Ralph Reed to Jim Wallis: We've Disagreed Without Being Disagreeable
Reed's final entry in a dialogue with Jim Wallis on the question: "What should values voters value most?"
Jim, I’m glad we agree that faith-based organizations should not be discriminated against in the delivery of social services. They not only provide housing, education and job training, they provide what government alone cannot: hope, faith, and love. This change in public policy occurred because religious conservatives added the Charitable Choice provision to the 1996 welfare reform law, laying the groundwork for President Bush’s faith-based initiative.
I’m disappointed we disagree about welfare policy. Welfare reform was a strikingly bipartisan measure: 100 House Democrats and 25 Senate Democrats voted for it, and Bill Clinton signed it into law. There was a bipartisan consensus that welfare should promote work, family, and personal responsibility. On this issue at least, your disagreement is not with “Republican ideology,” as you put it, but with most Democrats.
Prior to the 1996 welfare reform law, the federal government paid people not to work, not to get married, and to bear children repeatedly out of wedlock. That policy was an abject failure. We spent $5.3 trillion on various federal anti-poverty programs, more in real dollars than we spent winning World War II. The result was that illegitimacy rates skyrocketed (67 percent of African-American births were out-of-wedlock), feeding a downward spiral of poverty.
As Brookings Institution senior fellow Ron Haskins documents in his new book, welfare reform has worked. Welfare caseloads plummeted, incomes have generally risen, and 60 percent of the women who left welfare found work. Teen birth rates have fallen. The poverty rate among African-Americans has fallen by about one-fourth, from 32.4 percent before welfare reform to 24.7 percent in 2004.
Religious conservative believe that as a matter of social justice, anti-poverty measures should be three-fold. First, encourage faith-based and charitable organizations on the front lines fighting poverty. Second, provide a safety net of assistance for those in need. Third, adopt tax and other policies that will lead to the creation of economic opportunity, jobs and wealth.
For that reason, religious conservatives support school choice, because they believe education is a civil right and it is wrong to trap the poor in schools where they cannot read, write, or dream the American dream. It is why they favor medical savings accounts that provide access to quality health care, 41 percent of which are utilized by families that previously lacked health insurance. It is also why we support President Bush’s minority home ownership initiative to help African-Americans, Hispanics, and others purchase their first home.
On fiscal policy, no one (I hope) claims that the Bible stipulates a certain marginal income tax rate. Here our disagreement is a matter of judgment about which policies best strengthen the economy and create jobs. The Bush administration’s tax and budget policies have created 5.3 million new jobs and lowered the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years. The economy has grown at a 4.2 percent rate in 2006, faster than any major industrialized nation in the world, and real wages after inflation are up 6 percent this year. The higher taxes and more spending liberals advocate may grow government, but they will not create more jobs or opportunity.
On Iraq, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Whatever our nation’s policies were in the 1980’s and 1990’s---and blame can be leveled at both parties when it comes to our past approach to terrorism---we need a plan for today. The liberal Democrat plan is to cut and run in Iraq. That policy would be disastrous. It would return Iraq to the safe haven for terrorists it was under Saddam Hussein and create a vacuum in the Middle East in a nation bordering Syria and Iran that would be filled by a terrorist regime hostile to human rights and democratic values.
Some liberals claim Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. But Osama bin Laden and the terrorists don’t agree. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s number two leader, has said that his goal is to use Iraq as a base of attacks against the U.S. and as the linchpin of a caliphate stretching from India to the Mediterranean Sea. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the bipartisan decision in 2003 to take military action against Saddam Hussein (or, like John Kerry and John Edwards, has held both views at different times), the loss of Iraq would be a severe setback in the war against terrorism. We will not be safer as a nation if Iraq falls into the hands of terrorists dedicated to our destruction.
I note you did not take issue with my point about innocent human life. If Democrats vote to fund the taking of human life with tax dollars, oppose the partial-birth abortion ban, and oppose qualified Supreme Court nominees simply to placate the abortion lobby that dominates the Democratic Party, they will continue to lose the votes of conservative people of faith, as well they should.
A quick word to respond to your comment on Israel. I support the peace process and the idea of two states living side by side in peace. But it is impossible to reach peace when the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority refuses to renounce terrorism, harbors terrorists who fire rockets on its neighbor, and just this past Friday declined to join any unity government that even recognizes the right of Israel to exist.
Jim, I’ve enjoyed our dialogue a great deal. We may disagree, but I trust that we have modeled an exchange of ideas that allows us to disagree without being disagreeable. And I believe that liberals and conservatives of faith can work together on issues that unite them, such as combating poverty, opposing racism and anti-Semitism, and improving education.
My prayer is that our exchange (and the broader dialogue it represents) advances a goal far greater than the fortunes of a political party. May it be a witness of the healing and redemptive power of faith in our individual lives and the life of our nation.
As Robert F. Kennedy said in speaking out against racial apartheid in the 1960’s, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and…those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” That is still true today, and it is a truth that is not confined to members of one party or adherents of one political philosophy. It is true for all men and women of faith, and indeed every member of the human family.
