Jim Wallis: Useful Idiot or Enemy Within?

[Ian David]

Jim Wallis: Useful Idiot or Enemy Within?
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 07:54:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

I have no use for Jim Wallis and I begin to wonder if he really has the interests of Democrats and progressives at heart:

"When the Democrats became just the party of rights, they lost something, a moral appeal," Wallis contends. The Democratic patchwork frayed as some of its largest constituencies, particularly working-class whites, began to feel culturally estranged from the party. The breaking point was in 1972, when Republican Richard M. Nixon argued that a vote for Democrat George McGovern was a vote for "acid, amnesty and abortion." To many voters, McGovern embodied an emerging perception that liberals were outside the American mainstream.

Anyone who does not see the moral value in civil rights and liberties is not moral in my book. If Wallis does not share our Democratic values, if he prefers the imposition of his personal religious values on the country, instead of finding common ground with those who do not share his views, then he should be looking for a new party. We will not change our deeply held and cherished values, our love of the Constitution, for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Jim Wallis. It's great that he is for a progressive economic agenda but that does not mean Dems will accept his recalcitrant views on social issues.

Moreover, he is advocating stupid politics. Dems finally put the extremist label on the GOP because it is beholden to the Radical Religious Right. Wallis would throw that away. Do not listen to him Democrats. Ever. He does not believe in what we believe in. He does not even know what we believe in. He is a fool.

More:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/11/27/205412/53

[trotsky]

1. Careful, he's got some really big fans here on DU.

I don't trust him, never did. Every time I read something about him I trust him less.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Jim Wallis: A Defeat for the Religious Right and the Secular Left

Jim Wallis: A Defeat for the Religious Right and the Secular Left

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

We're not the only ones who feel that way, check out the comments.

Wallis is already well on his way down the slippery slope.

Have a good trip, Jim.

[kiahzero]

30. I think some people forget that the enemy of an enemy is not always a friend

Evangelicals concerned with social justice may ally with liberals on those issues, but they still are on the wrong side of the fight over preserving the secular character of our government, and should be treated accordingly. A kinder, gentler theocracy is a theocracy nonetheless.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Well said.

He should spend more time listening to people from the "secular" left.

Like Jimmy Carter, for instance.

[kwassa]

2. This "Big Tent Democrat" certainly sounds like an idiot.

and from the section you quoted, the issues are completely unclear as to what Wallis stands for, and what this commentator stands for.

What is the issue, anyways?

[Ian David]

4. Go to the original source and follow the links. n/t

[kwassa]

7. No.

If you have an argument, present it.

This article is dumb.

[Ian David]

9. Maybe. n/t

[leveymg]

5. The issue is abortion. Jim Wallis is the head of Sojourners, one of the most influential

progressive Christian communities in Washington, DC. They're rather like the older Catholic Worker movement that had its American center in Chicago, led by Dorathy Day, and are closely associated with the group led by the late Berringen brothers.

Sojourners takes a principled pro-life stand, being absolutely opposed to war, nuclear weapons, capital punishment and state-sanctioned killing of all kinds, and take the Option For The Poor very seriously.

They aren't nuts, and they aren't remotely Right-wing. They're just against abortion, and understand the power that issue has with many American Christians, which has been exploited by the Right and the GOP.

[Goblinmonger]

6. The problem I have with Wallis,

and I would think trotsky's problem though I am clearly not speaking for trostsky, is that everytime I read something from him I can't help but think he wants a theocracy. Now, granted, it might be a "kinder, gentler" theocracy than that of the Right Wing, but a theocracy nonetheless. I guess it scares me as I would hope it would scare others.

Disclaimer: I nowhere say that Wallis is asking for a theocracy. I am not saying that he even overtly argues for one. This is just the feeling I get when I read him or listen to him. This very well may be my natural distrust for organized religions coming through. I am just trying to let you know what my thoughts are.

