Has "Irrational and indefinite use of the military to demonstrate how upset we are about 9/11 and how tough we are" surpassed abortion and gay marriage as the number one issue for "Values Voters" these days...?

Posted by: D4P | November 8, 2007 5:37 PM

I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone at all can defend Robertson on this. If you're going to build your entire platform on two issues and call everyone who doesn't agree with you a sinner, you just can't do this kind of thing and keep your integrity!

Oh, yeah...this is Pat Robertson we're talking about here. Integrity isn't an issue. Most conservative right-wing Christians tolerate him because of the empire he's built and the number of people who give him money, but cringe when he does things like getting caught investing in blood diamonds or calling for the assassination of a foreign leader (albeit a dictator). The man's a loose cannon, and nothing should surprise us about him.

Posted by: historyguy | November 8, 2007 7:12 PM

Jeff,
Rudy needs some 'Christian endorsement' if he's to stand a chance and I don't know who else would give it to him (maybe others will later if he becomes the nominee - using the lesser of two evils justification).
Nominal Christian voters (Sunday Christians) may not vote for Rudy if he's endorsed by no religious leaders, but the endorsement of even one means they can tick that box. It won't necessarily sway people to vote for Rudy but will permit them to if they were so inclined anyway (same as a lone naysayer on global warming can 'permit' people to ignore the weight of evidence - insert your own example if you don't like that one).
Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | November 8, 2007 7:53 PM

For what it is worth here, Robertson said in his endorsement speech (in general terms) that, in his judgment, the most important issue for the country is defending itself from the on-going threat of attack by terrorist groups (paraphrased). I have little to do with Robertson, never have, but it appears that he is willing to at least temporarily subordinate his concerns about abortion, homosexual marriage, etc., believing that if terrorism is not quelled, there will be little or no America left in which to debate the other issues. Perhaps I read too much into his endorsement, but that is the impression I got from his words.
For the record, I am not in agreement with him. But as I have said in other threads, I try and avoid secular politics as much as I can.

Posted by: joekc | November 8, 2007 8:26 PM

Since the appointment of judges is the most important thing a President can do on social issues like abortion

What do judges do to reduce unwanted pregnancies...?

Is there evidence that there are fewer abortions when conservative judges are in power than when non-conservative judges are?

Posted by: D4P | November 8, 2007 9:01 PM

"Is there evidence that there are fewer abortions when conservative judges are in power than when non-conservative judges are?"
--Yep, see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Harris v. McCrae, and other rulings where conservative judges voted to allow some laws (e.g., parental notification, informed consent, 24 hr waiting periods) and the liberal judges voted against these things. Heck, in Harris v. McCrae the liberal judges voted to make taxpayer-funded abortions a constitutional right! (that was a narrow 5-4 decision)

I don't have much respect for Robertson and I think he hurts the cause of Christ and conservativism in general. However, his support for Guiliani at the very least should help put to death the idea that there are only two issues of importance to conservative Christians.

Posted by: jesse | November 8, 2007 9:18 PM

Vote for anyone you want, Ashpenaz.
That's why we have booths for voting.

Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2007 9:37 PM

While it's nice of you to say I can vote for anyone, have been told by any number of evangelicals and Catholics that I was a heretic for voting for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry--all because I should have made pro-life the primary issue. Because I was willing to vote for a candidate who was not for outlawing abortion, I was not a real Christian.

So, why is Pat Robertson able to make a case for voting for Guiliani but other Christians can't make a similar case for voting for Clinton?

When did it all of a sudden become OK for Christians to vote for a pro-choice candidate? And if Christians can vote for a Republican pro-choice candidate without being an apostate, why can't they vote for a pro-choice Democrat without being an apostate?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 8, 2007 10:17 PM

Another thing mentioned in the blog entry: In Robertson's view, Rudy represents the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton. When you're reduced to supporting someone you don't like to defeat someone you dislike even more, you have a real problem.

Thus, let's not be fooled about the real issue. Hillary has always been the conservatives' worst nightmare, even when Bill was president, because they don't answer to them in the least, never has done so and never will do so. Furthermore, she has something Bill never had -- coattails -- and if she wins next year the Democrats will be in control for a very long time. In other words, by backing someone way more liberal than Robertson would like he hopes to stave off irrelevance and keep his "seat at the table." That's why, as Wallis mentioned, Richard Land's stance in one sense is more courageous.

There's more to the question, however. When it comes to abortion and gay marriage, because the politicians who are "into" only those and their backers have never been consistent about issues of life and culture, they either have lost moral authority or never had it in the first place.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 8, 2007 10:54 PM

Mr. Wallis,

You have trumpted the Democrats without fail in everything you do.

What makes Robertson so odd and you not? "The Left" that you support so dearly, promotes the kind of life and lifestyle that is antithetical to the Gospel and the witness of the Apostles.

Guiliani is a social liberal. Meaning, he is one of yours. Yes, yes, it is odd that Robertson is supporting you.

Posted by: Donny | November 9, 2007 12:01 AM

I would still like to know why I'm an apostate for supporting Clinton but it's fully Christian to support Guiliani. Clinton's policies will reduce abortions because she will deal with the underlying causes, such as poverty and inadequate health care. So why isn't Clinton as much a pro-life candidate as Guiliani?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 9, 2007 12:31 AM

Ever since I watched him in the seventies, Pat's been big on prophecy. A middle east showdown with Islam's just the kind of Armageddon scenario that he's been interested in scoping out in his Pat Robertson's Perspective newsletter through the years. So it's not at all inconsistent that with his propensity to cathartic Holy War violence (and calls for covert assassinations of America's enemies) that Pat would back the most bellicose of the Republican front-runners. To Pat, you don't have to be a Christian - he's been friends with people like Ariel Sharon, whose stroke he blamed on making peace with the Palestinians. Pat is also very much into the messianic mythology of America's divine purpose, advanced by a holy military. Pat is definitely a War Jesus kind of guy, and maybe Rudy will be too. It certainly is more consistent to drop the pro-life emphasis when you are plumping for war. And as for gays, one of the most historically successful military states was one that emphasized a cult of maleness, Sparta, famous for its homosexual warriors. I'm sure Pat is flexible on this, too, for people willing to make that supreme national sacrifice; moreover, it finally takes the wind out of the sails of charges of hypocrisy for the Republicans' and Christian conservatives' gay outing scandals, by lending tacit acceptance to homosexuality, as long as it is of the tough and aggressive "butch" persuasion.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 12:41 AM

I would still like to know why I'm an apostate for supporting Clinton but it's fully Christian to support Guiliani
Posted by: Ashpenaz

I would not consider you an apsostate for supporting Hillary Clinton . I definitely wouldn't vote for her though , and a choice between her and Rudy I would pick Rudy . Mainly for his less government position that he seems to advocate for and conservative views of fewer regulations and such .

Rudy states he is pro choice , but does not believe Judges should legislate from the bench , he believes legislatures should .

That is a basic difference , many people such as myself believe matters of abortion should be decided by laws and elections , not by Judges . The left tend to side witht the view the Constitution is a living document , and find abortion rights in the Constitution , even though the Framers never put them there .

You can still be pro choice and believe in this view that The Constitution does not give a right to have an abortion , many legal scholars often point out a view that Roe V Wade was not a sound Judicial Verdict .

But certainly the view that only Christians vote for republicans is wrong .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 9, 2007 1:24 AM

"When I was younger coming out of a Planned Parenthood a little shaken and scared by myself....there were Christian protesters shouting things at me, holding signs and one even threw something at my car when I was driving off.

How ethical to the Gospel and witness of the Apostles is that?"

I'm sorry that people treated you harshly, but that doesn't mean that everyone who advocates a non-abortion-legality-at-a-national-level position disregards scripture. Further, not all abortion protestors are there to antagonize, and not all of them endorse the actions of their most aggressive counterparts.

You wouldn't hang the actions of eco-terrorists, or the militants who throw rocks outside of fur-stores, on the entire environmental movement, would you?

Posted by: kevin s. | November 9, 2007 1:54 AM

I've been a "fan" of Pat Robertson.

I used to be quite inspired by him and Ben Kinchlow while a new Christian in the seventies.
Certainly he never was touched by the scandals of insincerity and financial hypocrisy that brought down Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. We even gave substantially to them on several occasions. A lot of true Christians appeared on the programs.

I do recall that human leaders have feet of clay. In the end, we have to trust our own judgment and relationship with God - they are not our conduit.

I also now know that many leaders of the Protestant reformation did unsavory things not consistent with my understanding of what Jesus wants us to be. People were burned at the stake and tortured. Martin Luther moved from a position of love and advocacy for Jews to urging them being burned out in pogroms at the end of his life.

I think maybe Pat is past his prime. There's always something to what he says but his expression of it as an elderly person is now sometimes ill-considered and not as thoughtful and balanced as it once was when his mind was sharper.

This may account for the perceived unChristlike hardening of the evangelical movement if it is identified with these elderly leaders whose expression of thoughts have become brittle along with their arteries.

In some cases, there is an element of unreality and dementia in the embarrassing pronouncements and inconsistent positions of the aged evangelical leadership.

It's not out of the question that an elderly Robertson has been as thoroughly bamboozled by a clever and ambitious Giuliani as an elderly person bilked out of their money by a sly and winsome flattering door-to-door con artist.

Have some egotistical politicians no shame?

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 9, 2007 2:34 AM

It is one thing to vote against someone by voting for the lesser evil, but to endorse the lesser evil is unconscionable. To endorse an adulterer who values security over liberty and the American way of life is utterly despicable. If Robertson believes in G-d or morality at all, he will retract his endorsement very soon. As it is, his G-d-talk is as believable as bin Laden's.

Pat Robertson's claim that Guiliani would be even slightly better at fighting terrorists than Hillary Clinton, let alone one of the other Republican candidates is a sign of ignorance at best. Guiliani will continue the present policy of harsh language and empty threats while our troops are abandoned overseas with the barest minimum of support. We're not even winning in Afghanistan let alone Iraq, and it is because neither Bush or Guiliani will actually support the troops enough that they can live up to their empty threats.

Next Robertson will be endorsing pedophiles as babysitters simply because they utter the word "Islam-o-fascist."

Posted by: Rachel Farer | November 9, 2007 7:51 AM

Ashpenaz,
I highly doubt that Senator Clinton is a very orthodox Christian (she may be 'pious' but piety doesn't mean orthodoxy). And as for the things that Clinton supports that a Christian ought not to support, why, abortion is one, stem-cell research is another, and I'm sure there are some other things that are less-than-savoury about her policy positions. In any event, one's theology should not be a determinative factor in a political race. One's morals should be a factor, amongst others, but I am curious as to why Wallis thinks that Robertson is being hypocritical by being politically savvy.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | November 9, 2007 8:57 AM

Ben
I think the answer is "one's morals" but perhaps he thinks Hillary's morals are no better.