Jim, I’m glad we agree that faith-based organizations should not be discriminated against in the delivery of social services. They not only provide housing, education and job training, they provide what government alone cannot: hope, faith, and love. This change in public policy occurred because religious conservatives added the Charitable Choice provision to the 1996 welfare reform law, laying the groundwork for President Bush’s faith-based initiative.I’m disappointed we disagree about welfare policy. Welfare reform was a strikingly bipartisan measure: 100 House Democrats and 25 Senate Democrats voted for it, and Bill Clinton signed it into law. There was a bipartisan consensus that welfare should promote work, family, and personal responsibility. On this issue at least, your disagreement is not with “Republican ideology,” as you put it, but with most Democrats.
Prior to the 1996 welfare reform law, the federal government paid people not to work, not to get married, and to bear children repeatedly out of wedlock. That policy was an abject failure. We spent $5.3 trillion on various federal anti-poverty programs, more in real dollars than we spent winning World War II. The result was that illegitimacy rates skyrocketed (67 percent of African-American births were out-of-wedlock), feeding a downward spiral of poverty.
As Brookings Institution senior fellow Ron Haskins documents in his new book, welfare reform has worked. Welfare caseloads plummeted, incomes have generally risen, and 60 percent of the women who left welfare found work. Teen birth rates have fallen. The poverty rate among African-Americans has fallen by about one-fourth, from 32.4 percent before welfare reform to 24.7 percent in 2004.
Religious conservative believe that as a matter of social justice, anti-poverty measures should be three-fold. First, encourage faith-based and charitable organizations on the front lines fighting poverty. Second, provide a safety net of assistance for those in need. Third, adopt tax and other policies that will lead to the creation of economic opportunity, jobs and wealth.
For that reason, religious conservatives support school choice, because they believe education is a civil right and it is wrong to trap the poor in schools where they cannot read, write, or dream the American dream. It is why they favor medical savings accounts that provide access to quality health care, 41 percent of which are utilized by families that previously lacked health insurance. It is also why we support President Bush’s minority home ownership initiative to help African-Americans, Hispanics, and others purchase their first home.
On fiscal policy, no one (I hope) claims that the Bible stipulates a certain marginal income tax rate. Here our disagreement is a matter of judgment about which policies best strengthen the economy and create jobs. The Bush administration’s tax and budget policies have created 5.3 million new jobs and lowered the unemployment rate to 4.7 percent, the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years. The economy has grown at a 4.2 percent rate in 2006, faster than any major industrialized nation in the world, and real wages after inflation are up 6 percent this year. The higher taxes and more spending liberals advocate may grow government, but they will not create more jobs or opportunity.
On Iraq, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Whatever our nation’s policies were in the 1980’s and 1990’s---and blame can be leveled at both parties when it comes to our past approach to terrorism---we need a plan for today. The liberal Democrat plan is to cut and run in Iraq. That policy would be disastrous. It would return Iraq to the safe haven for terrorists it was under Saddam Hussein and create a vacuum in the Middle East in a nation bordering Syria and Iran that would be filled by a terrorist regime hostile to human rights and democratic values.
Some liberals claim Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. But Osama bin Laden and the terrorists don’t agree. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s number two leader, has said that his goal is to use Iraq as a base of attacks against the U.S. and as the linchpin of a caliphate stretching from India to the Mediterranean Sea. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the bipartisan decision in 2003 to take military action against Saddam Hussein (or, like John Kerry and John Edwards, has held both views at different times), the loss of Iraq would be a severe setback in the war against terrorism. We will not be safer as a nation if Iraq falls into the hands of terrorists dedicated to our destruction.
I note you did not take issue with my point about innocent human life. If Democrats vote to fund the taking of human life with tax dollars, oppose the partial-birth abortion ban, and oppose qualified Supreme Court nominees simply to placate the abortion lobby that dominates the Democratic Party, they will continue to lose the votes of conservative people of faith, as well they should.
A quick word to respond to your comment on Israel. I support the peace process and the idea of two states living side by side in peace. But it is impossible to reach peace when the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority refuses to renounce terrorism, harbors terrorists who fire rockets on its neighbor, and just this past Friday declined to join any unity government that even recognizes the right of Israel to exist.
Jim, I’ve enjoyed our dialogue a great deal. We may disagree, but I trust that we have modeled an exchange of ideas that allows us to disagree without being disagreeable. And I believe that liberals and conservatives of faith can work together on issues that unite them, such as combating poverty, opposing racism and anti-Semitism, and improving education.
My prayer is that our exchange (and the broader dialogue it represents) advances a goal far greater than the fortunes of a political party. May it be a witness of the healing and redemptive power of faith in our individual lives and the life of our nation.
As Robert F. Kennedy said in speaking out against racial apartheid in the 1960’s, “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and…those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” That is still true today, and it is a truth that is not confined to members of one party or adherents of one political philosophy. It is true for all men and women of faith, and indeed every member of the human family.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Dear Mr. Reed:
Rev. Wallis may not have disagreed with you about your opinion on eliminating safe, legal, and accessible abortion services, but millions of people of faith do. We affirm the moral agency of women to make their own decisions faced with an unplanned pregnancy and the right of committed loving couples to the benefits of marriage. In the search for common ground, we'd be delighted to have you join us in working to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies: can we count on you to support sexuality education based on truth telling and family planning services?
