I'm sorry. I want to see the poll that ellicited a response suggesting that only 2% of white evangelicals think candidates should discuss abortion.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 19, 2007 1:42 PM

Sounded a very balanced interview to me.

Posted by: Annie(UK) | October 19, 2007 2:40 PM

The smugness and judgemental attitude with which you write is one of the biggest reasons that people are leaving the friendly confines of the Republican party.

Many Christians are waking up to the fact that if you want to be consistently pro-life, you must value and protect life in other cultures, at all stages of life, as well as the quality of the life that people acutally live. If we don't care for the poor, we fail to "do for the least of these."

If we fail to care for the earth, we don't show propoer dominion that was given to us when God created the earth. We are, after all seeking redemption of the whole world (see Rom. 8:19-21).

The hardest aspect of your rant is the lack of love. "They will know we are Christians by our love." I could quote Bible verse after verse for you, but I don't need to. When you need to be right, you can't live out love. Because of that, they'll never know Christ and the grace and freedom in which we are called to live.

Julie

Posted by: julie | October 19, 2007 3:19 PM

Okay, the poll asks what evangelicals MOST want the candidates to talk about. Here is the entire poll, the results of which are hardly earth-shattering.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSNews_poll_evan_101807.pdf

Posted by: kevin s. | October 19, 2007 3:41 PM

Also-
Kevin, thanks for the clarification. Corporate-media carelessness can be pretty frustrating sometimes.

Posted by: I and I | October 19, 2007 3:57 PM

Mr Wallis -

There have been 'Darfurs' all through history and the evangelical church has come to their aid. The evangelicals have worked against poverty for decades all around the world. My little denomination has been working in several areas of Africa for decades and have been pushed out because of (dare I say it) Muslim Extreamists all around that world.

We have worked here in the US too. But conditions and gov't regulations make it almost impossible to provide aid to those who need it.

There have always been more than two issues with conservatives. But when people are working almost 24/7 for items and issues that you feel just as strongly the oppsite about - I guess they get our attention. But that does not mean that we are not working in other areas and on other issues of the day.

Yes - the Almighty, the One True and Living God is not Rep. or Dem. But he created life - not death. He created Adam and Eve and established marriage. God has standards and many are living way outside of what orthodox Christianity has believed for centuries.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 19, 2007 5:34 PM

Okay, the poll asks what evangelicals MOST want the candidates to talk about. Here is the entire poll, the results of which are hardly earth-shattering.kevin s. |

Thank you oh ye valedictorian of the Karl Rove school of disingenuous spin.

Posted by: JamesMartin | October 20, 2007 7:20 AM

Posted by: | October 20, 2007 9:40 AM

Whom ever you are...

You are blaming the holocost on 'evangelicals' - oh please. Rosevelt couldn't even get the support from congress to come to their aid.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 20, 2007 11:47 AM

"Whom ever you are...You are blaming the holocost on 'evangelicals' - oh please. Rosevelt couldn't even get the support from congress to come to their aid."

No I'm not blaming the evangelical church for the shoah. I am trying to deflate your oversized ego and bring to your attention that the churches did precious little to help those people, so quit bragging.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 20, 2007 1:40 PM

I am a little bit confused why any of you are posting comments on this. Perhaps I am strange but to me this is a perfect opportunity to have discussions in which we may agree or disagree but do so in a loving manner, with the understanding that we are all heading in the same direction and all serve the same God of Light. Instead it is used for critcism, nitpicking, and joyful meanness. And we wonder why people are turning away from the Church?

Posted by: sad | October 21, 2007 3:00 PM

You know - I think I would like to make Wallis a prophet.

He truly believes that preaches that conservative evangelicals only care about two issues - Abortion and Gay Marriage.

You know my life would really be a lot easier if that were the case. That being said...

...I am no longer going to give any assistance to the three organizations that deal with at risk children in the greater metro area in education. I the past I have been directly instrumental in getting once of these organizations donated computers so that they could set up a lab and work with these kids. I am currently assisting two churches in securing computers to work with at risk kids in the community. Realizing the time and energy that it takes to make this happen. (time away from my family) I guess the churches will just have to 'deal with it' because Wallis tells everyone that I and people like me don't care - except for the two that he says we do.