My own vote will not be based on Guiliani's morals, although I think they must be more than a little "off". There are candidates on both sides that I think are better equipped for the job than the ex-mayor of New York City.

It would be ironic if Guiliani, i.e. "the man Robertson backed," got into some kind of "Clintinesque" situation after he was elected. Perhaps the difference would be he wouldn't lie about it. Would that be any better? Either way it could surely damage whatever moral authority we may have left. On the positive side it would be good joke fodder for the talk shows.

I still think McCain is the guy to find a way through this mess in Iraq. No candidate is going to pull us out, in my opinion, and despite what they may promise. I do not like or agree with this war, I think it wiser that we should find a way to get through it, not just escape it.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 9:45 AM

How ethical to the Gospel and witness of the Apostles is that?

Thanks, AmberPosted by Donny|November 9th,2007 12:01 AM

\\\

I accused Jim Wallis of this: "The Left" that you support so dearly, promotes the kind of life and lifestyle that is antiethical to the Gospel and the witness of the Apostles.

I am "biblically" correct.

AMBER: Donny, I need you to explain something to me. The "Left" is pro-choice" which I consider myself to be. As well as a social liberal."

ME: Much of the Liberalism/Progressiveism is anti-Christian 100%. "If" you are a Christian, please know that no where in the New Testament is their support for anything "The Left" promotes, other than no war and helping the poor. I view the apathy and anti-Evangelism of "The Left" (Christians) to be very wrong. It also kills more people than the Iraq war.

AMBER: And one, of the many reasons evangelical, right-wing Christianity turns me the other way is because of all of the arrogant "answers" they seem to have for everything. (only my opinion) I hold this view through experiences.

ME: Those answers are taken straight out of the words of Jesus and the Apostles. I guess the hedonistic Romans that hated the Christians thought then, as you do now. I hear that a lot from Leftists.

AMBER: When I was younger coming out of a Planned Parenthood a little shaken and scared by myself....there were Christian protesters shouting things at me, holding signs and one even threw something at my car when I was driving off.

ME: Where was the man in your life? And the child's? See Amber, feminism only gives men what THEY want. The protesters, were horrified that a child had to die to make another person more comfortable. They should have embraced you and led you into a better life. Hopefully you next pregnancy will turn out better

AMBER: How ethical to the Gospel and witness of the Apostles is that?

You judgment of their actions and behaviors are correct, in that they did wrong.

Thanks, Amber

Posted by: | November 9, 2007 1:02 AM

ME: It is far past time for "The Left" to jettison their Liberal-hedonism and Progressive-Humanism and come to Christ Jesus. The New Testament witness speaks against what "The Left" promotes. Start with Jude and read through the NT from there.

That is what an Evangelical should say. All Apostles were Evangelical Christians. As of course "The Evangel" means "The Gospel."

God Bless you

D.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 10:13 AM

Don't forget that James Dobson practically endorsed Newt Gingrich with a protestant version of indulgence when he appeared on his program in preparation for an exploratory Presidential run.

Newt's serial adultery is even worse than Giuliani's - and BOTH were at the Values Voters summit.

Rove believes Dobson has no where else to go but the Republican Party and that his ego won't allow him to relinquish his seat at the table or give up his kingmaker role.

Look for an 11th hour Focus on the Family indulgence where Giuliani kisses James Dobson's ring publicly and receives absolution.

Regardless, if George Bush forgot about evangelicals post-election and compassionate conservatism turned out to be never having to say you're sorry, what do you think mayor Giuliani will do?

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 10:47 AM

This just proves that the Republican party does not care for the unborn. We need proper healthcare for women facing an unexpected pregnancy, adequate financial programs to assist her with the monumental task of motherhood or preparing for adoption...the list goes on. This is where Democrats shine.

Robertson seems to worship the GOP, rather than God himself.

No party is perfect, but if Robertson was truly pro-life he would care about how to help women and children, and worry less about waging a war against Islamic extremists. After all, God loves them too.

Tasiyagnunpa
thelordslark.blogspot.com

Posted by: Tasiyagnunpa Livermont | November 9, 2007 10:57 AM

Hillary is so ambitious to be President - more ego-driven than anyone else in the quest - that she will say or do whatever it takes. She'd even appear on Dobson's or Robertson's shows if that's what it took.

"Shows" - that's how far religious hucksterism has insinuated itself into American life - just like every other kind of shill and fakery from bedroom to boardroom.

How is it that those seen to be America's leading moral figures are the religious equivalent of TV weathermen?

Elmer Gantry for Prez! Now there was a harmless little fuzzball!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 11:10 AM

Anti abortion militant Randall Terry on Rudy Giuliani:

"Rudy may prove to be a far greater threat to "family values" than Hillary. Here's why: an enemy outside your camp (Hillary) makes you vigilant; an enemy inside your tent (Rudy) makes you dead. He can cut your throat in the night, or poison your food in the day. Rudy will slowly destroy the meager gains we have made, and will set the core of the GOP at war with itself. He will set the pro-life movement back 20 years; he will aid those who scoff at our right to self-defense; and believe me, he will be marching in the homosexual parades while he assures Pat Robertson and the Religious Right that he supports family values."
...

I wonder who Randall Terry will vote for?
Or will he stay home on election day?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 11:21 AM

What we have is the religious right coming full circle. I don't agree with Rev. Wallis or the National Council of Churches and others about much. I see them as partisan flacks for the Democrats, trying to baptize liberal views on economics, the environment etc. with biblical language. Now Robertson is going the same thing with Republican views on taxes, crime and foreign policy. I happen to generally agree with GOP views on these issues, but consider them temporal, not theological litmus tests. We now have 2 social gospels willing to ignore biblican views on life and marriage for partisan gain, how sad...

Posted by: Jason E | November 9, 2007 11:22 AM

The one common factor I see in the harshest criticisms of Robertson is the lack of any attempt to understand Robertson's worldview, let alone how it might adapt to changing circumstances.

This thing has left me scratching my head too; I'm quite sure Robertson is making a mistake, and I certainly can't rule out the possibility that Robertson's decision was motivated by some cynical political calculations. But there are some other possible explanations if one has a basic understanding of how conservatives view government and politics.

But that requires the ability to hold off making moral judgments long enough to develop some sense of how one's opponents might view things. (That doesn't mean you can't criticize later, it just means waiting until you have a decent idea of what your opponents really think.) This is an ability that fundamentalists of all stripes have never valued highly.

It's so much more fun to demand that Robertson meet your misinformed notion of his principles and condemn him for hypocritically failing to meet standards that you yourself set up. And since Robertson is still thought of as a Christian conservative leader (not so much by actual Christian conservatives, but why let that get in the way of a good story?) that bad faith can then be imputed to the whole Religious Right.

Such is Sojourners' contribution to our national discourse and to the reconciliation of political liberals and conservatives in the church.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2007 11:35 AM

So, who is Jim Wallis endorsing for President? Will they be pro-life? Who has Jim Wallis endorsed in state gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns? Were they pro-life? I dislike either party feeling they "own" Christian support, for any reason. And I dislike any preacher encouraging their constituents and congregations to vote for anyone unless the spiritual lines are bright and clear -- and there aren't that many clear lines. We're not electing a Pope, we're electing a Presdident.

Posted by: George Price | November 9, 2007 11:46 AM

Once again Mr. Wallis resorts to name-calling in response to someone he disagrees with, and apparently can't see any hypocrisy in his own wide-eyed shock that Robertson might be politically motivated. The assumption that the moral high ground always belongs to the person or candidate that fits Jim Wallis' personal political opinions is becoming tiresome and does nothing to promote peace, understanding or real discussion of candidates and issues.

Posted by: Jennifer | November 9, 2007 11:52 AM

The comments were a little too harsh and overboard for civilized communication. There is always another point of view for consideration and words this harsh tend to close down communication rather than to open up further dialogs for mutual discovery of the truth and greater understanding.
We need to work together to improve our government and communities. This thought comes to my mind...
"...sit not in the seat of the scornful..."

The harshness of these words seems to have pushed over into the realm of scornful vs. expressing one's opinion and critical analysis.

We need to keep the doors open for communication.

Posted by: Claudia | November 9, 2007 11:57 AM

I agree with Wallis' assessment. What I would like commented on is how can the Religious Right support Romney? It is common knowledge the conservatives and fundys have long said that the Mormon church is a cult. Wonder what Richard Land's position is on that?

Posted by: Skotty | November 9, 2007 11:57 AM

I have always felt that Robertson was a fake. This validates my feelings.The Republican stance has always been about winning and not morals or values. Pat Robertson is not Christian or right.Bill Clinton may be a sinner but I believe he is a moral giant next to both Rudy and Pat.

Posted by: John Gill | November 9, 2007 12:03 PM

I believe Pat Robertson has done what Jim Wallis will most likely do in a matter of months when he endorses a candidate; namely, that he will prioritize the issues according to his own lens. Jim Wallis will vote for a candidate, as we all will, who captures the "majority" of what one can agree on, believe, endure, or even stomach at times. If the Sojorners' community, most of whom are Democrat, voet for a pro-abortion candidate, they have done what Pat has done, just on another issue -- which is to overlook one issue in favor of another.

Posted by: Carol | November 9, 2007 12:12 PM

Does anyone remember when Pat Robertson said he could squat like 2500 lbs or something ridiculous like that? He said he could do it because of his weird milkshake. How could anybody take him seriously after that?

Posted by: Will H. | November 9, 2007 12:18 PM

The debate shouldn't be about Pat Robertson's hypocrisy in endorsing Rudy, it should be about why any candidate would embrace endorsement from a certifiable lunatic.

Have we forgotten this self-described Christian's statements calliing for the murder of Venezuela's head of state, or his suggestion that an explosion of a nuclear weapon at the U.S. state department would be good for the country? He agreed with Jerry Falwell when Falwell said that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way" and said that the citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania had rejected God by voting out of office all seven members of the school board who supported intelligent design.

This is the man whose endorsement the possible, maybe likely, next president is thrilled to receive. And probably all of the other Republican candidates woudl feel the same way.

Why aren't the Democratic candidates calling out Robertson for the pariah he ought to be?

Posted by: Ed | November 9, 2007 12:24 PM

Does anyone remember when Pat Robertson said he could squat like 2500 lbs or something ridiculous like that? He said he could do it because of his weird milkshake. How could anybody take him seriously after that?

Posted by: Will H. | November 9, 2007 12:25 PM

Given Robertson's convictions on moral issues, such as abortion and "gay marriage," his endorsement of Giuliani is indeed startling. It makes as much sense as other professing Christians who eagerly endorse advocates of abortion on demand or gay "marriage." Imagine standing before the Lord of lords one day explaining why you supported the dismembering of innocent children and a lifestyle the Lord has specifically condemned. But then, we have our ways of rationalizing our own behavior now, don't we?