[leveymg]

8. I've been acquainted with Jim and his group for 20 years, and can guarantee

you that he doesn't seek to impose a theocracy, enlightened or not, on anyone. He's a deeply religious and compassionate man who writes from his own perspective, which is spiritually-centered. But, he does respect the separation between Church and State, and in this key difference is far removed from some on the religious Right.

Wallis and Sojourners have been at the center of every progressive, peace and human rights movement in the DC area for a long time. He's comfortable working with VERY diverse organizations, and they with him.

I'm not sure what's going on with this, but went over to TalkLeft, and it appears this is based in some Washington Post article that no doubt mischaracterizes Wallis. The WaPo is pretty notorious for that.

If you've read something by Wallis or Sojourners that contradicts what I know about him, please feel free to share that with us.

[kiahzero]

10. If they want to ban abortions because of their religion

That's a theocratic decision.

[Goblinmonger]

15. See post #11

Why does he refer to the "secular Left" and government if he really believes the government should be secular?

[leveymg]

19. Because there's the secular Left and the religious Left

He's the latter. Doesn't mean he thinks the US Government should be a theocracy. Please, show me where he says that the church should run the state.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Holy crap

I put out a disclaimer that said I wasn't saying he explicitly said that. What more do I need to do?

He wants morality to be legislated. He refers to the "secular Left" as if they are something bad and the "religious Left" as if they are something good. Those thing TO ME smack of theocracy.

[leveymg]

23. Somehow, you assume that Wallis sees one as good and the other as bad

I don't believe he thinks in such absolutes. You've concluded on the basis of that faulty assumption that his politics "smack of theocracy."

I also see a tension between the secular and religious Left, but that doesn't make me a theocrat.

There's also a tension between the secular and the religious Right, the divisions between which are probably much more serious and intractable.

I'd really be more worried about this topic if I were a Republican.

[Ian David]

26. You're replying to someone on my ignore list. It appears my decision to ignore them was a sound one?

No need to answer publicly.

[Zhade]

78. Just about all of the religious left is also part of the secular left.

Or don't you think that the religious left also supports the separation of church and state?

Remember, secular does not mean "nonreligious".

[Ian David]

11. See also: Will somebody tell Jim Wallis we have a secular government?

Will somebody tell Jim Wallis we have a secular government?

Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourner's Magazine, has been saying the most idiotic things for the past couple of years. Oh, I don't know. Perhaps he's always been an idiot, but I've only been paying attention for the past couple of years so I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and assume that he must have had a traumatic experience with an atheist or something to explain his inane public utterances that almost always include some dig at non-believers. But the short missive he posted today at Huffington Post and his Beliefnet.com blog has got to take the cake.

"A Defeat for the Religious Right and the Secular Left" argues that:

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


Excuse me, but could someone tell Wallis that we live in a society with a secular government? To use the term 'secular' like this, as a sort of pejorative, cheapens the very principles and values the country was founded on. Especially when, at least as I see it, Tuesday's vote was a broad ranging and raucous endorsement of secular government. But I suppose it's OK when secular government is replaced by a grand new alliance between liberals and conservatives. Apparently, as long as it's popular, and ecumenical, theocracy is OK.

It's just everybody else who's left out in the cold in Wallis' grand new alliance.

More:
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/11/09/will_somebody_tell_jim_wallis_

[kwassa]

13. Rather than describe him as an idiot ...

which he clearly isn't, why don't you get specific about what you agree with and disagree with about his point of view? He has a point of view, and a belief system. Calling him names doesn't help your point of view.

The title of this thread, while a verbatim quote from the originating blog, is offensive, because it only allows two negative possibilities in understanding Jim Wallis.

[Goblinmonger]

14. But that clip

is exactly what I am talking about. If he doesn't believe, in some regard and perhaps even subconsciously, that we should have a theocracy, then why does he talk about the "secular Left"? If he REALLY believes in a separation of church and state, then he should see and say that our government HAS TO BE secular in order to keep that wall around. But he doesn't say those things. And it scares me.

[Ian David]

17. That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Maybe someone can write him an email and ask?

[kwassa]

18. you have fingers, don't you? It is your question, after all.