...I am no longer going to work with the food shelf at my church or the one in my community. I have contacted several organizations that provide activities for the youth in our area to encourage to collect one to three items of food for the shelf as part of there enterance fee so that we can provide for those who need the food shelf to make ends meet. I won't be doing that anymore as Wallis keeps telling the world that I don't care so who am I - Moderatelad in MN - to argue with Wallis.

...I am no longer going to assist with the gatherings that our community does a number of times a year that provide services or information about services that are available in our cummunity and state. These were put together to inform people of what they can get for assistance or help wheather they are citizens or immigrants just off the boat. (good golly - I see my scheduling opening up so that I might be able to do something just for me or my family - maybe I should send Wallis a thank you card?)

I do several things at my church for the community within and the community around us. These are things that I believe that God has put in my path to do because he has given me talents in these areas. Sorry, God trumps Wallis.

Oh - I am the Tech Dir for the drama dept at the high school that my kids attend. OK - it is a paid position but I do not get an hourly...it is one check no matter what the hours were that it took. (I tracked it one year...the number of hours. It was less than half of min wage) I teach them set design, light and sound design, color mix and special efx's along with building the set. So - I will finish out this show but I don't think that I will do the spring musical because...I only care obout two thing - A+GM. Now - the main reason I do this job is not because I get paid. I get to spend time...that I do not get paid for...challenging the students to continue on with their education. To not let their label (ADD - ADHD - SLBP - etc) determine the rest of their lives. I write letters to colleges and universities on their behalf. (Just so you know 'P' - I do use spell check on those) I write letters so that they can get a job. I have even spent time with them when they are in a crisis mode. All this takes time away from my family and now I can spend it with them because I will not be encumbered with these details because Jim says I only care about A+GM.

So - thanks Jim - my schedule is so free now. Guess someone else will have to provide the technology for the little ones so that they can advance in school. Someone can work for the hungry in our area and for around the world as far as I am concerned because I am cutting off all donations to 'Feed the Children' etc.

Blessings to all - I'm Free at last, free at last, thank Wallis almighty - I'm free at last.

(ps - I be hanged if I am going to give up drama - Wallis will just have to live with the knowledge that I am working with the youth of this world. That might put a kink in his colon - a conservative having any influence on future voters - God does have a sence of humor. I know because he made me)

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 21, 2007 7:21 PM

Moderatelad,
loved your last post. Reminds me of my life.

It would be good to see Sojo present a more balanced view of Conservatives (even though I'm not one). It would be good to see profiles of conservatives who are addressing the wide range of social issues that Sojo are interested in. Even just once a week. I did see a piece of Hybels here a few weeks ago so it can happen.

I suspect that the underlying question is not, 'what are the issues?' but rather, 'which issues take priority?' or 'which issues should guide our voting?' There have been some very public and outspoken conservative christians who have indicated that abortion and gay marriage are the two primary issues and who have urged their 'followers' to vote on the basis of just those issues.

Personally I'd place 'death of the innocents' as the first priority and use that to encompass abortion, starvation, AIDS, Darfur (genocide in general). What would you place in the number one spot?

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 21, 2007 10:23 PM

"The same can be said about you and your obnoxious posts."

Not at all. I contend with the arguments posted, and counterargue. Wallis does no such thing. The prophets did need to craft strawmen in order to be prophetic. Either way, I'm not on CBS claiming to have discovered God's political leanings.

"Personally I'd place 'death of the innocents' as the first priority and use that to encompass abortion, starvation, AIDS, Darfur (genocide in general). What would you place in the number one spot?"

Well, I would subdivide the issues. I see what you are doing, and I would probably throw my support behind a comprehensive piece of legislation that includes a ban on abortion. Unfortunately, the abortion issue is in the courts, so I will not have the luxury, which is why you can't lump the issues together.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 21, 2007 10:57 PM

Jesse said
In what way is Wallis hoping to influence the Democrats? Aren't they already supporting the causes he supports? Does he disagree with them on any issue?

After a while on this blog I saw the same thing . From the mantra for global warming, to how intolerant Christians are , how considerate they are of course , to even the peculiar fascination with Left Behind Books and Walmart . How did all these Liberal Christians get the same talking points , its like whoops they were democrats all along . Common ground , admitting you are shallow , hateful , bigoted and racist . After that , we can come together . Kind of silly actually .