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
read by blog at ">http://debrahahaffner.blogspot.com>
Posted by: Rev. Debra W. Haffner | September 25, 2006 5:26 PM
Ralph Reed's doubletalk about terrorism and Iraq is just a recycling of the lies told by the Bush administration to push America into this immoral war.
The Bush administration should be removed from power before they unilaterally attack Iran on false pretenses and engage America in another war of choice.
The Bush administration has betrayed America's trust with their treasonous actions.
Bush and his cohorts will eventually be tried by the International Tribunal for War Crimes.
They will also face the judgment of history and the Lord God Almighty for their crimes.
And the Christian Right should do some serious soul searching for their role in promoting these crimes against humanity.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 25, 2006 5:51 PM
Me thinks Deb Haffner is getting paid to post comments.
"The Bush administration should be removed from power before they unilaterally attack Iran on false pretenses and engage America in another war of choice."
Huh?>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 25, 2006 6:07 PM
Don't be silly, Kevin.
Reverend Happner is trying to reach out to Ralph Reed.
She had nothing to do with my post about Ralph Reed's doubletalk on terrorism and Bush's war crimes.
Mark my words, Kevin, Bush is a warmonger.
He is threatening Iran now and will strike if we don't stop him.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 25, 2006 6:17 PM
Sounds like many Methodists (Bush's own church) and other Christian groups agree that we need to leave Iraq. The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and numerous other Christians have been against this war from the beginning. Why not you Ralph Reed? Where has the Religious Right been?
There is a huge difference between working for just policies and providing charity. The Children's Defense Fund led by Marian Wright Edelman (a person of profound and articulate voice for children in poverty) says that 1.3 million Children have fallen into poverty since 2000.
Marian Wright Edelman herself says,
Poor families and children are being left behind as the benefits of a steadily growing economy fail to trickle down. The persistently high level of child poverty and lack of health coverage for children reflects conscious and misguided political choices, She continues, How can the Bush Administration and Congressional leaders give enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans who have benefited most from the economic recovery while threatening to cut funding for Medicaid, Food Stamps and other programs that assist poor children who continue to be left behind? What kind of country are we that we can t seem to figure out a way to provide health care coverage to our children who represent our future?
This country is in deep need of change not more of the same.>
Posted by: Will | September 25, 2006 6:20 PM
Bush is a warmonger
" I m a war president, declared George W. Bush...
">http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6807/680705.html>
Posted by: D4P | September 25, 2006 6:22 PM
Apologies to Reverend Haffner for the misspelling of her name.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 25, 2006 6:32 PM
You are a war president if you are a president during war time, but I think you are being tongue-in-cheek.
Bush is actively pursuing diplomacy in Iran. If we had averted action in Iraq, and failed to follow through on our threats to Saddam for all these years, do you think any attempt at diplomacy in Iran would be successful?
If Iran is on the precipice of having a nuclear bomb (and no credible person believes that they are not pursuing that end) then we will go to war, President Bush or no President Bush.
The American people are not going to support inaction in the face of a serious military threat.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 25, 2006 6:33 PM
Mr. Reed,
I am very grateful for the quote from Robert F. Kennedy (a Democrat btw).
Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
Reminds me of a recent song by Dar Williams called echoes.
"Every time you love just a little
Take one step closer, solving a riddle
It echoes all over the world
Every time you opt in to kindness
Make one connection, used to divide us
It echoes all over the world
Every time you choose one more morning
Goodness or meanness, life has one warning
It echoes all over the world
When a leader gets the hungry fed food
When you just make love inside your bedroom
It echoes all over the world">
Posted by: Will | September 25, 2006 6:33 PM
Civilised debate, yes.
But Ralph Reed seems concerned primarily to score partisan points for the Republican Party (look at all the references he makes to one party or the other) whereas a fruitful debate would be primarily about what God wants, irrespective of party labels.
Mark>
Posted by: Mark | September 25, 2006 6:41 PM
I agree with Mark. "Political" debates involving Christians focus entirely too much on political parties, and such and entirely too little on what the Bible says.>
Posted by: D4P | September 25, 2006 6:56 PM
Kevin says:
You are a war president if you are a president during war time, but I think you are being tongue-in-cheek.
And you are a warmonger if you take your country to war on false pretenses.
I'm not saying this with tongue in cheek, either.
Bush's buildup to his invasion of Iraq was characterized by insincere and treacherous gestures at diplomacy covering his prior (prior to 9/11, as has been proven) decision to invade.
The Bush "diplomacy" you are seeing now is just a rerun of his Iraq charade.
Bush has already decided to attack Iran.
His threatening actions (he has sent another carrier battlegroup to the Gulf) demonstrate his intentions.
His threatening public statements are intended to provoke Iran's leaders into an escalating war of words and military conflict in the Gulf.
Warmongers don't employ diplomacy, they use threats.
I see no attempt on Bush's part to engage in good faith diplomacy to resolve this issue.
Last week Bush shunned Iraq's prime minister at the UN.
If you set aside deceptive statements from the Bush administration and seek out the facts, you will discover that Iran's nuclear threat is a mirage, just like Iraq's so-called WMD threat turned out to be.