Posted by: Roland Mossberg | November 9, 2007 12:26 PM

Wow! What a surprise? Pat Robertson or for almost anyone else with a big media presence in our world and culture are as consistent today as they have ever been. Pat isn't "unprincipled." He is acting consistent with the "self-interest" principle that almost every person in our day and age make decisions by. Come on! Don't be so surprised. I don't care what we call ourselves politically, socially, religiously, at the heart of all of it is too often just good old fashioned selfishness and self-interest. God have mercy on us.

Posted by: Michael Teston | November 9, 2007 12:34 PM

While I agree with Jim that Robertson's choice is suprising, it makes more sense when you remember how guided by hatred Robertson is. In this case Robertson decided to put his hatred of other religions (hence his quote about "the bloodlust of Islamic terrorism") above his hatred for those who disagree on his two pet social issues. But it all comes back to hatred for him, which is sad, because I recall Jesus saying that the greatest commandment was rooted in love.

Matt Kelley
The Truth As Best I Know It

Posted by: Matt | November 9, 2007 12:39 PM

We now have 2 social gospels willing to ignore biblican views on life and marriage for partisan gain, how sad...

Posted by: Jason E

Jason ,
I really do not see Robertson having that much influence in the political landscape . Yes He has a large ministry , has brought many people to the Lord through his Ministry . He has sponsored programs that have fed and clothed the poor , even provide medical care . Maybe has gotten more people into voting booths , hard to say , have never read anything to prove or disprove that .

But politically his run for President fell way short , maybe made waves for bringing people into politics that were never involved before , but a vast majority gave up over the years . The religious right is moretop heavy , James Dobson or whatever , and the people are not politically active for the most part , I don't know about the left , I only hope the folks I see particpating in the political process are not liberal Christians in my area . That would be embarrassing to even the folks here .

Who wants that angry rhetoric and hate speech surrounding their lives , most Christians are involved in promoting what they have been taught that Christ wants us to do , in fact the liberals here speak to the same things , they just want the government to get into the action . So even the liberal and conservative agree on the good that they believe Christ wants us to do .

and as so many leftists point out , abortion is just as rampant , homosexual agenda is closing in on marriage . Wallis gives a voice to angry folks left out of the politcal process because their political view points have been dominated by the pagan left , must be a hurt to their egos . It sure has not been a spirtual blessing however . The religious right as stated sees all their issues being ignored and the schools and culture becoming a cess pool ,

Both sides feel like they loosing ,

Government has little to do with stopping that .

Roberston was brought up in a political household , I think too many people give too much credit to people who use the toilet the same way they do . He is just a well intentioned guy who has no sense of discernment in the things he says or oftn does in my opinion .

Roberstosn seems to be an honest guy in his dealings , which I guess is a plus these days . And he has not tried to pick another guy up in a bathroom , Seems kind of arrogant when he speaks about certian subjects , but so does Wallis .

I think they both could use some real humility in their lives .

Posted by: Mick | November 9, 2007 12:43 PM

Jim Wallis has expressed what I believe as well. I have the same problem with my conservative friends here in Idaho. The Robertson endorsement, although only one facet of the Christian Right, is an interesting signal that verifies that the CR will not endorse a democrat under any circumstances. Robertson should hav endorsed Governor Huckabee, but he obviously doesn't think Huckabee can win. Considering the comments Robertson has made in the past though, why should anyone take him seriously?

Posted by: Bill J | November 9, 2007 12:44 PM

I think what we're seeing here is the fragmentation and decline in influence of Christofascists on the Rethuglican party. The coalition of amoral Corporate America and the wide-eyed peasants awaiting the Rapture is showing some cracks in the facade.

This can only be good news, because this has been one of the most unholy coalitions in American political history.

But wait. You think this means I want Clinton, instead? All I see on this site is narrow, fear-based arguments that keeps us locked in this false prison of the 2-party system, our "viable" candidates vetted by the compliant, corporate media.

Remeber, the Cinton years ACCELERATED the vast transfer of wealth in this country from Main street to Wall street. The Clinton years saw NO dimunition in the growth of the military industrial complex. The air strikes in the Balkans, in Baghdad, in Somalia, in Sudan. The cruel, barbarous sanctions that killed by slow death of starvation and lack of adequate medicines 1/2 million Iraqi children, only to be declared “worth it” by their Secretary of State, Madam Albright.

Then there’s the Telecommunications Act of 96, pushed through by the Clintons. Again, dismantling a Roosevelt era system of regulation that had been put in place PRECISELY because we (America) had witnessed how Fascism was allowed to blossom, grow and eventually choke democracy by unitary control of the media throughout Europe in the 30s.

And "free" trade? There's nothing free about it. She unapologetically supports the economics of Milton Freidman that have greased the skids for Corporate America to dump the middle class in this country by seeking cheap labor overseas, where you don’t even have to worry about polluting the f@ck out the environment or paying even a subsistence wage. Or guarantee that your godd@mn Nikes weren’t sewn together by an eight year old. Where you can be shot in the head for trying to form a union. Free trade has been an unrequited DISASTER environmentally, morally, and even economically (unless, of course, you’re in the happy upper 10% (or less) of the world’s population). Are YOU better off than your parent’s generation, (assuming your under 50)? Are we?

But wait, there's more. Hillary Clinton:
-Voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.
-Voted for the Kyle-Lieberman Bill which has given the Bush Administration latitude to declare elements of the Iranian military terrorist groups that he can then attack with tactical nuclear weapons… and draw us into an even wider conflict.
-Has stated she will NOT redeploy US troops out of Iraq until… wait for it… 2013.
-Has accepted large amounts of money from Rupert “Goebbells” Murdoch.
-Calls her health care plan “universal,” when it’s just more giveaways to the insurance and pharmacuetical corporations, not surprisingly, also major donors.

There are principled candidates running in both parties right now who are being marginalized by the corporate MSM. Just because you don't want 4, and maybe 8 more years of Neocon proto-fascism in the form of the Neanderthal Guliani, doesn't mean you have to accept Rudy-in-a-dress.

What about Paul? Kucinich? Gravel? Richardson?

We need to dump the whole American Imperial project altogether by dumping the RNC and the DNC. It has made us the 21st Century Rome. And as Christians, you people should be the the first to acknowledge it.

Posted by: drift | November 9, 2007 12:50 PM

Actually it was 10,000 lbs. But yes Robertson is a loon. wolverine I have had over 15 years to observe Mr. Robertson. His rational and the reasons he does his things have always been about power. he is a failed prophet and does much damage to the prophetic community w/ his continued prophecies. i wish he would just stop. Right now he is continuing to play the fool and the church is suffering as a result.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 9, 2007 12:52 PM

For Pat Robertson, moral and ethical considerations are trumped by his most fervent hope - a Dominionist takeover of America.
The end justifies all means necessary to accomplish this goal.
Robertson has been preaching and plotting for an American theocracy since the early 80's.
Find out the details, read 'The Despoiling of America' by Katherine Yurica, available online at:
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

This is the real reason why Robertson supports Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 12:56 PM

For Pat Robertson, moral and ethical considerations are trumped by his most fervent hope - a Dominionist takeover of America.
The end justifies all means necessary to accomplish this goal.
Robertson has been preaching and plotting for an American theocracy since the early 80's.
Find out the details, read 'The Despoiling of America' by Katherine Yurica, available online.
This is the real reason why Robertson supports Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 1:00 PM

I've got to say I'm having a bit of a hard time reading Jim's blog and not thinking that the conservatives (i.e. Pat Robertson) venom towards the left in Christianity has rubbed off a bit. There are two things about the religious right that have completely turned me off to them. First is their political stances, which I disagree with. The other, perhaps more important issue to me, is the hate they seemingly harbor and perpetuate towards those (especially Christians) who's political views differ from their own. I'm sad to say that it seems the "religious left", if you will, has just been baited into a fight that I don't see much of Christ in.

I want to stand up for my convictions and beliefs - what I see Jesus having a heart for. However, this seems less like standing up for convictions, and more like vindictive retribution. Part of Jim Wallis' attractiveness (and that of his contemporaries) to me is their seeming willingness to engage in dialogue and seeking to love rather than judge and slander. I don't see that here - not even a little.

Basically, I don't see how this can be qualified as "God's Politics".

Posted by: Randy | November 9, 2007 1:06 PM

Randy,

Remember this is a political site on the internet, not a church social.
You can express your personal opinions here.
Do you have any? - besides the fact you don't like Jim Wallis or progressives in general?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 1:17 PM

I didn't read all of these comments, but my comment is that Pat Robertson seeks two things...power and money. Maybe he has been promised a vice-president ticket by endorsing Guiliani? It seems like there is no other motive for this endorsement. It has no purpose without the promise of money or power.

Posted by: amy | November 9, 2007 1:25 PM

Justintime:

I understand what you're saying. Thanks for your thoughts. It is a political site, not a church social. However, when you call it "God's Politics", you're adding a whole lot of weight to whatever you say about politics, inherintly. To me, "God's Politics" is trying to represent how God would approach politics, which is great, but to me, I'm not sure this would be consistent with that. So, no, I don't actually think this is just any political web site, and I think that is intended.

I actually do like most of what Jim Wallis brings - as I saw this article because I subscribe to his mailing list - and I would absolutely consider myself "progressive", liberal, democrat, all of that. I have lot's of personal opinions in regard to politics - opinions regarding health care for all, education, addressing poverty, promoting peace, etc. I think as a Christian though, I first need to consider people - God's sons and daughters - over my preferred policy and politics. And again, I think Jim Wallis invites that because of the title, "GOD'S Politics".

Posted by: Randy | November 9, 2007 1:32 PM

Payshun,

There's no doubt that Robertson has made some pretty reckless statements over the years. His call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez was a great example of that. (And believe me I'm no fan of Chavez!)

If will be interesting to see what affect this has on Giuliani's standing in the race. I'd be surprised if you saw Christian conservatives flock to Rudy. I may be wrong but the Christian conservatives that I know don't put much weight on Robertson's counsel, in no small part due to his being something of a loose cannon.

I'm with you on one thing -- I think it would be better for all of us Christians, left, right, even Robertson himself, if Robertson would go into retirement. I don't know if he means ill, but he's definitely out of his depth.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 9, 2007 1:41 PM

How can a person know the heart and mind of another.
Mr Wallis has obviously jumped to conclusions that are to say the least judgemental. I think the writer that mentioned the concerns for judicial appointment is right on. Guiliani has made it clear that he would appoint judges who believe in the constitution and not those who wish to rewrite it. He has given assurances that he will not promote abortion or gay marriages. Though I think there are better candidates I do not decry Pat Robertson's right to speak his mind as a Christian or as a private citizen. He has done much good in the world, and I still don't understand how a inteligent person like Jim Wallis can misconstru the value of conservative thought.