In what way does he hope to influence Democratic politicians? He's certainly not going to influence any Republicans (nor do I think he intends to). Is he simply hoping to turn more Christians into Democratic voters?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 22, 2007 5:09 AM

Hi Moderatelad,
I'm in Queensland, Australia. I don't even know what MN stands for.

I would like to see some conservative leaders acknowedged on this site (even if a conservative has to be enlisted to write it) because part of Wallis' claim is that he is working to try to bring together Christians, both liberal and conservative, on a broad range of social issues. He frequently mentions meetings with conservatives who are moving towards or have adopted a broader range of issues, but I'd like to hear more of these. In part it's because I acknowledge your point that many conservatives have been labouring in these areas for many years and that this 'shift' in thinking isn't really a shift at all, it's just a wider spotlight being beamed on work already in progress. For my benefit are there any conservative Blogs that address this sort of range of social issues (or poverty in particular)?

I'm curious that poverty is your number one issue. Would that be common for your conservative peers, or would abortion generally be the most pressing issue? I ask because Brownback in a CT interview said he saw abortion as the single greatest issue facing the US (or words to that effect).

I readily concede that some at Sojo (and I don't believe Wallis is the biggest culprit) do habitually cast aspersions over all conservatives. I was first attracted to Sojourners after reading two of Wallis' earlier books, especially Call to Conversion, which didn't really have any political content but which I found useful for motivating my largely conservative church towards greater social engagement.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 22, 2007 9:13 AM

It would be good to see Sojo present a more balanced view of Conservatives (even though I'm not one). It would be good to see profiles of conservatives who are addressing the wide range of social issues that Sojo are interested in. Even just once a week.

What about the National Association of Evangelicals' climate change initiative? Sojo gave that publicity, especially after James Dobson wanted Rich Cizik fired as a result. Also, it did an interview with Ed Dobson (no relation), pastor of a church doing just that, years ago. Perhaps it's because so few conservatives are actually doing it on a mass scale that it's rarely covered.

Well, I would subdivide the issues. I see what you are doing, and I would probably throw my support behind a comprehensive piece of legislation that includes a ban on abortion. Unfortunately, the abortion issue is in the courts, so I will not have the luxury, which is why you can't lump the issues together.

That separation of abortion from other "life issues" is precisely why the anti-abortion movement has gotten so little traction.

Wallis has done a beautiful job of driving a wedge where he should have been building a bridge. More importantly -- because he has talked like this for years. Wallis is not interested in people like me. He is not working with people like me.

Maybe you're the problem, not he. In "God's Politics" -- and I feel I need to bring this up yet again -- Wallis wrote about his reconciliation with the late Bill Bright of Campus Crusade; at the end they even prayed together for each other's ministries. He even said that he would never discount the idea of working with those whom he disagreed with, and I sense that he means that even today.

I know you have chosen not to address me, but you have said in the past that you would like to contribute while maintaining your conservative views in the process. But what you want is impossible, because when you enter any relationship you do not remain the same; your perspective will necessarily change. There is a reason some conservatives are now being labeled "sellouts" for deviating from orthodoxy -- Mike Huckaby is one of them.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 22, 2007 11:41 AM

But he still is not building bridges with others that he disagrees with. Why was there a need for reconciliation? Why can't Wallis do his work and allow others to do their without Jim taking them to the woodshead for a wipping on what Jim believes they are doing wrong.

Again, Wallis is not entirely responsible for that. Causing the rift between Wallis and Bright in the first place was a tightly-sourced investigative story the magazine published in 1976 concerning the marrying of conservative ideology to evangelical Christianity and the Republican Party that got a number of people alarmed; Bright was mentioned prominently in the piece and as a result held a grudge against Sojo in general and Wallis in particular for decades. (The particulars are in "God's Politics.") The underlying problem was, and still is, that the conservatives intended to shut everyone else out of power; how that was done was irrelevant.

One does not have to be in total and complete agreement before you can work on any issue(s). Organizations - churches - even marriages would go nowhere. One can come to a working conscenses without compramise. It is a 'winner-take-all' mentality of a Wallis and a Robertson that causes problems.