Don't be duped again, Kevin.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 25, 2006 7:07 PM
Question: Would other countries be justified in attacking the US because we have WMD?>
Posted by: D4P | September 25, 2006 7:18 PM
He is threatening Iran now and will strike if we don't stop him.
justinintime,
If Bush attacking Iran turns out to be the "October Surprise"...mark my words...it's people like Kevin S., Ralph Reed, etc that will "act" surprised.>
Posted by: MNW | September 25, 2006 7:21 PM
Yes, I believe Mark is right. Mr. Reed's comments embrace republican rhetoric and do not focus on creating a religious discussion. Those were political arguments that I saw!>
Posted by: Terri | September 25, 2006 7:22 PM
But Ralph Reed seems concerned primarily to score partisan points for the Republican Party (look at all the references he makes to one party or the other) whereas a fruitful debate would be primarily about what God wants, irrespective of party labels.
Hear, here, Mark! Hear, here!>
Posted by: MNW | September 25, 2006 7:23 PM
It is true that the two principals have written on whilly different bases - Jim Wallis on Christian bases and Ralph Reed on political bases. So this has to be viewed as a failed dialogue.
Reed can't bring himself to admit the mistake of Iraq. But the National Intelligence Estimate says that the Iraq War created more terrorism than it eliminated. And the death toll now shows more Americans victims of Bush's wars than died at the World Trade Center.
The Administration has long admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Evidence shows that Husseim and bin Laden were bitter enemies. But the Administration never let the truth get in the way of its policies, and Reed backs their lies to the end.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | September 25, 2006 7:31 PM
To me, one of the primary problems with political parties is that party allegiance almost inevitably encourages one to support policies and/or behaviors that one wouldn't support if one wasn't allegiant to that party.
You can bet that if the president were currently a Democrat, but everything else in the world was exactly the same, Republicans (and the Religious Right) would be much less supportive of that Democrat than they are of Bush. Among other things, they would be complaining about the budget deficits and fiscal irresponsibility that has created them (remember the 1996 Contract with America and the balanced budget amendment?). They might even (ghasp!) be critical of the war on Iraq, and the level of safety (or lack thereof) that our country is currently experiencing. We would also hear a lot more about Bin Laden, and the apparent lack of interest in his capture.>
Posted by: D4P | September 25, 2006 7:42 PM
D4P,
They would be if we invaded Canada, tortured members of a minority group to death, refused to disclose the nature of our weapons stockpile, or provide evidence that we were not providing those weapons to suspected terrorists.
But, since none of those are true, no.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 25, 2006 7:46 PM
"You can bet that if the president were currently a Democrat, but everything else in the world was exactly the same, Republicans (and the Religious Right) would be much less supportive of that Democrat than they are of Bush."
Probably, to an extent. My guess is that we would have invaded Iraq either way, and that Republicans would be very critical of hate mistakes that were made. Of course, the opposite would be true for Democrats, wouldn't you agree?>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 25, 2006 7:49 PM
My guess is that we would have invaded Iraq either way
I'm not sure I agree with that. If 9/11 hadn't happened, I think even Bush would have had a hard time justifying a war on Iraq. Given 9/11, I don't think it's at all inevitable that ANY president, Republican or Democrat, would have responded by invading Iraq. Some would have responded in other ways.
Of course, the opposite would be true for Democrats, wouldn't you agree?
Yes, that seems to be the nature of party allegiance, and one reason why I don't identify with a party. It increases bias and reduces objectivity, making one too aware of the other party's faults and too blind to your own.>
Posted by: D4P | September 25, 2006 7:56 PM
Of course, the opposite would be true for Democrats, wouldn't you agree?
I disagree.
There's plenty of judgment and condemnation of the Democratic party (infrastructure and "leaders") by Democrats (the people). This exists to a degree within the Republican party, but it is miniscule compared to the Democratic party.>
Posted by: MNW | September 25, 2006 8:23 PM
Ralph Reed on poverty:
Religious conservative[s] believe that as a matter of social justice, anti-poverty measures should be three-fold. First, encourage faith-based and charitable organizations on the front lines fighting poverty. Second, provide a safety net of assistance for those in need. Third, adopt tax and other policies that will lead to the creation of economic opportunity, jobs and wealth.
Talk is cheap, Ralph, but here's the reality:
The Bush administration's funding for faith based poverty programs is a pittance compared to Bush's cuts to social programs in America.
This has resulted in an enormous gap in the social safety net you speak of.
The facts are that poverty in America has exploded under the "conservative" ideology of the Bush administration.
Tax policy under Bush is a disaster for the middle class and the poor.
Tax cuts for the very wealthy do not produce living wage jobs for Americans who want to work.
Tax cuts for the wealthy only increase the unhealthy concentration of wealth in the hands of few Americans.
So called "free trade" policy has devastated America's manufacturing base while corporations exploit cheap off shore sweatshop labor and evade paying US taxes.
Tell us about the Marianas Islands experiment in the "American Way", Ralph.
"Free trade" is an enormous bipartisan mistake and something must be done about it.
But corporate corruption of our government prevents this.