[kwassa]

20. I interpreted his statement entirely differently than you two.

To me, when he is talking about the secular left, he is simply acknowledging a subset of the Democratic party membership, perhaps a majority subset, for that matter. We see both groups here in this forum every day, the secular and the believers who both support progressive politics.

I see no hint of theocracy in this statement at all. What he is pointing out, to me, is what others have; that a more centrist, and somewhat more conservative group, voted Democratic this last election, and gave the Democrats a majority in Congress, and they, in a sense, won the election, or at least made the critical difference in creating majority numbers at the polls.

[Ian David]

25. Given that Wallis is against gay marriage but in favor of Civil Unions...

I really think he either "doesn't get" or "doesn't believe in" a very strong Wall Between Church and State.

[kwassa]

32. I think you are reading much into Wallis that isn't there.

You've just made a very big logical jump without support.

[kiahzero]

34. The only reason for that position is support for theocracy.

If you believe in the First Amendment, there would be no reason to go with that position. Politicians might espouse it to avoid rocking the boat too much too soon, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that's the case here.

[kwassa]

35. This?

can you point out exactly where he suggests theocracy?

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.

[kiahzero]

36. Q: Why would you argue for civil unions but not legal marriage?

A: Either because you're scared of political fallout, or you don't believe in the First Amendment.

Those are the only two answers that I can see. If there's another one, I'd be open to hearing it.

[kwassa]

37. What does the First Amendment have to do with marriage?

[kiahzero]

38. The Establishment Clause

If the only justification for a policy is religion, it has no place in a secular democracy.

[kwassa]

39. I still don't get the argument. Marriage has legal aspects.

Which have nothing to do with religion.

The Federal government doesn't regulate marriages in the first place, the states do. If the Federal government makes no laws that regulate this legal state, then the states have the right to do it.

[kiahzero]

40. I'll make it clearer, then.

The only coherent argument against marriage equality presumes a theocracy - that one's religion is against it, and so it should not be legal. As Peter Singer put it, public policy requires public justification.

[kwassa]

41. Not necessarily.

One could be completely irreligious, and be opposed to gay marriage. The presumption of theocracy doesn't hold water.

People hold all kinds of ideas about ethics and morality (their definition, of course) that may have roots in non-religious sources. Often purely cultural tradition.

[kiahzero]

42. Name one coherent non-religious argument against marriage equality.

I've yet to see one.

[kwassa]

44. I don't need one.

It is not about the argument, it is about people's beliefs.

If, in the definition to a person, that marriage only describes a relationship between a man and a woman, then there is no way there can be a same-sex marriage. It is not a question of equality, it is a question of definition of terms.

[kiahzero]

45. We're talking about legal definitions.

If the only coherent reason that someone would be against marriage equality is because it's against their religion, it is fair to say that a person with that position is either pro-theocracy or incoherent.

[kwassa]

46. But which legal definition? Each state can have their own.

If they don't frame their arguments in terms of equality, but in definitional terms, then marriage can be legally defined as between a man and a woman and be entirely coherent.

[kiahzero]

47. There's a presumption of equality in the 14th Amendment

There's no way to argue against that presumption - arguing for the status quo - without incoherency or resorting to religious justifications.

[kwassa]

48. But does that presumption apply to same-sex marriage?

Playing devil's advocate once again....

If, definitional-ly, marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, then equality issues don't apply. There might not be a term for committed same-sex relationship, but it would be a different type of relationship, as recognized by law, and not be a marriage, and therefore not an equality issue.

[Finder]

49. Nothing in the Federal Constitution should be exclusive...

due to gender, race or religion-Period.

Marriage(civil)is not a right per se.IMO It is a contract between individuals.

The only change needed is the term "marriage" to be removed from legal documents. Let the churches call them that.

[kwassa]

50. well, there is what should be exclusive, and what is exclusive ...

and marriage is a contract between individuals that is regulated by the states, at this time.

[kiahzero]

52. State power is limited by the Constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause applies to the states.

[Finder]

53. Other than age...

there need be no other criteria, IMO.