You have to be willing to put your personal agendas aside to do that and, from my perspective and that of many others, the conservatives still are not. It's easy to say that Pat Robertson won't work with the other side; realistically, however (and I've done some work in Christian media, so I know this first-hand), "liberal" or "progressive" voices were practically nowhere to be found in major evangelical media outlets until just a couple of years ago. Is Wallis ever on the Christian radio or TV station in your area? I don't think he's on in mine.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 22, 2007 12:32 PM

I would say that, since the mass legal destruction of unborn children is at least as bad as slavery, abortion is that exclusionary issue for me. It doesn’t mean I’m unconcerned with other issues or I don’t have opinions on healthcare, the environment, poverty, etc.

That's not a good way to go about it because many of the folks who oppose abortion do not care about anything else. Really. In fact, the conservatives have used abortion as a political battering ram for nearly 30 years. Indeed, I don't believe in any "exclusionary issues."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 22, 2007 1:40 PM

So are you saying that you would still vote for "perfect candidate" on every other issue if he also supported slavery, genocide, anything else??

I didn't say that. For openers, people who are pro-environment aren't likely to be "pro-slavery" anyway -- the latter issue simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense and that candidate won't be taken seriously anyway. That said, I will, however, vote for a candidate who's perfect in every way except for the abortion issue because his/her policies are more likely to reduce abortion anyway (and in fact have done so). The only political candidate who has ever been elected that I voted for strictly on principle was the late Gov. Bob Casey, and I now regret doing so because he turned into a complete liar.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 22, 2007 2:48 PM

Really - I have an extensive group of wonderful conservative friends and even though they do care greatly about the abortion issue. They care about so many other things that effect them and others. None of us use 'abotion' as a test to determine if we will support them or not.

That has never been my experience. Even today I've been involved in some discussions with some "pro-life" people I've never even met -- a friend of mine from church with whom I hope to work on a proprosed "sanctity of human life" ministry placed my name in that group, and they simply cannot understand how and why I would come at the issue differently. (I also apparently live in a far more conservative city where the anti-abortion contingent is strong.)

Really - and the left has not?

No, it hasn't, because the "left" is truly split on the issue. Even Democratic politicians here are "pro-life"; the same would go for any area with a heavily-Roman Catholic population.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 22, 2007 3:59 PM

The fact that the ACLU has not kicked Wallis in the teeth like they do Evangelical Christians when they use the tactic of "God's politics" says that the anti-Christians are very comfortable with Wallis and his version of their Christianity.

Posted by: Donny | October 22, 2007 7:15 PM

Do your own research on abortion. It was a majority of Republican Justices in the U.S.Supreme Court who VOTED for ROE V WADE in the first place. 9 justices voted in all. 6republican with 1democrat infavor, while 1 democrat held out to the end being pressure by the 6republican justices. That leaves only 2 who did not vote infavor of the ROE V WADE and it was 1 DEMOCRAT, yes that's right, A DEMOCRAT who did not vote infavor, along with 1 republican. Tell the truth that the MAJORITY REPUBLICAN U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES VOTED INFAVOR OF THE ROE V WADE, while only 2 lonely little democrats voted with them.
When are the Evangelists going to admit that they lie when they call the Republican the moral political party. When will the Evangelists admit that the Republicans are responsible for the ABORTIONIS in this country in the first place. When will the BIG LIE STOP.
Thou shalt not lie!

Posted by: angie | October 22, 2007 10:03 PM

Moderatelad,
thanks for your response re abortion vs poverty. I had never heard your position before. Not here and not elsewhere. So thanks.

Jesse,
If I had to choose between a candidate who valued life or a candidate who valued quality of life I would choose the former.
If I had to choose between a candidate who worked against innocent deaths worldwide, but who basically ignored poverty or slavery or racism; and a candidate who ignored innocent deaths through any means, but who worked hard to alleviate poverty and to end slavery; then I would choose the former. I would rather that more innocents lived even though they might live in poverty or slavery. (and it's not as though slavery is a dead issue. we even still have forms of slavery in Australia).

I truly get what your saying that abortion is your exclusionary issue, I'd go further and make it a greater issue than slavery. I just can't separate abortion from genocide or deaths due to starvation.