How about a little of your wisdom on Christianity and corruption in government, Ralph?
America is on it's back with its throat exposed to China.
This is not conservative policy.
This is corporate feudalism.
Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave.
Talk is cheap.
Actions speak louder than words.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 25, 2006 8:49 PM
Did anyone else's head explode like mine did after the third paragraph of Reed's retort, FOOSH?!
Everyday people seem to get it, why can't the politicians? I don't care if you're Ralph Reed or H. Clinton nobody but the politicians and their minions want to hear a bunch of stats and bills that come from a broken system. Debate always devolves into this. That's not the meaning of this movement. You can't read off some voting record history from Congress and then dress it up by interspersing anachronistic ideology.>
Posted by: Frank | September 25, 2006 9:00 PM
FYI: Jim Wallis has posted a response.>
Posted by: D4P | September 25, 2006 9:01 PM
Ralph Reed, is so full of himself, I'm surprised he and Bush weren't raised by the same parents! His problems dealing with corruption that cost him his seat in power, obviously affect his thinking like they do most of Bush's billionaire's club of support. It is easy to see why he is no longer on the stage of Georgia's political scene. His thinking follows the same pattern of the 30-35% of Bush supporters, and is too far removed from the vast 65-70% majority of American thinking!
He talks about economic growth and low unemployment like that is all there is to staying afloat in this country. But never once mentioned the 30 million who don't even receive a living wage while inflation decreases their standard of living year after year and they sink lower and lower into poverty, while earning the minimum wage.
He failed to remember that while the average income earned by the top 20% of Americans went up over 500% since 1979, the average income earned by the bottom 20% went down by 10%.
My girlfriend who does a job most wouldn't want, caring for the elderly and infirmed at a retirement center where she has to clean up their elimination messes and give them showers, just received the highest marks possible in her annual review. Her raise was twice what everyone else usually gets! So how much do you think her dedication and superior performance earned her? A 5% or 10% or maybe a 15% raise perhaps?
How about a whopping "4%" raise. And that was twice what almost everyone else got! Imagine that... inflation is around 5%, and she earned a 4% raise for superior performance! Her co-workers will have to survive on only 2%.
So guess where there standard of living is heading... SOUTH, HUH? And guess where some will end up after another year or two of those sorts of raises? To the welfare office probably! For Food Stamps or any other assistance they can qualify for.
WHY? Because since Republicans have made it so unfriendly for unions, workers have no bargaining power to ensure they can earn a fair and living wage anymore! It's the old tale of the Rich get Richer while the Poor get Poorer, isn't it?
How many years would it take before you gave up, when you saw your standard of living going DOWN year after year, because your wages were buying you less and less, year after year as inflation went up faster than your salary?
So what did Republicans do this year when they had an opportunity to make a significant impact on the 11 yr stagnation of the minimum wage? They attached it to a bill that Democrats couldn't support, that would have virtually eliminated the estate tax for their wealthiest contributors, so they could hopefully pass on their mega-billion dollar estates to their spoiled kids without losing a dime!
They chose to think about the 3-8,000 rich families that would affect each year, rather than helping the 30 million Americans earning substandard wages.
That speaks volumes about why we need Democratic leadership once again in America! So our national priorities will benefit the majority, not the minority!>
Posted by: Rod Livdahl | September 25, 2006 11:37 PM
Rod tells it like it is.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 26, 2006 12:03 AM
Amen, justintime...
Rod tells it like it is.
Tell it, Rod, witness!!!>
Posted by: MNW | September 26, 2006 1:26 AM
Yeah, unions are the solution to everything. Just look at teachers and auto workers.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 26, 2006 1:37 AM
Kevin didn't hear a word I said in our civil discourse on America's public school system.
Talk to your talented educator friends, Kevin, before you spout off on education again.
And Kevin doesn't understand that the reason why the Japanese ate Detroit's lunch is not because of unions.
Face it Kevin, those bright MBA Republican CEO's that are pulling down the big bucks can't lead, they're too busy playing golf and chumming around with each other.
The Japanese own the automobile industry because these clowns went to sleep on the job.
And they're paying themselves obscene salaries, stock options and golden parachutes.
Many of them are involved in corrupting our government, too.
We need real leaders at the top of our base manufacturing industries.
But the business schools are turning out greedy bean counters that don't know squat about manufacturing and don't look beyond their quarterly reports.
So don't talk down unions, Kevin.
You don't listen and you don't know what you're talking about.
And I don't even need you to tell me what you do for a living.
I can guess.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 26, 2006 2:46 AM
Justintime is half right and ahlf wrong.
Yes, the leaders of the traditional "Big Three" have been mediocre leaders.
And the leaders of the UAW have themselves had their heads stuck in the sand for nearly 30 years.
In Detroit, there's no shortage of blame to go around.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 26, 2006 4:26 AM
Bill Samuel put it succinctly that this really wasn't a dialogue between Reed and Wallis.
It was interesting to read the altered talking points of the religious right via Reed, but it did read mainly as post-hoc varnishing of the Pub's record.
dlw>
Posted by: dlw | September 26, 2006 4:54 AM
Wolverine says:
Justintime is half right and ahlf wrong.
Yes, the leaders of the traditional "Big Three" have been mediocre leaders.