Posted by: DuWayne | November 9, 2007 1:48 PM

My apologies for jumping to conclusions about your politics, Randy.

My comment should have been directed to the chronic complainers about Jim Wallis and his guest bloggers.
We have a strong core group of right wing complainers and hecklers.
In the past the hecklers would derail discussion of the issues embarrassing to the Christian Right.
So the 'lefties', out of sheer frustration, push back vigorously.
This is a big reason why the tone occasionally gets emotional even aggressive.
Politics is just frustrating for both left and right, most of the time.

Recently, though, 'hijacking the topic' has been much less of a problem.
I hope it stays that way.
Because most of the opinions you see here have been carefully thought out.

As to the name of Jim's blog, 'God's Politics' - you could be right.
For some folks the name might seem presumptuous and a 'turn off'.
If so, that's too bad.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 1:56 PM

My question is: who sold whose soul to whom? Did Robertson sell his soul in order to try to make the Religious 'Right' relevant in the general election? Or did Rudy sell his in order to get into the White House, hoping to make the Religious 'Right' relevant?

You are looking at two men who would say anything if it sounds right in there head in order to get elected. Rudy walks, or should I say floats, on the ashes of the victims of 9/11, invoking that terrible day when ever he gets the chance. Robertson gladly expouses the name of God and that God told him to say and do things that are obviously not God-like (promoting assasinations, hatred, bigotry, greed).

So the question is: what is it that each is getting out of the endorsement? Rudy obviously gets to get into the pocketbook of those thousands who donates to Robertson and the free plugs on CBN. Robertson hopes to get the judges he wants on the Supreme Court if Rudy is elected.

So, Robertson would gladly put his values on the shelf in order to vote against anyone in the Democratic party. He would rather devalue himself, rather than not enter his horse in the race. I would have thought he would easily endorse Gov. Huckabee. He is my GOP nominee, eventhough I am a Democrat. With Huckabee in the race Christian should really take notice. If we are truly Christian and want to live Christ-like, we should not pick the lesser of two evils. There must be someone we can vote for, regardless of wins and losses.

Robertson believe Rudy is the best candidate to fight the 'War on Terrorism'. Why? Because he was the mayor of the City of New York a that time? The man put his central command post in the Twin Towers AFTER it had been attacked in 1993. He knew it was a target. The reason why he was walking around was because he had no office to go to. And eventhough none of the candidates wish to invoke his name, they still follow his path. No, not God's name. George W. Bush! The major Republican candidates would like you to vote for more of the same. Just continue to listen.

God gave us one mouth and two ears because we should listen twice as often as we speak!

Posted by: Z from New Orleans | November 9, 2007 2:14 PM

"Pat is also very much into the messianic mythology of America's divine purpose, advanced by a holy military."

This 'nails it'

I would add that it has always been the goal of eathly powers to corrupt The Gospel message...
to twist it to support warfare. OK so?

Well, witness today the folly of this.
Iraq is the end of the line. A bloody cul-de-sac
for necon christians.

Posted by: JustATourist | November 9, 2007 2:21 PM

Thanks for your article about Robertson endorsing Rudy G. You're right in saying that Christians should vote for politicians and policies that best reflect our values. And at the very least, we should not support those who go against them.

That's why as Christmas approaches, we have one more simple vote. Don't support stores that go against the Bible. Wal-Mart supports gay causes and is a big supporter. Christians can have an impact on companies by voting with our dollars.

Whatever the issue, we can make things better by letting companies and politicians know that we take Christ and God seriously by voting with our feet and our pocketbooks.

Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Edwin

Posted by: edwin crayton | November 9, 2007 2:37 PM

Rudy Giuliani told an audience at Iowa State University that the American military needs to be bigger:

"Our military is too small to deal with the Islamic terrorism threats," Giuliani said, "but it really is too small to deter would-be aggressors to even think of challenging us. And that's due to Bill Clinton."

Instead, Rudy called for a massive military buildup in order to "send a very strong signal to China and then Russia ... that it doesn't make sense to challenge us."
....

Guiliani has hired a team of neo conservatives as political advisors - among them, Norman Podhoretz, the godfather of neo conservatism.

Rudy Guiliani would be the final nail in the coffin holding America's future.
Thank God he'll never be elected.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 2:57 PM

The problem with Jim's analogy is evident. My African-Americans would choose Wallace. After he was shot, he "saw the light" and had a profound influence on minority education in his state. Would that Pat would have such a moment!

Posted by: Sweet Rob | November 9, 2007 3:03 PM

Would a 'liberal' Christian with any brains ever vote for Mike Huckabee?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 3:12 PM

Would a 'liberal' Christian with any brains ever vote for Mike Huckabee?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 3:12 PM

If some of his buddies put him up to meeting with Wallis -or even better- Ron Sider- and some serious concessions were brought forth by Huckabee in the interest of finding common ground, I'd consider it.

And Conservatives -fyi- that means you get over your allergies to Social Programs as a way of dealing with abortion.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 9, 2007 3:28 PM

Let us make the greatest different in this world by fulfilling the Great Commissions. Boycotting stores,etc is not going to change the heart of a sinful nation. Politics is not the answer. Get out and share your faith in Christ,and make disciples. We can turn this world upside down with the gospel. Any other method is a waste of good time.

Posted by: JAY | November 9, 2007 3:42 PM

What would Jesus Christ think of this Holier=than-Thou Robertson turmoil? There are people on the political right who understand that how one treats the least of these our brethren who are profoundly disturbed by the exclusion of their sisters and brothers from the social benefits the Gospel so clearly teaches. Robertson, also our brother, has chosen, instead, to preach the gospel of exclusion, and in the process has opened himself to holding fundamental views that are difficult to equate with the evangelical Gospel message. For those who are confused by his latest endorsement, the inconsistencies of his ministry- -including exploitation- - should be brought to awareness. Which candidate(s) would more closely follow policies as President that would reach out to those in the Highways and the Byways? Which candidates would more follow the Beatitudes? What of the children, the sick, the poor, the imprisoned? Does former NY mayor Giulliani seem to fit that bill better than do some other candidates?

Rich

Posted by: Anonymous | November 9, 2007 3:45 PM

Hi Jim, I'm puzzled that you're puzzled about Robertson. PR has said it again and again, that the real core guiding star for him is Israel. (e.g., via the standard Christian-Zionism predispensationalist, old-covenant logic) e.g., that never mind everything else going wrong in America, Robertson believes, crudely, that if America "blesses Israel," then America will be blessed. If America dares to criticize Israel in the slightest, then in the Robertson/Hagee logic, then America will be damned eternally and presently. It's that simple (minded) -- and a very dominant curse upon evengelical (dispensationalist) Christianity.

Rudi has by far assembled the most ultra-neoconservative, ultra Likudnik advisory group (with many top right wing Israelis on it).... (many of whom lately have been criticizing Bush for not nuking Iran yet) Robertson surely knows this.

In short, it's very simple to understand why Robertson endorsed Rudi. It's all about Israel.

Posted by: Scott H | November 9, 2007 4:03 PM

Bren, 'As the British papers describe him, and I agree, he [Giuliani] is simply Bush with brains.'
...

And a lot more dangerous than Bush.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 4:11 PM

The more interesting event is Brownback supporting McCain, and that true religious right conservatives like Brownback and Huckabee can't gather enough money or support to be considered legitimate contenders. Now the religious right is a fractured, splintered mess of rogue groups going in different directions.

Maybe they're thinking for themselves after all!

Posted by: Bob L | November 9, 2007 4:22 PM

Robertson believes, crudely, that if America "blesses Israel," then America will be blessed. If America dares to criticize Israel in the slightest, then in the Robertson/Hagee logic, then America will be damned eternally and presently. It's that simple (minded) -- and a very dominant curse upon evengelical (dispensationalist) Christianity.

One correction, learn to seperate secular Zionism from the true religious Jewish obedient to God. I've written a research/Scripture-study (webpage) on the misconception or false-teaching of Christian Zionists like Hagee and others. The two dominant misquoting of scripture they use being 'Honoring Authority' and 'Bless Them That Bless You'. Do a websearch using key-words 'rtpricetag Israel'.

First it must be understood as Rabbi since 70AD have warned, that it is the Messiah that gathers the scattered remnant back to Israel (having the New Jerusalem), and not the Zionist secular-man.

Second, it is God that scattered Israel, and scripture tells us that God still calls them rebellious. Scripture in this case tells us, when confronted with opposing authorities, God is the Authority in this case we need follow.

Last, scripture verse about blessing or cursing was talking to Abram later called Abraham, not to Israel. Jacob the son that would later be called Israel had not been born yet.

We need more leaders that will speak out 'truth' such as Jim Wallis has been obedient in doing, and less apologists worrying about their tax statis and appeasing instead the antichrist's growing in numbers within the Christian church.

Posted by: DeWayne | November 9, 2007 4:43 PM

I don't think it's that simple. With the possible exception of Ron Paul, all of the Republican contenders have taken strong stances in favor of continuing the war against Islamic radicalism and are in favor of continuing US support for Israel.

The (Corp)government we now have in America, along Media controlled by the same Corp-organisms, have used half truth and lies to begin their religious Crusade against the Islamic religion.
As a Christian, I have put in more than a good amount of time researching this 'Islamofascistterrorism' that Americans are being inundated with. I found almost all of it very deceitful and misleading, and able to continue being totally accepted simply because of the astounding ignorance of American citizens concerning true Islamic beliefs.
It appears many Christian lower-level leaders are affraid of the Islamic God, affraid their own God is to weak to protect them and stand or remain supreme to the Islamic God. Most of these leaders also seriously ignorant not only about Islam, but apparently about their own God.
What I have discovered in my research, is that it is not the Muslim and Islam that is their greatest enemy, our greatest enemy in America is our own leaders. This is true with and without the Christian church. By now I am also much aware of the evil as yeast having done it's damage in America, and America following the prophetic end times.

Posted by: DeWayne | November 9, 2007 5:12 PM

Interesting DeWayne, and I'd be curious to learn more of your take on this HUGE issue of "christian zionism" or "Christian-Likudism" -- in a secular sense. (fyi, see www.christianzionism.org -- of a few of us "crying in the wilderness")

I've actually been tracking Robertson's approach to the Mideast since early 1980's (gasp, I know) I do remember once in 1982, the day Israeli invaded Lebanon, that Robertson, without having a clue of the rational reasons for the "prophetic" nature of his observation - worried about the "reaction" the invasion would catalyze. (Of course, he probably had never heard of the Shia genie about to be unleashed -- as Rabin later put it, much in regret.)

Of course, I that there are numerous twists and turns in the Robertson record towards US politics. (Remember the bizaree prediction in late October 2004 when he predicted Bush might lose, "because he had gotten too close to the neoconservatives" -- which was hillarious since the 700 Club has long been host to dominant voices from the neocon orchestra. Christian voices (like me)who are not a part of the neocon reservation would never get invited to appear on the 700 Club - but I digress.

