do exist, and have had real power in their respective constituencies — and both groups lost influence in this election. That’s all I was trying to say. I’ve had many debates with the religious fundamentalists; perhaps its time for some healthy debate with the secular fundamentalists, too.

He is sounding like he is sort of tolerating the "secular fundamentalists" among whom I count myself right now. Like he does not have a comfort level with people who are having doubts.

On one hand he appears to welcome us and accept us, but on the other hand it is clear he has reservations about our viability and importance to the party.

There is nothing wrong with secular. In fact one of the meanings is just not being part of the clergy...a lay person.

I get the feeling he does not fully accept us. I get the feeling they are being given carte blanche with the Democrats now.

I should have included the link to Huff post, as it links back to the Belief Net blog.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/lets-clear-the-air_b_41792.html

[riderinthestorm]

102. I too have a problem with the left starting down this (slippery) slope

of trying to turn Democratic political positions into Christian positions in an attempt to lure more religious voters. I believe this is the wrong move for the Dems. Many people would point to the religious folks who were participatory in abolition, civil rights etc. but those movements weren't religious movements per se - they were solidly grounded in humanist ideals that transcended religions. They just happened to have participants who were religious (as well as secular or anti-religious) which is great and valuable but the movements themselves weren't driven by theology. I always find it very disturbing when the religious left turns those movements into religious movements, after the fact.

As an aside madfloridian, there was an OP in GD about how Rabbi Lerner was finally! (:eyes:) going to be bringing religion to the anti-war movement at the latest DC rally, and how the secular left was going to have to finally! (:eyes: ) acknowledge the religious left! When I objected to the characterization of the anti-war movement being "hostile" to the religious (it's anything but that), or that somehow religious folks had been excluded or made to feel unwelcome (they aren't as I'm sure you know from any rallies/marches/vigils you've attended), and most especially how I found it distasteful that somehow now the anti-war movement had to get religion, I was roundly criticized for my "anti-religious" POV.

Uhm, anything but.... Like you I see danger for the Dem party crossing the secular line and trying to out-christian (cough), the Religious Right. The high ground for us shouldn't be to try to jam the Dem positions into Christian clothing (which WILL fail both morally and philosophically as the RR demonstrates) but to transcend this religious garb and emphasize our goals as just plain good for everyone. If someone wants to put a religious spin on our positions personally, privately (as Jesus indicated was best), I don't have a problem with that but to try to talk the Dems into more than that is a huge mistake imo.

[beachmom]

103. "Secular fundamentalist"? WTF??

Sam Harris said it best -- the enemy, if you will, is dogmatism. That's what religious fundamentalism is (The bible says . . . with no compromise), but there are secular forms of dogmatism as well: communism and to a certain extent fascism and nazism (although Hitler did speak of Providence, so it wasn't exactly like the atheism of communism). I am against ALL OF THAT!! I do go to church, but it's more for my kids -- right now, I'm just not that into religion, so I guess you could say my outlook is fairly secular. But . . . . I don't know what The Truth is, I sometimes change my minds about things. In short, I am NOT a fundamentalist in any shape or form, yet I think Wallis views me as such -- I absolutely can't stand these labels -- the secular left or secular fundamentalist. I'm just fairly secular but certainly not dogmatic about it. I just know that when I listen to the religious right crowd, I feel like my head is going to explode. But . . . even some of my liberal friends who are religious get on my nerves -- like, PLEASE, can we talk about something else already? Does that make any sense?

[KamaAina]

105. Wallis is aware that Sen. Obama is in the race, no?

"...we worship an awesome God in the Blue states..." That Barack Obama. Hard to get much more religious than that, right in front of the DNC and the teevee cameras and all.

edit: the Bule states?! :eyes:

[yellowcanine]

112. Wallis is correct in pointing out that all of the major social justice movements had religious

underpinnings. I don't see anything untoward about pointing that out. Seems that some here are being a little too touchy, imo.