[kwassa]

55. That's fine, you just have to get it through Congress.

[kiahzero]

51. Why would that be the case, definitionally?

The only coherent reason you would insist on that definition is religion.

[kwassa]

54. It simply could be an accepted social construct, a custom.

That construct designed for the support of the family structure and children and their needs. It serves a social purpose quite separate from religion, of creating societal stability.

[Finder]

56. But aren't you defining "family structure" and "societal stability"...

in narrow terms?

[kwassa]

57. yes, I am.

The point of this discussion, I think, is to see how being opposed to gay marriage is not necessarily proposing a theocracy.

[kiahzero]

59. It's proposing a de facto theocracy.

There's no way that someone would come to that argument unless they were trying to go backwards to justify their bigotry in non-religious terms.

[kwassa]

68. We will never agree on this point.

and the conversation has settled into a big circle. You have never attempted to look at my definitional argument and evaluate it, but continue to repeat equality assertions. I guess we are done.

[kiahzero]

70. I looked at your definitional "argument."

It's nonsensical - "Let's not change the definition to comply with the Constitution, because that would mean changing the definition."

[kwassa]

71. Where does the Constitution talk about marriage?

I'd sure like to see that.

[kiahzero]

72. Equal. Protection. Clause. (n/t)

[kwassa]

73. Again. Where does the Constitution talk about marriage?

It doesn't appear in the equal protection clause.

[kiahzero]

74. Wow.

You really don't get it, do you?

The Equal Protection Clause applies to the government's definition of marriage.

[kiahzero]

58. Tradition is not an acceptable argument.

Discrimination can not be justified by the mere point that discrimination has existed in the past and continues to exist. Like I said - there's no coherent argument against marriage equality that doesn't fall back to religion.

[Realityhack]

65. If there is one...

I would like to see it. It would be quite interesting to analize why I have not yet found it if one does exist.

I (like you) am open to being wrong but I agree in this case, I know of no justification for not alowing same sex marriage except for those working backward from religion or those that just admit they are religious.

Outside of religion the facts would seem to indicate it was good for society.

Good point about discrimination in the past not being a legitimate reason.

[Realityhack]

64. Bad BAD logic

You just went into republican waters. Your post implies that gay marriage would somehow be bad for society or for the family unit.

Care to show your research? Care to show us an example of an atheist who oposes gay marriage on these grounds?

Your seriously pushing it with this one.

[kwassa]

67. I think that is your inference, not my implication

My logic is just fine, thank you very much. Neither of you has shown the error in my argument.

I personally support gay marriage. What I disagree with is that being opposed to gay marriage is to propose a theocracy, a concept I frankly think is ludicrous.

[kiahzero]

69. Let's go through it again, then.

Premise a: A public policy instituted for religious reasons is theocratic.
Premise b: An incoherent argument for public policy made by a politically savvy individual is rhetorical cover for a coherent policy, or is nonsense.
Premise c: There does not exist a coherent argument against marriage equality that does not depend on religious reasons.
Premise d: A politically savvy individual who intentionally makes nonsensical arguments not covered by premise b is an idiot.
Premise e: Wallis is a politically savvy individual.

1) Premise c, restated: For all arguments against marriage equality, if they do not depend on religious reasons, they are incoherent.
2) By 1 and b, for all incoherent arguments against marriage equality, the arguments are nonsense or are cover.
3) By 2, d, and e, if Wallis is making incoherent arguments against marriage equality without have an ulterior argument, he is an idiot.
4) By 1 and 2, if an incoherent argument against marriage equality is rhetorical cover for a coherent argument, the coherent argument must depend on religious reasons.
5) By 4 and a, if an incoherent argument against marriage equality is rhetorical cover for a coherent argument, the person making the argument must be arguing in favor of a theocratic rule.
6) By 1, 3, and 5, anyone arguing against marriage equality is either than idiot or arguing for a theocratic rule.

[kwassa]

75. You lost me at premise A

"Premise a: A public policy instituted for religious reasons is theocratic."