And the leaders of the UAW have themselves had their heads stuck in the sand for nearly 30 years.
In Detroit, there's no shortage of blame to go around.
I agree, we have mediocre leaders everywhere.
Do you live around Detroit?
Why do you say UAW bigshots have had their heads stuck in the sand for 30 Years?
Because they won't back down on wages and benefits?
I think there are other factors affecting Detroit's ability to compete with Japanese automakers.
1. Detroit captains of industry have not been interested so much in what Americans really need in a car.
Up till recently they have pushed big ugly greedy vehicles to American consumers because there's more profit per unit.
But those days are over.
Japanese have given some thought to what Americans really need.
That's why I've owned Hondas and Toyotas for the last 2 million miles.
I'm way ahead of where I would have been if I'd been buying Detroit iron.
That's why Japan owns the automobile industry.
Did you know that China has 200,000 hybrid cars on the road?
They have much higher pollution standards than America.
Detroit automakers and Republican politicians have fought air quality standards tooth and nail for 30 years.
2. Our insane trade policy.
We don't protect our manufacturing base.
We just watch it go offshore.
3. Our dysfunctional health care system.
This is why Detroit makes cars in Canada.
Canadians have national health care.
I read that $1,700 of each American made vehicle cost is health care benefits.
You can only cut wages and benefits so much.
Detroit needs creative competent management more than anything .
Then a sensible trade policy and after that a functional national health care system.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 26, 2006 6:01 AM
I would like to thank Kevin S. and Wolverine for their comments. It is good to hear points from someone with whom I disagree. Thank you again for posting and being willing to forgive us "liberals" for our sometimes judgemental attitudes and retorts. I am glad that the debate continues...even if I still find myself on the Left-leaning side of the fence. :)
M.>
Posted by: M. A. Robison | September 26, 2006 6:19 AM
...and HAC, and all the other righties that weighed in on these discussions.
You give as good as you get.
I learned some things and I even changed my mind a few times.
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 26, 2006 7:13 AM
Bush isn't a 'war president'; he is a war-mongering "president".>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 26, 2006 4:26 PM
And he'll go down in history as the worst president America has ever had to endure.
I pray that Bush and his cronies will be impeached, indicted and convicted of treason and war crimes.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT:
In my opinion, these criminal conspirators deserve special treatment.
I d rather see them all exiled to an isolated, maximum security, deepwater oil platform a 21st century Elba, if you will.
Physical access to and from Elba 21 will be strictly controlled no visitors allowed.
Replenishment of food and expendables accomplished by airdrop.
Warmongers and profiteers, psychopaths, swindlers and thieves, corporate crooks, crooked Christians, crooked politicians and media whores -
All will live out their lives together as citizens of Elba 21.
The citizens of Elba will be issued weapons for their own self defense.
And Elba 21 citizens will be unsupervised.
Everything will be deregulated and physical intervention from outside not allowed.
Real time monitoring of life on Elba 21, in every detail, will be streamed out over the Elba 21 website made accessible to all Americans.
All information coming from outside will be either censored or fabricated.
However, inside Elba 21 will be the appearance of a perfect Libertarian society - which has never been achieved before in the real world.
Maybe we can learn something from this nightmare.
I can dream can't I?
.>
Posted by: justintime | September 26, 2006 4:58 PM
I have to take issue with Reed's comments about school choice. He stated that Conservatives support school choice because conservatives "believe education is a civil right and it is wrong to trap the poor in schools where they cannot read, write, or dream the American dream."
Mr. Reed, ALL people, not just conservatives, believe that education is a civil right. We ALL also agree that we should not trap the poor into bad schools. The issue is how we fix it.
Allowing anyone to choose which school they attend soon leaves us with two types of schools: one for the rich, and one for the poor. Those who can afford to travel across towns or counties to better schools will get to do so. Those who can't, won't. Soon we'll have a country full of schools for the haves and schools for the have-nots. Perhaps we should attempt to fix those schools that are "bad" instead of cutting and running from them. Hey, I thought conservatives were against "cutting and running.">
Posted by: Swaz46 | September 26, 2006 7:41 PM
i am amazed that this is a place of discussion connected with "christianity". i find nothing on this site that is "christ like". Jesus refused to be drawn into politics yet the entirety of the christian left appears to be to establish an additional place to bang the liberal drum and pretend to be christian in the process.
ye shall know them by their fruits. yet we see the following:
it appears that the christian left supports the slaughter of innocent life in exchange for the convencience of the mother when Jesus said it would be better for someone to have a millstone tied around their neck and be cast into the sea rather than harm one of these little ones.
Homosexuality is a scriptural abomination and also is warned that homosexuals will reap in their own bodies their just rewards. yet the christian left believes we should validate the homosexual lifestyle by granting equal rights to them.
if the christian left organizations would publicly state their positions, we could debate many other issues but,
as it turns out, the christian left appears to be nothing more than the religious left. anybody can be religious. even jihadists are religious.>
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2006 9:47 PM
Anonymous,
I'm disappointed that you didn't leave your name or username on that post. I think most of us here would appreciate you granting us the dignity to identify yourself.