I invite readers here to test the record themselves - and look for those quotes by Robertson regarding Israel and the US. When you read the intense, passionate (fanatical?) devotion to defending Israel (regardless of anything they might do, then Pat's support for Rudy (by far the most hawkishly pro-whatever-Israel-wants, of any of the remaining Republicans) makes much more sense.

Remember too the flap over the unseemly reference by the late Rev.'d Falwell (which Robertson at the time agreed with) concerned Ariel Sharon's stroke. (because somehow it was a sign of God's wrath for daring to give back an inch of Israel -- e.g. Gaza.

In short, for Robertson, Israel dare not give an inch. And if it refuses and thus bringeth on Armageddon and the second coming, then so much the better for Robertson....

I repeat, for Robertson, it's Israel first - all else, even push button US social issues like abortion - pale by comparison. Test it.

Posted by: scott h | November 9, 2007 5:34 PM

I'm speechless. What's next, Hillary getting the nod from Fox News?

Well, for a time she was buddies with Rupert Murdoch, so ... stranger things have happened.

Once again Mr. Wallis resorts to name-calling in response to someone he disagrees with, and apparently can't see any hypocrisy in his own wide-eyed shock that Robertson might be politically motivated. The assumption that the moral high ground always belongs to the person or candidate that fits Jim Wallis' personal political opinions is becoming tiresome and does nothing to promote peace, understanding or real discussion of candidates and issues.

My own pastor, a registered Republican, has made similar statements about James Dobson. So that holds no water.

Rick I know that you live in your own little world but you may want to know that Hillary Clinton's unfavorable number is around 50%. Nobody has ever won the presidency with unfavorable numbers that high. You and your lib friends are totally misreading the country snd will be surprided by the election results in 2008. The majority of the American people are not liberal and want nothing to do with their very evil ideas. It is why Hilary can not be who she really is which is a communist socialist liberal.

Doug -- You yourself have said in the past that you don't subscribe to the "drive-by media," so why should I value your opinion? In fact, Bill Clinton toward the end of his second term was even more popular than Reagan and has maintained that popularity in retirement -- and conservatives still don't understand why or how. Now, if you believe right-wing bloggers and talk radio, she's a "polarizing figure," but that's only because they hate her so much and believe that everyone believes as they do, which is just plain in accurate.

On top of that, virtually every major candidate in this election campaign, on both sides, has serious flaws, and Hillary's "high negatives" are directly connected (for the most part) to her front-runner status and inside track and have little to do with her positions or husband. The conservatives know that she can not only win but govern effectively -- basically leaving them outside -- and thus have always tried to create doubt.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 9, 2007 6:08 PM

Astounding, simply astouding...

I'm not shocked for one minute.

Robertson long ago lost any credibility with me, and I consider Jim Wallis and Sojourners to be prophetic in this as they have been in so many other issues.

Posted by: Scott | November 9, 2007 6:57 PM

ALSO this is from an article today regarding Huckabee..

But he adds an element that distinguishes him from the rest of a Republican field competing for the title of Mr. Conventionality. "I'm a conservative," Huckabee told me. "But if that means I have to close my eyes to poverty and hunger, I'm not going to do that." This, he said, would be to "refuse a larger allegiance, to my own soul, and also standing before God."

That to me sounds like a many anyone could vote for.

Posted by: anon | November 9, 2007 7:17 PM

Pat Robertson is forever the Hypocrit.

Posted by: Dominick J. | November 9, 2007 7:48 PM

TO borrow someones post and make some slight changes---Social Conservatives sitting out the election rather than voting for Rudy Guiliani, is a vote for Hillary Clinton. AMEN!!!

As an ex New Yorker, I am ashamed to have Ruddi Run for the Top office of our land! as Mayor, Rudi made me sick to my stomach.

So weigh the pros and cons of each nominee at election time and find the one that most closely adheres to your values and principles, which for me certainly isn't either Rudy or McCain, but all the while Keep in mind that no one is perfect and neither is Hillary. BUT she'll lead this country out of debt and back to the good graces of the world that snubs us because of Bush.

Posted by: Dominick J. | November 9, 2007 7:57 PM

Let me clear the air re Robertson's position on 9/11. Although it was Jerry Falwell who made the actual statement ATTRIBUTED to Robertson (in an interview between the two) in the news stories about the endorsement, here is Robertson's own statement, from his website:

"We have allowed rampant pornography on the Internet, and rampant secularism and the occult, etc. to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered by our society. We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said, "We are going to legislate You out of the schools and take Your commandments from the courthouses in various states. We are not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We are not going to allow the Bible or prayer in our schools." We have insulted God at the highest level of our government. Then, we say, "Why does this [i.e, 9/11] happen?" It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us."

Although Giuliani has claimed that Robertson has "explained" his agreement with Falwell in the interview, he is dodging the fact that Robertson's position is essentially parallel with Falwell's. And this from the candidate who was visibly angry when Ron Paul suggested that 9/11 might have been a result of America's foreign policy - which happens to be a MUCH more real possibility!

Robertson is a doddering old uber-conservative who has shown increasingly bizarre behavior and made increasingly bizarre statements of late. (As an aside, I agree with those who think that a large part of his endorsement is based not just on Giuliani's POSITION on Israel, but the fact that Giuliani has packed his advisory staff with ultra-conservative Jews (e.g., Podhoretz) and ultra-Zionist Christians.)

Given this, Giuliani is far more to be faulted for accepting this endorsement than Robertson is for giving it. And yet I agree with those who believe that this endorsement will likely backfire (though not be, perhaps, a "death knell") since Robertson's own power (and power base) has been on the wane, and he has been more "marginalized" in recent years.

Two other quick comments.

To the person who accused Hillary of being "the most ambitious" candidate: poppycock. With few exceptions, the mere fact that one wants to go into politics professionally requires a degree of ambition that is higher than most people's. And once when "get the taste," that ambition just grows. In this regard, to suggest that at least most of the other candidates (perhaps Paul and Kucinich are exceptions) are not "ambitious" about their...ambition to be president is patently absurd. Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney et al are no less "ambitious" about being president than Hillary.

Second, Giuliani may be the single most dangerous man in the world - even more dangerous than the person who noted he was "Bush with brains." He is an autocrat who brooks no disagreement (sound like any presidents we know?), a blatant bully, a man completely lacking in tact (and diplomacy REQUIRES tact), and a teflon-coated liar who makes Reagan look like velcro. And this is in ADDITION to being an adulterer, a despised father, and who is STILL supporting fellow adulterer Bernard Kerik despite the latter's indictment on numerous counts, including using government property - an apartment secured for the use of 9/11 responders - as a "love nest" to bed his literary agent.

I once said that if George Bush was re-elected I'd leave the country. But I flip-flopped. (LOL). However, if Giuliani is elected, I will without question make good on my plan.

Peace.

Posted by: Maani | November 9, 2007 8:25 PM

I've never understood why the 'righties' think Hillary Clinton would be bad for America.
She's not my favorite candidate either, but I can't get hysterical about the possibility of her becoming president.
The reason I'm not fond of Hillary for president is because I think she's too much under the influence of the corporate elite.

But what is your reason for such virulent hate for Hillary Clinton.
Sounds like you hate her even more than I hate Bush.
Why?
Is she too aggressive for a woman?
She's not smart or tough enough to be president?
Do you think she's hypocritical?
She's not enough anti abortion?
It's because she's a Democrat?
She's married to Bill Clinton?
Or should have divorced him?
You've heard other nasty rumors about the Clintons?

What is it?

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 9:06 PM

Joe says, 'Given the likelihood of a vacancy on the Supreme Court during the next President's term, election of a President who will appoint judges that respect the Constitution as it is written, rather than as they wish it were written, is the most pressing need of the pro-life movement.'
...

Is this why social conservatives put the worst president in American history into the White House?
This is an idiotic strategy for selecting good leadership!
Social conservatives should check out their candidates more carefully.

Haven't you noticed many of the pro-lifers in Congress are either incompetent or corrupt?
And you only get lip service from them on your favorite cause.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 9:21 PM

These days, Pat Robertson is more to be pitied than to be comment on.

Posted by: Nick Wheeler | November 9, 2007 9:39 PM

justintime you said

"Mike Huckabee is one of the very few honorable Republicans left in politics.
Too bad he's surrounded by dishonorable Republicans.
It's unlikely he could singlehandedly turn his party away from the dark side."

I say all it takes is 1. 1 person to turn the tides. I believe he can and will. It has to start somewhere.

: )

Posted by: anon | November 9, 2007 9:45 PM

I don't know how much of that railing on Pat Robertson is true. I hope that none of it is, but Pat is a smart guy even if he is not a picture of Christian perfection. What I do know is that I absolutely do not agree with Richard Land's ludicrous opinion about standing on principle.

Hopefully, there will not be too many Christians that do agree with Mr. Land. If there are, then we will have only our own house to blame for the devastation that will come as a result of such stupidity.

There is a time to stand on principle, but forfeiting the highest seat in the nation to Hillary Clinton for the sake of principle is absurd and actually demonstrates a lack of true principle on Richard Land's part.

Like Richard Land, I do not approve of Rudy's position on gay rights or a woman's right to kill her child. However, if Rudy ends up being the Republican nominee for president, I feel it is absolutely my Christian responsibility to vote for him in an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton. Rudy is unquestionably the lesser of two evils. I would feel the same way about any Republican nominee whose name ends up on the ballot against Hillary.

The democratic party is the bastion of evil and Hillary is the epitome of everything that I despise about this world we live in. If Hillary is elected, I believe it will permanently damage our nation economically, militarily, morally and spiritually. The freedoms we have always known in this country and the values this nation was built upon will potentially be strangled to death under the democratic party's absurd notions about global warming, wealth redistribution, illegal immigration and legally mandated "tolerance" of people that choose to live as an abomination to the Lord. The only people for whom there will be no tolerance are the Christians and Jews that dare to speak against the demented members of society that receive government sanctioned protection for their filthiness. The thought police will dominate our society. The "Fairness Doctrine" will be successfully reintroduced as law and it will become virtually impossible for TV and radio preachers, newspaper reporters, and conservatives to speak the truth over TV and radio air waves.

Under Hillary, our sovereignty as a nation will be handed over to nations that hate us and America we will slip into a deeper state of global insignificance. We will no longer be "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". We will become the antithesis of our Plege... an insignificant member of a new Babylonian empire.

Under the control of a democratic majority and a less than steadfast Republican President, many of these terrible things are happening already, or being positioned to happen. Our nation's only hope is to restore the balance of power to conservative Republicans. We cannot allow the seat of Commander in Chief to go to any democrat right now, but especially not Hillary. We must fight her evilness with every ounce of strength we can muster at the polls.

So, I guess I'll have to take Pat's side and truly stand on principle by voting for Rudy if he ends up being our best chance of defeating a democratic nominee for President.