But you have never proved that this public policy is for religious reasons only. You are misusing theocratic as well, as a theocracy desribes an entire system of government, not a singular policy. Theocratic relates to that system, which doesn't exist in this country.

but just for fun ....

"Premise b: An incoherent argument for public policy made by a politically savvy individual is rhetorical cover for a coherent policy, or is nonsense."

False again. You simply dismiss his argument by labeling it "incoherent". This is essentially a form of name-calling, and little else. You describe arguments you disagree with as "incoherent", when it is merely disagreement.

"Premise c: There does not exist a coherent argument against marriage equality that does not depend on religious reasons."

Yes there are, and I have offered them already.

"Premise d: A politically savvy individual who intentionally makes nonsensical arguments not covered by premise b is an idiot."

Really, really false. Someone can't be politically savvy and be an idiot. This is impossible on its face.

"Premise e: Wallis is a politically savvy individual."

The only premise I accept so far in this discussion.

[kiahzero]

77. You skipped some steps.

But you have never proved that this public policy is for religious reasons only. - This is like a reverse begging-the-question; the argument leads to the conclusion that the only arguments against marriage equality are for religious reasons.

You are misusing theocratic as well, as a theocracy desribes an entire system of government, not a singular policy. - No, a single policy can be theocratic, or democratic, or autocratic, or any number of other things. The government making policies on the basis of religion is theocracy.

False again. You simply dismiss his argument by labeling it "incoherent". This is essentially a form of name-calling, and little else. You describe arguments you disagree with as "incoherent", when it is merely disagreement.

No, incoherent arguments are arguments which lack consistency or are otherwise logically fallacious. This is the case for every non-religious argument against same sex marriage. Let's look at the argument's you've offered. The definitional argument is begging the question, so that's out. The argument from tradition is fallacious in that it neglects that the very purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to overturn traditional governmental practices which are nonetheless discriminatory. Did I miss another argument that you offered? I'll assume you'll fall back to the argument from biology - the argument that marriage is about procreation is critically flawed, because people who are no more biologically capable of getting pregnant than same-sex couples are legally allowed to get married, as are people who freely admit that they have no intention of having children, or even of having sex.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There does not exist a single coherent argument against marriage equality that does not depend on religious reasons. If one exists as you're claiming, it should be trivial to point it out. In three years of research both inside and outside of my classes, I've yet to find one, so good luck.

Yes there are, and I have offered them already.

No, you haven't. You've offered crappy "arguments" that lack consistency and are riddled with fallacious "reasoning."

Really, really false. Someone can't be politically savvy and be an idiot. This is impossible on its face.

This premise was added to account for the possibility that someone who would otherwise be characterized as "politically savvy" would make a nonsense argument without some ulterior motive. If you have a better word for that than "idiot," I'm all ears.

[Realityhack]

79. lets back up a little then.

The real argument is that being opposed to gay marriage is a religiously based position.

Now it could be that a person holds that position on some other grounds. Unfortunately I can not think of any reasonable grounds to hold that opinion on.

Therefore I have three options:

1. I didn't think of something. This is where I ask you to provide a reasonable non-religious argument so I know what I missed or at least point to some people who hold this belief on non-religious grounds.
So far I have not seen such an argument.
2. The person in question is just ignorant or stupid. It is entirely possible that their reason is not religious, but rather is simply nonsensical. (ex. 'Gays abuse children more frequently' is an ignorant statement but could be the basis of a secular opposition to gay rights). It should be noted that most nonsensical arguments are just dressing up an underlying religious issue so most do not belong here but rather in option 3.
IMO if this is the case I don't have any reason to respect the person putting the argument forth.
3. The person is (wither they admit it or not) opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds.

Now if #3 is the case then they are proposing a theocratic law. No, it doesn't mean every law is theocratic but they are trying to legislate morality plain and simple. I see no way around this conclusion IF #3 is true.

Now if you can provide something under #1 please do. I believe I stated my reason for rejecting the 'family unit' claim. In short it falls under #2 not #1.