As to your comment, it is obvious that lying is a scriptural abomination as well. So is not honoring your father and mother. So is being greedy and wanting what others have. Yet we grant equal rights to people who lie, who do terrible things to their parents, and who are greedy constantly. Even if homosexuality is a sin (and I don't think homosexual orientation is; I think homosexual behavior is), are you saying that this sin is worse than the others and should be discriminated as such? I'm not sure that's scriptural either.
Thanks for being a part of the discussion. You are our brother/sister in Christ, and I appreciate your input on this board. Having this discussion is good for all of us.
Swaz46>
Posted by: Swaz46 | September 26, 2006 10:14 PM
"and I don't think homosexual orientation is; I think homosexual behavior is"
Good clarification. I don't blame them for not including their personal info. Read the vehement attacks on conservative Christians in the other discussions. There's a whole lot more hate there than what we're being accused of...>
Posted by: HAC | September 27, 2006 2:21 AM
Swaz46: "and I don't think homosexual orientation is; I think homosexual behavior is"
HAC: Good clarification
Good clarification? There's absolutely nothing clear about it.
Can one of you please explain, specifically, what is "homosexual behavior"?>
Posted by: MNW | September 27, 2006 5:37 AM
There's a whole lot more hate there than what we're being accused of...
I couldn't agree more.
There's a helluvalot more hate there, than what you're being accused of.>
Posted by: MNW | September 27, 2006 5:39 AM
what is "homosexual behavior"?
Any sexual behavior between 2 people of the same sex or lustful thoughts to that extent.>
Posted by: HAC | September 27, 2006 6:10 AM
Any sexual behavior between 2 people of the same sex or lustful thoughts to that extent.
HAC, is that your definition of "sin" or is that from your book? For the life of me, I can't find that defined that way in your book, so I must assume that it's your very own definition of "sin" and no one elses.>
Posted by: MNW | September 27, 2006 4:26 PM
Anonymous is often found later to be HAC, and I strongly feel that is the cse in this instance.
"Homosexuality is a scriptural abomination"
Wrong again. Even Anonymous (well, other 'versions' of Anonymous) can and does differentiate between homosexuality and the homosexual acts that are 'condemned' in Scripture (namely homosexual rape, lust and cult/temple prostitution).
And you continualy fail to address why there are no protests at Red Lobster since eating shrimp etc, is clearly, unequivocally called an "abomination" too.
"yet the christian left believes we should validate the homosexual lifestyle by granting equal rights to them."
You cannot grant equal rights to a "lifestyle", only to people who are living their lives.
That you continually reduce us to mere acts or seek to diminish gay PEOPLE to mere "lifestyles" tells us a lot about your lack of Christian charity.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 27, 2006 5:00 PM
"Homosexuality is a scriptural abomination"
I don't know where that was posted. I most likely did not write it, since I always capitalize "Scripture." Every time I've realized that I didn't use a name (except one or two posts awhile ago when I started posting here) I've corrected it, so I don't think that was me.
Regardless, I agree with that statement as it stands.>
Posted by: HAC | September 27, 2006 8:22 PM
"Homosexuality is a scriptural abomination"
I don't know where that was posted."
Geez, HAC, can't you (or don't you) READ???
Check out the posting from: Anonymous | 09.26.06 - 3:52 pm
"I agree with that statement as it stands."
Well you would. But you seem to ignore the fact that eating shellfish is also a Scriptural "abomination".>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 27, 2006 9:15 PM
HAC,
"Read the vehement attacks on conservative Christians in the other discussions"
Well try this on for 'vehement attacks', from Andrew Sullivan's blog...
At the Family Research Council/Focus on the Family/American Family Association "Values Voters" summit,
"[I] watched a ballroom of about 1,700 people seem to feel permission to let their hate for The Gays run wild every time a black minister hit the stage. (I have my own copy of the very popular brochure, "The Rape of the Civil Rights Movement: How Sodomites Are Using Civil Rights Rhetoric To Advance Their Preference For Sexual Perversion.")"
"Man-on-dog" Santorum is among them"
Hmm, now we're responsible for the "rape" of the Civil Rights movement!!! Funny, and here I thought we were in the middle of it.
"Sodomites" I assume is referring solely to homosexual men. Funny how some (quite a lot, apparently) very heterosexual couples participate in it too. How come THEY'RE not forbidden from marrying?
"Man-on-dog"???
And you think WE gays are not 'vehemently attacked'? Get real.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 27, 2006 9:23 PM
I am surprised that no one has commented on Reed's reference to "60 percent of the women who left welfare found work." What happened to the other 40% who left welfare? Out on the street?
I also want to comment on the nature of some of the posts. The whole idea behind God's Politics and much of what Sojourners has been trying to do in recent years has been to spark civil dialogue and put aside uncivil dialogue. As Christians we much remember that "our enemy is not flesh and blood"...not the person with who we are dialoguing. We must maintain respect for the people with whom we are disagreeing. That is sometimes difficult, but I think Jesus would have no other way.>
Posted by: Paul | September 28, 2006 4:03 AM
I see it now. I tried a word search... must have missed it somehow... No, I didn't write that post.>
Posted by: HAC | September 28, 2006 4:08 AM
Reed said "On Iraq, we re going to have to agree to disagree. Whatever our nation s policies were in the 1980 s and 1990 s---and blame can be leveled at both parties when it comes to our past approach to terrorism---we need a plan for today. The liberal Democrat plan is to cut and run in Iraq. That policy would be disastrous. It would return Iraq to the safe haven for terrorists it was under Saddam Hussein and create a vacuum in the Middle East in a nation bordering Syria and Iran that would be filled by a terrorist regime hostile to human rights and democratic values."