Posted by: Mr. Fox | November 9, 2007 10:54 PM

We cannot allow the seat of Commander in Chief to go to any democrat right now, but especially not Hillary. We must fight her evilness with every ounce of strength we can muster at the polls.

It appears the evil Hillary has no chance at all for Mr. Fox's vote.

I'm still at a loss to understand why so many of the Christian Right think she's evil.
Help me out here.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 11:11 PM

The Republican leadership thinks that, of all their slate of 'pygmies', they have the best chance of selling Guiliani to America.
They will use 9/11 and try to spook Americans into voting for their icon of anti-terrorism, Rudy Giuliani.
Hillary will be attacked relentlessly and portrayed as a mere woman, incapable of leading America in the war on Islamo-fascists.
This is another reason why I hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

But I don't think Americans will buy this transparently fraudulent 9/11 message again in 2008.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 11:35 PM

Joey and Mr Fox appear to be trapped in the Republican echo chamber.

Posted by: justintime | November 9, 2007 11:41 PM

We need a president with the testicular fortitude to wage a serious war to end all wars. It's time re-awaken the "Sleeping Giant". Time to start kicking booty like we mean business. The only way we will win this war on terror is to strike first, strike extraordinarily hard, and create a massive wake of devastation large enough that no nation would dare cross the line in the sand for fear of being next to incur our wrath. We have the technology and resources to do this. What are we waiting for.

That won't happen with a Hillary in office. It probably won't happen with a Rudy in office. But, I'm putting my vote on the candidate that's not willing to put up with any more crap from the Islamic sector. If they want a holy war, let's give them one that puts Hiroshima and Nakasake to shame, and restore the balance of power to the only nation with the ability to hold that power and maintain justice on this spinning chunk of rock.

Jesus was not a wuss. He was obedient to his Father. Had he not been, he would not have died on the cross. He had the power to do something different, but was obedient. All this silly "Christian" talk about playing footsies with our enemies is hogwash. God is not a wuss. He instructed Israel to utterly destroy every that lived and breathed when they went to war. They did not listen, and here we are today, post 9/11, with a bunch of retarded Muslim infidels causing problems for the whole pamn dlantet.

Time to wake up, America. This is not a fire drill. This is for real. Let's fight to win. I'm not a fan of Pat's, but what in the world is wrong with some of his ideas, like hiring a hit man to take out Chavez, or even Castro. What ever happened to real Americans, like Truman and Eisenhower, and real soldiers, like Patton and Churchill? That's not anti-Christian. It's anti-stupid!

I'm not an extremist. I'm a realist. What have we done lately that has worked? Nothing meaningful since Reagan left office. Nothing. We took giant steps backward under the "leadership" (ha ha) of Slick Willy. Why in the world would we elect his goofy witch of a wife for President? It amazes me that it's even an option for some people. And this Barak Osama clown? Tell me I'm dreaming! Anything on the Republican ticket is a better option than any of our Democratic options.

The right choices are simple:
(1) Stop murdering our unborn children;
(2) Stop putting up with crap off of nations that house radical Islamists;
(3) Stop putting up with people that want to force us into embracing their choice to live a sinful and sexually perverted lifestyle;
(4) Stop supporting government that takes our hard earned wages and handing out gifts to those that have not done as well;
(5) Start teaching our children there ARE moral absolutes;
(6) Start electing officials that govern of, by and for the people.
(7) Start using our own oil and let Venezuela and watch all the Arab nations economically implode when we stop purchasing anything from them, and stop selling anything to them, including food. Let's see how tasty they find them steel barrels.

9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET! Shame on those who think we should. How dare you call yourself a Christian, or an American?

"Friends don't let friends vote Democrat."

Semper Fi!

Posted by: Semper Fi | November 10, 2007 12:20 AM

Kevin said

This is ridiculous. Of course Dobson is not going to endorse Hillary Clinton, given that they agree on very few issues. Dobson's non-endorsement of Hillary will not be a covert anything. He has made it clear that he will not endorse Rudy.

Kevin said

You are right about this Kevin , if you listen to James Dobson , and I do from time to time , his sincerity is obvious regarding family issues . He does not see Rudi doing anything about the negative culture ISSUES he feels are having a harsh impact on us .

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 1:14 AM

I'm not surprised. A long while ago, I finally decided that conservative politics were much more important to a lot of these folks - than God was. Sort of like...these are devout Republicans - who happen to be Christian. Rather than being devout Christians - who happen to be Republicans.

Not that I don't understand the part about voting for someone who is pro-abortion. I've had to many times - because I agreed more with the REST of what they stood for over their opponent's views. I find voting time tough. Few candidates are exactly what I'd like.

But the difference would seems to be that he has made abortion and gay rights such litmust tests of whether or not you should vote for a candidate. Which always seemed to swing in the Republicans' favor.

And now this.

This sounds odd - but I'm not surprised. If I were a betting person, I'd wager that this would be the true (even if not expressed, but held in secret) of a good many of the upper echelon of the Christian right.

Some of them are really, at deep bottom, all about money. And conservative politics plays well to that. (That isn't to say that I never agree with some of the facets of conservative politics. Many times, it offers substantial wisdom.)

But...I'm not surprised. If there were a way of getting a truly honest poll - I think you'd find a significant number of the Christian right that would share this leaning - just because of the electability.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | November 10, 2007 2:51 AM

AMBER: "Thanks for response. You mentioned that liberalism is 100% anti Christian. And no I don't feel like pulling my bible out and thumping you on the head with it. I really dislike arguments where scripture is used to prove points."

ME: Amber, Jesus proved everything about Himself WITH scripture. I have, for more than a year now, asked "The Leftists" here ate Beliefnet to "prove" Progressive theology is not wrong. That can ONLY be done using scripture. No where is Progressive/Liberal Christianity supported by the historic Gospel and witness of the Apostles EXCEPT for war and the poor. am at donnyresponse@yahoo.com if you care to show me what's up. Leftists have never scared me. They are thumpless in reality.

Planned parenthood, by the way, kills the poor. Killing unborn children to further promiscuity and a comfy life is not a Christian concept.

Reality, to a Christian is important. Don't believe the Humanist propaganda saying otherwise.

Helping the poor shouldn't mean debauching them. I also see that "The Left" does nothing to actually stop war anywhere but in little parades in America. But still the inner-city is a lethal (and Democrat/Liberal) place.

Test all things . . . and, study . . .. Christian advice.

Posted by: Donny | November 10, 2007 8:43 AM

I think this endorsement reveals that for many "value voters," American foreign policy has finally overtaken domestic justice issues. Actually, I see this as the final nail in the coffin for the argument of many in the religious right that their faith supersedes their patriotism. Robertson needs to just come out and say it: My identity as an American trumps my identity as a follower of the crucified God.

Posted by: clint | November 10, 2007 10:01 AM

Robertson is not going to back Romney due to him being a "Mormon" If Romney wasn't a Mormon but still had the same values I believe Robertson would back him in a heart beat. So he really did have much to pick from so why not go for the worst one. But being Mormon myself doesn't not guarantee Romney my vote and 100% mostly likely won't

Posted by: Richard | November 10, 2007 10:55 AM

Attacks on Hillary's faith are interesting. Hillary was very active in her church as a youth and was a political conservative at that time. She attributes her stances of concern for the poor and public health issues to her faith. She also attributes her decision to stand by her husband to her faith. Why didn't conservative Christians praise her for this decision? I appreciate Billy Graham for being non-judgmental toward the Clintons and being willing to help them through their personal crisis. Many Evangelical leaders have had similar moral failings such as Bill Clinton's. If they can repent and move on so should the Clintons be able to. We need to quit labeling everyone who disagrees with our political stances as being evil and or out of line with the Scriptures. The Scriptues say as much about justice for the poor as they do about prolife issues and they even give a case for communal care: Acts 4:32 - 36; 2 Cor. 8:13-15.

Posted by: Marjorie | November 10, 2007 11:16 AM

Without going into a treatise on all this... to make sense out of what you have said it is essential to know what defines "leftist" Christianity in your view.

God bless.

Posted by: Scott Starr

Scott , I will not speak for Donny , but Leftist Christianity Donny sees defines itself on this blog I believe . I and many hope Jim Walis is not the norm .

Faith is about God , his enduring commitment to us , and our commuitment to him . It is suppose to uplift people . Walii has taken politicis to define faith , everything that causes such an outrage of Pat Robertson from people here who shared political differences , but are sincere in their faith . No difference in Wallis and Roberston , but whose politics you think reflects Christ . Whose ever side your politics are on , that is what defines your Faith . I think that is holy poo poo myself .

The Evangelical churches have been called share Christ , to love God and love people promote the same beliefs Amber stated so kindly . I would not be surprised hearing a Pastor condemn the kind of treatment Amber received at the abortion clinic she defends , but I would be surprised a Pastor using it to depict that as the norm of the kind of people in his Congregation . Also supporting aborting babies what the Bible teaches as being created by God is a bit strange to a Bible believer . Not understanding why at a least a person who believes the Bible would have a problem with abortion is in fact quite confusing , and appears to give the persona the person supporting abortions has not thought it through form a Bibibical perspective or is just mocking anothers belief in the Bible . .

But I am still going to the same church that I got saved in , 1985. Perhaps I need to get out more myself , but the Lord has been good to me , and I try to share that with others . Is that not the idea ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 10, 2007 12:43 PM

Posted by: Donny | November 10, 2007 8:43 AM

Amber, Jesus proved everything about Himself WITH scripture.

No, He proved who He was by His life. How He loved. Do you remember Pharisees? They were all about the details, the law, using lots of scripture. And Jesus had much to say on that topic. Loosing site of the "big picture." Yes, He (Jesus) used scripture, but it was His INTENT that mattered most. He really loved people. And you can use scripture without your mouth, but WITH your actions.

Scripture can destroy someone inside and should not be thrown around lightly. And if ones intent is to just use scripture to prove political points and not show someone the love of God sincerely, then I believe that to be wrong. And I refuse to live my faith/spiritual life like that.

Oh, and Donny I am glad I don't scare you and I am very proud to be "thumpless" though :)

Test all thing, study - Christian advise - I think we can agree on that. And even if I know scripture up and down I would and will never want to turn into a "thumper"!

Thanks, Amber

BTW (from my last post) - Pro-choice is different than Pro-abortion. I believe in a woman's right to choose (Pro-choice). Situations are complicated and individual.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 2:03 PM

Unfortunately Mick is so obsessed with the stick in the eye of Rick he doesn't realize he's actually looking at the one in his own.

I guess at least if they're spouting off here they're not out somewhere in the real world doing some real damage - but I have some doubts about that guy "Semper Fi"!!!

My wish for intolerant religious groups is that they divide endlessly into ever more schisms intolerant of and obsessed with each other - and leave us alone.