Otherwise, operationally I must conclude either #2 or #3. Either way it makes me think the person is not someone I should trust.

[kwassa]

82. For an idea to be theocratic, it has to propose a theocracy.

Unless Wallis is proposing a theocracy, then to ascribe that view to him is essentially a slander, which is what is happening in this thread.

This concept of ideas as being theocratic, or democratic, or autocratic is nonsense unless the specific idea proposes those specific systems of government. The idea that they do otherwise is reminiscent of how various American critical thinkers have been accused of being socialists or communists in the past because ideas that they held were also ideas that happen to be held by socialists or communists. Ideas have many valid contexts, and theocratic has a very specific meaning. It's use here is attempt to perjure Wallis, and that is all.

If if the opposition to gay marriage is only religious in origin, it is still not a theocratic idea, because it does not also propose a theocratic system of government.

"The real argument is that being opposed to gay marriage is a religiously based position."

"Now it could be that a person holds that position on some other grounds. Unfortunately I can not think of any reasonable grounds to hold that opinion on."

Neither reasonablity, or coherence, are required in any political point of view, and are often not found. Tradition, culture, and simply one's personal old definition of what a marriage is, as being between a man and a woman, are enough for that opposition. Most people have cultural attitudes that are essentially inherited, and part of the source of that may come from a religion they no longer practice or even recognize, but it still informs their point of view. The concept that a marriage can between persons of the same sex is very new, and while I support it, I recognize the culture shock for people who have a very old way of thinking about marriage.

[kiahzero]

83. You're misstating my argument

I'm not saying Wallis is theocratic because a theocratic government would be against marriage equality and he's against marriage equality. I'm saying he's theocratic because he's using theocratic reasoning to support his position on marriage equality. Similarly, while Bush is not an autocrat, his reasoning about the unitary executive is certainly autocratic.

Tradition, culture, and simply one's personal old definition of what a marriage is, as being between a man and a woman, are enough for that opposition.

Wrong. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution may not be circumvented simply because of "tradition, culture, or simply one's personal old definitions." You're right that people's personal opinions can be irrational or incoherent, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about legal reasoning.

The concept that a marriage can between persons of the same sex is very new

This is wrong too. If you have access to the Virginia Law Review through JSTOR or something similar, check out Eskridge's article, "A History of Same-Sex Marriage."

[kwassa]

84. For reasoning to be theocratic, it has to be in support of a theocracy

not just in support of a religious point-of-view. That clearly doesn't exist here.

I said:
"Tradition, culture, and simply one's personal old definition of what a marriage is, as being between a man and a woman, are enough for that opposition."

you said:
"Wrong. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution may not be circumvented simply because of "tradition, culture, or simply one's personal old definitions." You're right that people's personal opinions can be irrational or incoherent, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about legal reasoning."

Oh we are, are we? news to me.

I understand perfectly well the rights you are discussing. Your "marriage equality" languaging is delightful, but means nothing if same-sex marriage doesn't even fall within the definition of a marriage. The real question is who gets to decide what the definition of a marriage is, and people vote at their state ballot boxes for what they believe it is. That is current law. There is no Federal definition of marriage, and will not be, until someone can successfully prevail on a Federal appeal that these different definitions of marriage do, in fact, fall under the Equal Protection clause or any other Federal law, and that ruling out same-sex marriage is discriminatory. You can endlessly assert that it does, but until the courts agree with you, you have nothing at all.

So, assert away!

[kiahzero]

85. Oh, please.

If I argue that abortion should be illegal because God says so, that's theocratic reasoning. If I argue that adulterers should be stoned because God says so, that's theocratic reasoning. If you are justifying public policy based solely on your religion, you're arguing for governmental policies to be dictated by your religion, which means you're arguing for de facto theocracy.