When Wallis uses the term 'consistent ethic of life,' he's including all of these I've mentioned and also including war and death penalty. I understand that a consistent ethic of life would oppose all of those, but the unneeded deaths of innocents are a more pressing concern than the unneeded deaths of those who may not be innocent.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 22, 2007 11:50 PM

"Right Angie , Republicans and Evangelicals are all about supporting abortion rights . Another liberal perspective" Mick

Angie presented some stats that I for one, being uninformed as to the make-up of the court at the time of Roe v Wade, would like you to respond to, Mick.

"Again you can have your liberal beliefs , but the facts jusy don't back it up." Mick

The facts, Mick, that's all I'm looking for in the above, the facts to counter Angie's assertion re the Supreme Court make-up at the time of Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: canucklehead | October 23, 2007 1:08 AM

Posted by: angie | October 22, 2007 10:03 PM

Prozac...

It may have been a Supreme Court with Judges that Rep Pres. had appointed the majority - fine. (I need to look that one up - not sure about those facts) Anyway - Judges for the most part are none political, at least they are suspose to be. You think that this is the first time the court made a wrong decision?

RvW is not 'law' it is 'inturpertation' of law. It can be changed - it is not a done deal. The people that are pro-abortion historically have been the biggest supports and backers of canididates for the Dem Party. I can not name you one time that any organization directly linked to the abortion industry have backed a Rep.

With all the support from liberal candidates in support of abortion. With the millions that are spent by those involved in the industry to advance the abortion issue. I find it insulting the way Wallis and Co. slap conservatives around and label us as shallow 'two' issue people.

By the way - I did resign from working with two organizations. I wrote them a nice letter to the board and explaned to them that as a conservative I am told that I should only be concerned with two issues. I quoted Wallis and supplied them with the website so that they can see what fellow believers are saying about me and them. I found it quite liberating to know that I don't need to care anymore.

Now - not being a 'conservative' that sits outside abortion clinics yelling at the people going in and out. I would never stand outside a gay bar in my city with a sign that says 'Die %^&*!'. Not sure what I will be doing with all my free time. (hey 'P' - maybe I will be able to spend a little more time studing GW - but then again - Wallis says I am not concerned about that either)

So Mr Wallis - thanks for labeling people like me and pushing us to the sidelines so that you can have center-field. (and someone told me that I have an inflated ego) Blessings on you Mr Wallis for marginalizing so many of us that could have been support to you in several areas. Thanks for showing us that even people like you can be just as devisive as lets say a Robertson or Fowell. As a conservative I never gave one cent to either those men but never condemed them publically because I did not want to cause 'dischord with the family'. I have prayed for them that grace would be the message more than condemnation. (been told that my prayer did not get past the ceiling here on this site)

Allow me to apologize - prayers were said for our military yesterday and for those in battle. That there would be peace in Iraq and around the world. (know that insults some of you here - sorry - deal with it)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 23, 2007 8:26 AM

Conservatives believe abortion should be voted upon by citizens or decided upon by legislators. Where does the Constitution provide the right to abortion? I guess that may take you a while, have you ever read it?

Abortion is ideology-neutral, but the "religious right" hijacked the issue when it got started in 1978. In fact, most secular conservative leaders probably couldn't care less about abortion but make promises to "pro-lifers" for the sake of votes.

That helps, you can't hear a baby cry when it is being sucked out, or can you the Mother's pain and guilt ten years later and how it can ruin, yes ruin a happy life. But you can hear all your friends on recored saying they are against abortion on demand. Liberalism, say it so it must be true.

Man, are you being totally ignorant. Seriously.

Blessings on you Mr Wallis for marginalizing so many of us that could have been support to you in several areas.