[madfloridian]

113. Realistic. Aware of what happened to the GOP when no one was looking.

Hey, I am used to being called touchy and much worse. But please tell how you got what you said out of what I posted?

"As a progressive Christian, I always wondered why many on the secular Left felt it necessary to cut off potential political alliances with progressive religious people, to alienate most of America with nasty anti-faith diatribes, and to choose to ignore the history of most of the social reform movements in this country, where religion often served as a powerful motivator and driving force – as in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, establishing child labor laws and social safety nets and, of course, the civil rights movement. In recent years, the Left and even the Democrats managed to appear hostile to faith and to people in faith communities. Regardless of what one’s views of the divine are, that’s called shooting yourself in the foot."

He is saying we are cutting out religious people. That is not true. I don't see anyone posting hate stuff against religion. I don't know what he was talkng about.

He was lecturing those of us who don't want religion controlling our party. He is using GOP talking points straight out of the GOP handbook. Not very Christian of him.

[yellowcanine]

120. "He is using GOP talking points straight out of the GOP handbook. Not very Christian of him. "

I disagree. Look at what the Democrats did to Bob Casey because he was anti abortion. I am pro choice but I think Casey should have been allowed to speak at a national convention as a sitting Democratic governor. Silencing dissenting viewpoints is what GOPers do. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the "Big Tent" party. Go read "God's Politics" instead of selectively quoting Wallis and see if you still feel the same way. Anyway, I don't think his comments were directed at DU so your comment about what people are posting is irrelevant . I can tell you that a lot of people think what he says about politics and religion make sense and he packed them in at book signings. And they weren't GOPers. They were Democrats and they were applauding him.

[madfloridian]

114. Wallis: Dean is the leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

I was never called a "secular fundamentalist" before, so being a retired teacher it was in my nature to look it up.

The tenets of secular fundamentalism

Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between church and state, and to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons and groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations.<2> In this way the state is to be secular in status and operation.

http://www.acton.org/programs/students/essay/2003/first.html

Well, according to that maybe I am one of those things he speaks of in dismay.

I believe Howard Dean really tried to express his honest views in 03, and I hate seeing a religious person humiliate someone who really cares about the party. Maybe this is why Wallis seems to have so much influence now....maybe it had to be that way for some to survive. Dean tried to talk of religion and he got humiliated for it. I am surprised he still is so tolerant.

Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.” Referring to the disastrous statement by Howard Dean that Job was his favorite New Testament book, Wallis exhorted “…the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith.”

Have you heard of the Seamless Garment? This group believes totally in pro-life even at the end. They were part of leading the way on the Schiavo tragedy in their many guises.

Jim Wallis threatens political party entrenchment by challenging Americans to rethink the connection between morality, biblical teachings and government policies.

As he said in his reply to Chuck Colson, “My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important.

Neither party gets it right; each has perhaps half of the answer. My message and my challenge are to bring the together.”

At the mention of Seamless Garment he lost me. I want the right to end my life in dignity, not be controlled like Schiavo was.

And all you women who thought you might have some control over your choices medically...forget about it as far as he and most evangelicals are concerned. It is not their intention to allow it.

For the record, this 30-year preacher and activist has grave reservations about abortion. “It’s important for Democrats…to talk first about how they are going to be committed to really dramatically reducing unwanted pregnancies, not just retaining the legal option of abortion.” And while compassion compels Wallis to champion basic rights for gay couples, he does not voice support for gay marriage.

According to the article, he has become a movement. I am quite sure he is a very good man, and much better than Falwell and Robertson and their ilk. But I will continue to have reservations on this.


http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/JimWallis1.htm

[madfloridian]

115. Website and links for Seamless Garment if you aren't familiar.

http://www.seamless-garment.org/index.shtml

I do not believe that we can ignore the advances of science in the areas of health, life, and dying.

They believe we can, thus Terri Schiavo became a symbol.