I understand perfectly well the rights you are discussing. Your "marriage equality" languaging is delightful, but means nothing if same-sex marriage doesn't even fall within the definition of a marriage. The real question is who gets to decide what the definition of a marriage is, and people vote at their state ballot boxes for what they believe it is. That is current law. There is no Federal definition of marriage, and will not be, until someone can successfully prevail on a Federal appeal that these different definitions of marriage do, in fact, fall under the Equal Protection clause or any other Federal law, and that ruling out same-sex marriage is discriminatory.

All law, state and federal, "falls under the Equal Protection Clause." Any federal discrimination on the basis of sex must pass the "intermediate scrutiny" test, which in practice means that such discrimination must be based on actual biological differences, not gender stereotypes. The only remotely relevant biological difference is the ability for a man-woman couple to procreate naturally, but marriage is not predicated upon ability to procreate, so there is no sound way to argue that this is why same-sex marriage is disallowed. I'm sorry if pointing out the incontrovertible fact that anyone against marriage equality is at least partly a sexist bigot upsets you, but maybe that's something you should learn to deal with.

As for your "argument" about people voting at ballot boxes for what marriage is, here's a few choice quotes for you:
"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities ... One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote." - Justice Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." - Chief Justice Warren, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

You seem to argue that until the Supreme Court issues a decision supporting an interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how clear the Constitution is on the matter, it's inappropriate to argue that the Constitution requires something. I cannot possibly disagree more strenuously. For instance, separate but equal was never consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, the Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson notwithstanding. There was no way to reconcile "anti-miscegenation" laws with the Equal Protection Clause, and anyone with an ounce of reasoning free of racism could tell you that, even before Loving v. Virginia.

You can endlessly assert that it does, but until the courts agree with you, you have nothing at all.

I have sound legal reasoning, unlike everyone, and I do mean everyone that has presented an argument against marriage equality so far. That's why the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment is so important to the fundies - they know their arguments are a fetid pile of shit.

[Realityhack]

63. Thats quite theoretical

Do you have any evidence that anyone holds a moral position on gay marriage outside of religion? Anyone?

What would the basis for such a bleif be? Why would the label used matter unless there was a religious reason?

[Ian David]

60. When I shook the Magic Wallis, it said "Ask again later." n/t

[Zhade]

62. Um, there is not a SINGLE member of DU who is NOT secular.

Unless you're telling me we have members who oppose the separation of church and state - which would mean they favor theocracy of some sort.

"Secular" does not equal "atheist". Our government is intended to be secular; that means it is to remain neutral on issues of religious belief.

Every believer here is also in support of secularism, per my recall. If you know any opposed to secularism, please do us a favor and point to where they've argued against the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

[Ian David]

16. I'm not calling him names.

The message I quoted called him a name.

Personally, I'm still undecided about him.

I find him relatively inoffensive, for the most part.

And yes, I understand about the fallacy of a false-dichotomy.

[trotsky]

24. You are speaking for me in this case, GM.

I have always gotten that feeling too. Justified or not, it's very strong.

[Zhade]

61. Except, of course, that a significant majority of Americans are pro-choice.

Including a great number who are personally anti-abortion for themselves.

I don't care that Wallis doesn't like abortion. I do care if he tries to ban it using his religion.

[grizmaster]

3. McGovern was right, Nixon was wrong

nuff said

[grasswire]

12. interestingly, I have turned away from Wallis in recent years, too

No one was more interested in his thoughts than I was, for some years. But like another poster below, there's something I can't quite put my finger on that has made me wary of him. Something just doesn't ring true. I thought his most recent book was a boring bunch of claptrap.

[greyl]

21. not quite benign enemy

Old post here

[Ian David]

27. Your post in that other thread makes the point perfectly

You should copy/paste it here in this thread for those too lazy to click here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=54316#54617

I'm going to bookmark it, because I don't need to re-invent the wheel. Your post is an absolute iron-clad summary of why Wallis sucks ass... but not as much as Falwell and his ilk.

[trotsky]

33. That Slate article greyl quotes is particularly illuminating. n/t

[Realityhack]

66. That was an exelet post. Thanks for calling our attention to it.

I appreciate your link.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Anyone who needs to use the word "secular" when describing the left has issues.