I think it is interesting that Reed does not approach his political opinions from a Christian or Biblical viewpoint. In fact, his whole argument is based on -- what he thinks will happen if the US ends our war of agression in Iraq. So he is a prophet now? There are so many of them out there, in TV Land, but none of these prophets even claim that God has told them this. So where do they get the authority? There are no facts, nor even opinions of generals with vast experience in wartime and certainly no references to Christ or Christian teaching. He thinks he is giving the rest of us an example of Christian discourse? Maybe he should read a little Thomas Acquinas, or the Bible?
Personally, I do not choose to agree to disagree. Reed's position on the war is wrong, and I can prove it. It is wrong from a military standpoint--many experienced generals have protested continuing the war publicly, including Colin Powell now, then retired; it is wrong from a political standpoint--in The End of Iraq, conservative Iraq expert Peter Galbraith bemoans the invasion and predicts the breakup into three separate countries, but they would probably revert to tribalism as is their custom, not dictatorships, and not jihadists--of course, he may be wrong as well, but he is an expert!; but, most important for us, it is wrong from a Christian viewpoint. Jesus never supported violence or war. In fact, violence is what killed him. We, of all people, should abhore wars in general, but especially this war. It is beyond me how any Christian can support this war. There is nothing in the Bible to support it. And they say they believe the Bible is the 'inerrant' word of God. They don't have canon law.
It appears they would rather trust Luther, Calvin, and Augustine (and George Bush), than the clear and unambiguous words of the Master they say they follow ("Love your enemies"). Reed doesn't even mention Christ at all in his discussion. It is clear where his thinking lies. How can Christians have been so deceived by this one?
Reed does not know what would happen if we leave Iraq. No one does. The Bushies certainly were wrong about what would happen when we invaded. Why should anyone continue to trust them?
Still, like Christ, we remember that our fellow-Christians are in a trance these days and cannot really be held accountable for their thinking. We must pray for them, as Christ told us to, and also for the Iraqis, the Iranians and the Afghans. Maybe if we modeled loving our 'terrorist' enemies the other Christians would begin to understand why. They do not view the bad guys as humans. If we love them, we re-humanize them. So instead of talking about war tactics and military strategies, we need to once again redirect the conversation to correct Christian behavior in all circumstances. After all, this is what Jesus told us to do. He didn't tell us to organize, to scream, to debate. He told us to love. Until we have done that, we should be quiet.>
Posted by: Cynthia Adams | September 28, 2006 9:05 AM
Reed does not know what would happen if we leave Iraq. No one does.
While I do not know for sure what will happen when we do leave Iraq, I'm inclined to believe as Peter Galbraith believes...that three sovereign states will be formed....Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.
I think if the Bush Administration had known what they were getting themselves into (which a basic, elementary understanding of the history of Iraq as well as Islam would have exposed) they should have planned for the aftermath of their war. It seems to me that had they planned and intently created three sovereign states possibly united as one Iraq to begin with, the country would be faring much better. As it is, there was no planning whatsoever, and we see the results of that empty-headedness.>
Posted by: MNW | September 28, 2006 9:12 PM
On welfare issues:
I'd recommend a nice little book by Larry Mead and Mary Jo Bane called something like "Faith, Poverty, and Welfare Reform". I wrote a review of it for the journal Faith and Economics. Mead is conservative, Bane is liberal, and both are Christians who come to remarkably similar conclusions about welfare reform - basically that work is a good idea, as long as there is a safety net for those unable to work. Both of them support the (in my opinion) best poverty program out there: the Earned Income Tax Credit, which supplements income for low-income workers by giving them extra tax refunds.
This is in stark contrast to minimum wage laws, which affect only low-wage workers (most of whom are not in poor families). I'm always frustrated with the assumption that supporting the poor means supporting increases in the minimum wage - it's a fairly blunt tool for trying to help the working poor. Not only that, but if you raise it enough, you can price lower-skilled people out of the market entirely, i.e. they don't have the skills to produce output worth the wage.
The notion that people who oppose some social programs/priorities like the minimum wage are "anti-poor" is frustrating for someone like me, an economic researcher trying to examine the effectiveness of our policies to make them better. Organizations like Sojourners constantly demonize anyone who doesn't support increased spending on all social programs, which I think is a sadly un-nuanced view. I've found that frustrating as a reader.>
Posted by: Sarah | September 30, 2006 1:42 AM
Sarah,
Are you the Sarah that posted on the abortion / adoption issue?
Thanks for the book reference.
I'll check it out.
.>
Posted by: justintime | October 1, 2006 8:05 PM
"without being DISAGREEABLE"!!!???
Now THAT's a laff and a half.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 2, 2006 6:50 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?