My prayer would be a bit better than that, yes.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 3:12 PM

BTW (from my last post) - Pro-choice is different than Pro-abortion. I believe in a woman's right to choose (Pro-choice). Situations are complicated and individual.

Posted by:

Anom they surely are . You realize the exact same situations for two people may result in different options , because of faith , character of the person , economic or other reasons . The reason to abort the baby never has anything to do with what the baby has done , does it ? Nor the fault of God . They are always constant .

Because I believe life is so important in God's plan for us is why I and other Christians believe people are not suppose to have the power over who has a life and dies , The deabate then goes to other issues that always get further and further from this man point .

I would think you could respect that view also ? Have you never considered that ?
That respect does not seem prevalent from the pro choice side here , If you notice , the motive for pro life is often stated to be based in controling women , and also linked to people not caring about the poor . Mother Theresa comes to mind , but then she is often not used by the left in this debate . But should a person that is a bad parent, poor , and not close to the Love of the poor and not even want children be not given a right to life be considered unworthy of respect of an opinion . Are only pro abortion advocates allowed to not care about these things ? . Of course not , just as a person who is a great parent , gives to the poor , and is pro choice .
They have no less a view worth listening to , right ?

Who has more of a value in opinion or respect , I suggest both are equal . At least in God's eyes , we all are equal of his love right ? I happen to carry that to the unborn . Or I try to , the world has an effect on me , unlike some of the more righterous here I guess.

Usually the very subject of and the point of the matter to pro lifers is , do we have the right to end the life of what God has created ?

After that , its all self righteous I am better then you holy poo poo in my opinion . I know many sincere people who for what ever reason believe that being pro choice is what is correct to our culture . I don't agree , but I may agree with their love of God . And my belief on this is to promote those causes that support life and women after they are born . To this we should be in agreement , and would it not be better if we worked together to these ends , instead of promoting a motive we rather burn down abortion clinics then feed a hungry baby . Is that ot what supposedly Jim Wallis tries to get the mainstream media believe his caring political minsitry is about , helping ?

as Rick says in disagreement and his self righteous agree with me or your agaisnt God viewpoints ,
Puh-leeze

Christ does not want us voting Republican or democrat as much as He is concerned in how we lead our lives .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 10, 2007 3:21 PM

For those of you who think a Conservative Judge is guaranteed by a GOP Prez, two words: David Souter.

Form the Wikipedia article on Souter:

"David Hackett Souter (born September 17, 1939) has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1990. He filled the seat vacated by William J. Brennan. On the Court he usually votes with the liberal wing, though not as consistently as his predecessor. He currently ranks fourth in seniority among the Associate Justices.

"Initially, from 1990-93, he tended to be a conservative-leaning Justice, although more in the mold of Anthony Kennedy than Antonin Scalia or William Rehnquist. In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time. The symbolic turning point came in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade. Souter and Anthony Kennedy each considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion which upheld all the restrictions in the Casey case except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution. Roe was decided by a 7 to 2 vote, though Casey was 5 to 4.

"Although appointed by a Republican president, and thus expected to be conservative (see Segal-Cover score), he is usually associated with the liberal wing of the Court."

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 10, 2007 3:56 PM

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 10, 2007 3:21 PM
I know many sincere people who for what ever reason believe that being pro choice is what is correct to our culture . I don't agree , but I may agree with their love of God . And my belief on this is to promote those causes that support life and women after they are born .

I respect your stance on pro choice not being correct for our culture, but I do see it fit for our culture.

I know many sincere people as well who are pro choice. Why is pro-choice good for our culture? Firmly believe that if abortions were made illegal and a woman did not have a right to choose the problem would double, or even triple. Because making it illegal is a poor stance in a solution in which I hear from many pro-lifers. Please correct me if I am wrong. Making it illegal does not make it go away. There are many instances in our history where this was the approach and it went horribly wrong.

Absolutely I respect the life of the unborn (and mother). That may be hard for some Christians to put those ideas together (liberal, pro-choice, respecting the life of the unborn, mothers, and a woman's right to choose).

I am realist when it comes to this issue - making abortions illegal. It would make things worse then they are and we would see more death- illegally. Possible mother AND child. Because people would begin finding their own ways to handle it.

Thanks, Amber

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 4:11 PM

"I've never understood why the 'righties' think Hillary Clinton would be bad for America."

For me, I simply disagree with her ideology. You vote on ideology, yes?

"She's not my favorite candidate either, but I can't get hysterical about the possibility of her becoming president."

Of course you can't. She agrees with your ideology, by and large.

"The reason I'm not fond of Hillary for president is because I think she's too much under the influence of the corporate elite."

Every president is under the influence of the corporate elite.

"But what is your reason for such virulent hate for Hillary Clinton."

I don't hate her virulently. I think she is extremely phony, and you'll find very few people who disagree with me on that.

"Sounds like you hate her even more than I hate Bush.

I don't. I would take her over Obama any day of the week.

"Is she too aggressive for a woman?"

I think you mean assertive, not aggressive. I would certainly prefer an assertive women to a passive one, if she is going to serve in the Oval Office. However, I think she revealed her own political ambitions too early in her husband's term. The Hillary narrative is that every move she has made has been an effort to get her to this spot. If you disagree with her on the issues, you are likely to find her to be too assertive.

"She's not smart or tough enough to be president?"

She is both.

"Do you think she's hypocritical?"

Yep.

"She's not enough anti abortion?"

She's not at all anti-abortion. Rhetoric aside, she has established a decades-long track record of being to the furthest left of the spectrum on this issue.

"It's because she's a Democrat?"

That would be a big part of it.

"She's married to Bill Clinton?"

Don't care.

"Or should have divorced him?"

That's her decision.

"You've heard other nasty rumors about the Clintons?"

Beyond nasty rumors, I think there is something particularly cold-blooded about the Clintons. Have you read George Stephanopolous's book on his years with the Clintons? I don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but I think Hillary has a "back room" problem.

But yeah, some people cannot differentiate between their ideology and their personal feelings. That's hardly surprising, and hardly confined to

Posted by: kevin s. | November 10, 2007 4:24 PM

Thanks for your insight, Kevin.
Haven't read Staph's book but don't think much of his tv punditry.

Posted by: justintime | November 10, 2007 4:31 PM

"I am realist when it comes to this issue - making abortions illegal. It would make things worse then they are and we would see more death- illegally. Possible mother AND child. Because people would begin finding their own ways to handle it."

If you are a realist, you might want to take some time to find statistics to back up your assertions. There were relatively few deaths from illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, and substantially fewer actual abortions. The abortion rate steadily increased during the first several years of Roe, indicating that women took advantage of the opportunity to have an abortion who would not have done so were it legal.

So the argument that it would cause more death in this country is not supported by facts.

Further, you insinuate that those who are opposed to legal abortion see this as a guarantee that no abortion will take place, or that the solution stops there. I agree that it would not.

First of all, I think we need to untangle the bureaucracy surrounding adoption in this country. We have turned it into an expensive, multi-year process, which is absurd. I doubt anyone who describes themselves as pro-life would oppose additional funding for adoption programs, so long as they accompanied abortion regulation.

I also agree that we should make an effort to ensure that women can afford to go to the hospital and have a child. I strenuously disagree that we ought to instead be spending tax dollars to fund the abortions themselves (this is another area in which I disagree with the Democratic field).

Combine this added funding and streamlining with a law enforcement effort targetting illicit abortion providers, as well as leveraging stiff sentences against parents and men who actively coerce a woman into having an abortion, and we will drastically reduce the number of abortions in this country.

We then are left with the question of what it means to "respect" the life of the unborn. I believe that, if we are respecting the life, we are recognizing that it is human life. If we are recognizing it as such, then we are forced to protect it by the rule of law. I am a realist as well, and I see no way around that.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 10, 2007 5:03 PM

"Fortunately, it's about a woman's right to choose for herself as well. And when you take that away (RIGHTS) from anyone you are striping someone of their worth."

I disagree that our rights determine our worth. I recognize that this is the pro-choice viewpoint (well, that and an attempt to get around the fact that a baby dies when an abortion occurs) but I don't think it makes sense consitutionally.

We have the right to make decisions for ourselves, and those liberties are important, but they end when they infringe upon the most important liberty of all, the right to live. The right to live trumps the exercise of choice.

Morally, the argument is a mess. There is no scriptural basis for the argument that we are to have more choices. The Bible says we are to be slaves to God.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 10, 2007 5:44 PM

Justin asked:
Hey payshun, Are things getting back to normal in the Southland?

Yah they are. Our mayor is removing debris every day. It's a slow process but totally necessary. Thanx for asking.

These new conservatives are funny. At least they can give me a laugh.

Donny I have spent at least 4 months showing you my ideology, where it springs from in the bible (when it's warranted) and how I live by the spirit. Me thinks you worship the bible too much and you don't listen to his spirit. Here's some advice for you. Listen to our father's spirit and let that inform how you study the word.

I wish I had the time to examine Semper's list. The downright xenophobic, homophobic and fear driven policy he espouses is absolutely antichristian.

p

Posted by: payshun | November 10, 2007 6:14 PM

And with the Pro-Choice movement- This movement is about taking away a woman's right to choose for herself what she would like to do.

Correction- it's about not NOT taking away..... my typo.

Thanks, Amber

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 6:43 PM

How do conservatives deal with this Scripture passage where God calls for the death of pregnant women:

Hosea 13:16 People of Samaria, you must pay for your sins.
You have refused to obey me.
You will be killed with swords.
Your little children will be smashed on the ground.
Your pregnant women will be ripped wide open.

Posted by: ashpenaz | November 10, 2007 7:11 PM

It sounds a bit hypocritical to criticize Robertson for endorsing someone that is more open minded than most republican candidates. Maybe he's seen the light.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 8:29 PM

Amber, Susan B. Anthony was ardently anti-abortion. Look it up.

Justintime, if it bothers you that the abortion issue has hijacked our national elections, isn't that a pretty good reason to favor overturning Roe v. Wade? After all, it would then become a state issue and state legislators of both parties tend to be in alignment with the citizens of their own states on the issue. If the Supreme Court hadn't short circuited the democratic process, the whole thing would have been worked out years ago, and abortion would no longer be a major issue.

Posted by: Joe | November 10, 2007 8:59 PM

Posted by: Joe | November 10, 2007 8:59 PM
Amber, Susan B. Anthony was ardently anti-abortion. Look it up.

I am aware of this. I was mentioning her in regards to the woman's right to vote. I think it is a great honor to vote and is a nice right to have. And if we didn't have that women would be oppressed from expressing their voice in the voting system and therefore have some worth torn from them.

And in the post where this was mentioned I did not address her as being pro-choice (or the other examples after that one). I mentioned a few other examples when addressing Kevin's quote below:
"I disagree that our rights determine our worth."