And he uses it a lot.

I always thought the left was secular by default.

Of course, to me, that's not a bad thing.


Wallis: :thumbsdown:

[Goblinmonger]

43. Good point

that is part of my problem. It sounds like a right-wing talking point. "Oh, that crazy secular left." Or "secular progressive" like our favorite fucking crazy windbag like to call us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. I don't think you're looking at what Wallis is really saying

He's not saying that everyone should have voted for Nixon. He's saying that the Dems were ineffective in countering Nixon's characterization of McGovern.

Personally, I have long maintained that the Dems began to lose ground when they pushed behavioral issues so far to the forefront that the economic issues were lost. I'm not saying that behavioral issues are bad, only that white working class and rural people could have accepted them more easily if they had been accompanied by more consideration for their economic needs.

I actually remember the election of 1972, and Nixon's victory was largely a function of people reeling from the incredibly rapid social changes--good social changes, but probably too rapid for the average person to process--and saying, "Slow down." Unless you were actually there, you cannot imagine how different the America of 1972 was from the America of 1964. I know it was terribly upsetting to nearly every older person I came in contact with.

I first encountered Jim Wallis and Sojourners over twenty years ago when he was advocating nuclear disarmament and an end to Reagan's interventions in Central America, along with justice for the poor and needy of America. It was in reading Sojourners that I learned about the connections between economic justice, environmentalism, and peace.

Is he against abortion? Yes, as a part of his "seamless" pro-life ethic, which also opposes war, capital punishment, and environmental degradation, but I honestly cannot recall him advocating the repeal of Roe v. Wade. On the whole, he seems willing to let personal behavior issues remain in the realm of personal responsibility and not try to legislate them.

Now as to his references to "the secular left," I think I've seen several examples on this thread, the Orwellian "atheism good, religion bad" type of response. I've also run into examples in real life, from the anti-interventionist twenty years ago who refused to attend a rally because representatives of the Catholic church would be speaking, to the biologist I met last year, someone who was (rightfully) crusading to keep creationism out of the schools, but who bristled and started ranting when I mentioned that the fundies had convinced their followers that religion and evolution were an either/or proposition.

"They DO have to choose between religion and evolution!" he snapped.

"That approach will never win them over, because they value their religion, and they won't accept anything that says they can't be religious."

"You're saying that being an atheist is a bad thing."

"No, I'm not. I'm just saying that you'll never win them over to accepting evolution if you use that approach."

"Well, that's too bad."

:eyes: Okay, if you'd rather have them accepting the view that dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't make it to Noah's ark, rather than being religious people who also accept evolution (the default position when I was a Midwestern teenager forty years ago), fine with me.

By allowing the right wing to be the only ones to use religious language, the left has given many people, especially those whose fundamentalist preachers preach a curiously censored version of the Bible, the notion that such things as peace, help for the poor, and equality are "Communist." This impression is only strengthened when leftists use academic-sounding language to justify their positions.

If Wallis and others use religious language to persuade people that peace, help for the poor, and equality are good things, where's the harm?

Also, it's easier to promote separation of church and state if you do thought experiments that understand where the other person is coming from. The example I use when someone wants school prayer "because most of the students are Christians anyway," is, "What if you moved to a town in Hawaii where Buddhists are in the majority? Would you want your child starting the school day with 'Hail to the Jewel in the Lotus'?"

It's a good way to start a discussion with a fundamentalist.

Many are reachable, especially if you start where they are. (The types who have a weird light in their eyes and who simply turn on the tape recorder in their brains are a lost cause.) But ignoring religious concerns or showing hostility to their beliefs is not the way to go. Economically, they should be allies of the left, but no matter what your personal worldview is, dissing their religious views is tantamount to dissing their very identity, and you will look like just one more condescending leftist.

[Realityhack]

80. Secular != Atheist

Rejecting secular government is rejecting the constitution, and it is most certainly NOT a democratic value.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Where does he reject secular government?

:shrug:

He's telling people that they don't have to be Republican to be Christian.