Another right-wing foible -- extreme and undue touchiness.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 23, 2007 8:57 AM

Trent,
I would still distinguish abortion from those issues because: 1) our government is first and foremost responsible for protecting its own citizens ("punishing wrongdoers and rewarding those who do right"...see 1 Peter)...if they don't do that, no one will; 2) I find it a dubious proposition that our government should be an international charity (indeed, I think this idea goes against the biblical idea of charity, which is a gift freely given--rather than coercion via taxation with the threat of imprisonment); 3) if our government doesn't take care of things abroad, private charities can and should step in; 4) the belief that abortion can somehow "magically go away" without any legal measures passed is based on the assumption that sin (read: the desire for sex without consequences) will go away on its own...those who claim otherwise have a poor understanding of history, the data (abortion rates in the US pre- and post-legalization) and human nature; and 5) a society that accepts the killing of unborn children in their legislation and funds it with taxpayer dollars (which is what every Dem candidate proposes) is a calloused society that will come to see all dependents as disposable and unwanted...laws reflect our values.

Posted by: jesse | October 23, 2007 10:57 AM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 23, 2007 10:58 AM

'...denouncing anyone who thinks a little differently...'

I have been on record telling people to be happy about being a liberal. I may not agree with them but they can believe what they want. Hardly denouncing...

'...in truth they have marginalized him over the years because...'

I have looked at several sites and the only comments that I have found where anyone has said anything about Wallis is in responce to him 'outing' them. Sojo has never been on the radar with many of these groups. Wallis may have been around for a lot longer than some. But level of impact on soceity in general - Sojo has been ineffective for the most part.

Joy - I would hope he would have joy in his family. I would have been happy to meet Tutu or Nelson. But from what I read on this site and will try again to get through his book. He is argumentative at best - at time mean-spirited. Wallis focuses on the glass half empty while I look at it being half full. He has a message and even one that I could buy into, but he is, most of the time, looking and presenting the defects while I look for the benefits.

If I were to size up Wallis based on what he says on this site - he is negative in his delivery and if I took what he promotes as gospel...I might want to drink the kool-aid. (I know - some of you would serve it up to me with a little umbrella int it)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 23, 2007 12:00 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 23, 2007 12:53 PM

'...years or even decades for things...'

I agree but I would have thought that there would have been a bigger ground swell by this time with Wallis. I believe that at times - he is his own worst enemy. Truth - his perspective.

'...prophetic always focuses on the defects...'

I'm sorry - you lost me there. Wallis is not prophet - period. The prophets that you highlited were called of God and brought people back to the Almighty to resolve their problems. Wallis is trying to bring us to Big Gov't Programs that he believes will solve our problems.

He is not bringing "the other side" to the front. He is claiming that it is a new day. There is a new vision. The 'old has passed away and the new has come' to the world.

If Wallis really was a prophet - he would not claim that 'Gore had the Presidency stolen from him'. He would not have cannonized St Al as the Enviormentalist Evangelist for all mankind. He would be promoting a 'thus says the Lord...' message devoid of any political affiliation. This is why I equate him with Pat Robertson as their political affiliation influences their faith expression. I have not supported Robertson by funding anything he has supported - guess I will hold Wallis to the same criteria.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 23, 2007 1:46 PM

'Neither of which he has done...'

SO - you missed Wallis' article where he called him the 'Enviromentalist Evangelists' too bad. Classic Wallis. He also refered to the 2000 election in the same article. Vintage Wallis - like a fine wine.

Personally - even I was surprised at Wallis' lauding of the Nobel Winner.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 23, 2007 3:05 PM

Are you pro choice ? Just wondering

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 23, 2007 8:48 AM

no, not as the term is popularly used, and thx for the info

Posted by: canucklehead | October 24, 2007 1:11 AM

Wallis would never give a conservative those kind of titles even if they were the best of the best and had a PhD in the area of pest control and were running for Dog Catcher in Sweet Swamp Minnesota.

Then kindly explain his nothing-but-kind words for Billy Graham.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 24, 2007 10:20 AM

I wonder how this blog would flow if we were all to agree to (or the rules required) refraining from the use of these easy labels, "liberal" and "conservative", among other labels? Couldn't we simply rely on stronger logic and argument? I don't think these labels are at all definitive or accurate many of the times they are used. Flinging these labels all over the place, mostly in pejorative tones, clouds the issues, makes our arguments weak and lazy, and really do not imitate the spirit of Jesus. And sometimes their use is really meant to mask the biases that are impervious to the level of responsible reasoning and argument we expect to find here.

Posted by: Michael Friday | October 25, 2007 5:31 PM

Graham is in the area of faith and religion

But he's still conservative.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | October 26, 2007 3:30 PM