Thanks, Amber

Posted by: Anonymous | November 10, 2007 9:18 PM

I'm delighted by the posts of "Drift," and "JustinTime."
Might I suggest to those who post here that they read Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (the non-violent, kind-hearted activist Zinn in particular), you know, the "Lunatic Left," and try to figure out their motivation and who's subsidizing them. Then you can peruse the Counterpunch and ZNet websites and their archives, where you can e-mail some of the contributors and discuss their postings and their sources. Compare, for instance, the tone and content of the editorials at the aforementioned with the "conservative" editorials at "Frontpage," (David Horowitz' website, underwritten, in part by ultra-rightist billionaire Richard Scaife Mellon) or "TownHall."
Which side advocates violence;is dismissive and demonizing of large masses of people; is most guilty of using inlammatory and propaganistic language in attempt to establish it's objectives?
Afterwards, you may want to hunt down a copy of the book, "Medjugorje;The Message," by Wayne Weible, or you could Google "Apparitions of Mary>Medugorje." Beginning in 1981, Mary, mother of Jesus, began appearing regularly to half a dozen teens in the former Yugoslavia. Although the secular world and most "Christians" are dismissive of Mary and alleged apparitions, there has been much effort and evidence to ascertain their validity. What Mary has to say should lift the heart of any true Sojourner, so contradictory to the rantings of the titans of the religious Right.
Giuliani, Robertson, Hillary, Democrats, AIPAC....so irrelevant in the realm of what really matters.
Regular contributor NeuroNurse has been regularly on target: Seek peace and pursue it.

Posted by: El Petey | November 10, 2007 10:04 PM

Thou Shall Not Murder. Its why your view of scripture has little respect or relevance for believers. God formed us in the womb, he knew us eevn then. Science tell us even that life has started, we now can see legs, head, hands, fingers, etc. even with out a belief in the Bible, life is scientifically proven to exist .

Read my previous post: ABORTION IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURE. Now, I believe that abortion-on-demand is murder, but so is someone shooting another in the street, which happens a lot in the neighborhood where my church is located. But you don't care about that very much, do you? Nor the situation[s] that lead to it.

For me, I simply disagree with her ideology. You vote on ideology, yes?

Actually, I don't, for the most part. But I will never vote for a conservative Republican because that kind is obsessed with ideology to the extent that virtually no one else is, not to mention that they listen to virtually no one outside their circle.

Beyond nasty rumors, I think there is something particularly cold-blooded about the Clintons.

That's all just nasty rumors for the most part. Really, conservatives hate them because, and only because, they have shown the ability to win elections without kissing their butts. They weren't millionaires when Bill went it, but they sure are now -- and how do you think they got there? Attacks from the right wing.

Susan B. Anthony was ardently anti-abortion.

But not for the same reasons the conservatives are.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 10, 2007 11:20 PM

Well-targeted quotes from Merton from Scott Starr.

That was well-written and appreciated, for it stimulated new and useful thought and understanding.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 11, 2007 1:02 AM

Kevin you are so full of knowledge. I just ripped up my thesis and threw it all over the room! And I never mentioned in any of my posts that she was pro-choice! And I still respect her and what she stood for on many issues.

My posts:
I gave examples of times in history when peoples rights were taken from them unfairly. That's all. And when that happens worth is stripped away to some degree. All I was desiring to do was give examples to speak to your statement "I disagree that our rights determine our worth." Because there are (and were) times when rights do determine worth for people.

And I agree there are things we do not have a right to do. And that is a good thing as well.

Cheers!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 11, 2007 4:20 AM

Again--what about the passage from Hosea I quoted above where God advocates the killing of the unborn?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 11, 2007 2:08 PM

Ashpenaz,

God is not advocating the killing of the unborn, he is warning Israel of the ferocity of their enemies, from whom he will not protect them because of Israel's disobedience.

Sheesh,

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 11, 2007 2:21 PM

Thanks to Dick Morris and triangulation, neither of which are nasty rumors, neither is the perception (which isn't a rumor, by virtue of being a perception) that they are calculating.

By the same standard, Ronald Reagan consistently triangulated as his way of doing business but for some reason always was worshipped for that; it's for that reason that conservatives are always seeking the "next Reagan." Right-wing activists always did his dirty work for him underneath; I noticed that even back in 1980. (In 1983, Reagan's approval rating was 43 percent, and some pundits thought he was dead meat the next year.) My basic thesis stands.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 11, 2007 2:31 PM

Kevin, I have read a lot of your commentary all over the blog. I for one would not consider you a pro-life person due to your stance on warfare and violence, so I don't believe you have the moral authority to be pontificating about killing anyone. What about the million or so dead Iraqi civilians? I don't see you having a lot of angst over them. I'm sure there are dead babies all over the Middle East due to the morally bankrupt foreign policy the US has exected there for the last 60 years.

You are a contradiction with a keyboard. Your use of phrases like "you liberals" or "you on that side" are classic us and them thinking that perpetuates all these problems and dilemmas. There are many others here guilty of it whom you are always fussing with, but, make no mistake about it, you are chief among them. I constantly wonder what the heck you are hanging around the Sojourners blog for. Its not for dialog and discussion or to try to reach anyone or for conversation, that seems obvious. It must make you feel good to project moral superiority or something and remind others how awful and stupid they are. Kevin, I might agree with many of the things you say... but I can not condone or agree with the way you present yourself. You have no moral authority and are superior to no other person as you are sinner too just like me and anyone else here. Get over yourself. Get a life.... choose to get a life...

That's a pro-life and pro- choice option for you.

Posted by: M12 | November 11, 2007 2:34 PM

"By the same standard, Ronald Reagan consistently triangulated as his way of doing business but for some reason always was worshipped for that;"

As was Clinton. I am not arguing against triangluation as a political strategy. But that has nothing to do with your thesis, which is that conservatives hated Clinton because he refused to kiss conservative butt, which is a pretty sophomoric thesis to begin with.

"How do conservatives deal with this Scripture passage where God calls for the death of pregnant women:"

Is this a serious question? God is not advocating the death of pregnant women, only saying that it will occur because he has lifted his protection. But this is irrelevant to the issue of whether abortion should be legal. Neither ideology advocates the governmental destruction of pregnant women.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 11, 2007 3:13 PM

National Review- crackpot or rational? We report- you decide.

The magazine's current editor is Rich Lowry.
Lowry regularly appears on the Fox News Channel, including on The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, and has guest hosted in place of Sean Hannity in the latter program. Lowry, a 1990 graduate of the University of Virginia, where he edited The Virginia Advocate, is known as one of the youngest and most influential conservative commentators and analysts in the country. He joined William F. Buckley's brainchild, National Review, in 1992 and has been the magazine's editor since 1997.

Many of the magazine's commentators are affiliated with think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute.

In recent years, some conservatives have criticized NR's policy stances as supporting particular liberal programs and also blindly supporting the free market at the expense of all other principles. They claim it has ceased to be conservative and now simply toes a neoconservative party-line.

Jeffery Hart, a longtime NR editor, criticizes the magazine's current crop of writers as being too topical, too ideological, and no longer grounded in serious political philosophy. In his 2005 book, The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times, he laments the loss of the Eastern Conservatives as a dominant force in the GOP. Hart relays how co-founder James Burnham (a leading theorist), supported Nelson Rockefeller's 1964 presidential campaign. This critical view concludes that National Review turned its back on the Taft and Rockefeller wings of the GOP, abandoning its principles to become a coalition of Southern evangelicals and populists, best exemplified by George W. Bush.

Posted by: Scott Starr | November 11, 2007 3:26 PM

Scott ,

I went to your webb , was I mistaken that you said you saw President Bush twice drunk in the late 90's ? Seemed like that the post came from you ?

How did you meet him if that was true , and was he drinking or was that your assumption from the way he was acting ?

Anyway , you seem quite the web dsigner and writer . Excellent job .

I don't agree with almost all your positions , but thats cool . You defintely appear to have a light bulb up there that is pretty bright .

More people do take the National review as an important view to be read , even from the other side of politcal compass.

I find it boring myself most of the time , but I am forwarded a pretty good column from them time . Also from left leaning organizations I receive articles . Tis is not meant to be offensive , please do not take it that way , but no one ever forwarded me an article from your site . It is strange that it would be censored here and not yours .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 11, 2007 3:51 PM

Scott,

Rich Lowry is neither a southern evangelical nor a populist. He is a conservative with libertarian leanings. The fact that he occassionally fills in for Hannity (I can't imagine any conservative turning down that gig) doesn't say anything, and neither do his panel show appearances. Affiliations with the Heritage foundation and the AEI (you neglect to mention CATO) are also hardly evidence of crackpotism.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 11, 2007 4:32 PM

W, Some of the things you mention may well not appear in the blog. Typically, I try, sometimes without much success, to stay focused on theology more than politics. I will agree that the neocon movement is secular. I am fond of recycling this quote which I do ardently believe:

"The Christian right has no religious legitimacy. It is a mass political movement. It ignores the core values of the Christian religion, summed up by Jesus in the sermon on the mount, and the core values of American democracy. They are not biblical literalists as they claim- but selective literalists choosing bits and pieces of the Bible that conform to their ideology and bigotry and ignoring, distorting or making up the rest. ~Chris Hedges"

For clarification, I do not necessarily believe that the neocons hijacked the Church as much as the right wing Christians wanted to by into power politics and developed a symbiotic relationship with the GOP, essentially hijacking it the results of which IS ungodly and heretical. The GOP was only too happy to take the money and exploit their values, tweak them with nationalist propaganda and create a new beast. The chiefest casualty in this process was the virtue of the Church. I belive in defense and the need for military... but not the idolatrous relationship with MILTARISM and nationalism that has grown out of all this. Strictly speaking I don't guive a rip about the neocons or the republicans or the democrats. What I do care about is the virtue of the Church and the values of the Gospels- the Words of Christ.

In that equation it doesn't much matter whether Bill Kristol and his pops are Jews or Klingons.

Lastly... "Without a single source"?

I don't know if you just read one post or what... but there are plenty of sources. Loomk at this post for instance (it has quite a bibliography):

http://geotheology.blogspot.com/2007/10/evangelical-roots-of-american_12.html

Kevin S.,
I am also a "conservative" inasmuch as that term means much anymore... and have definate Libertarian leanings. However, such definitions also have gradations and I find that Lowry is much more neocon than true Libertarian. I find much more resonance with someone like Ron Paul... whom i don't necessarily support either. Ultimately... I consider myself a disciple of Christ over ANY of these worldly labels.

Posted by: Scott Starr | November 11, 2007 5:00 PM

What do you righties think about Mike Huckabee?
Why do you like Guiliani over Huckabee?
Huckabee seems far more trustworthy.
Is it because you think Guiliani, campaigning on 9/11, would do better than Huckabee, campaigning on righteousness, against the Dems in the National election?

Posted by: justintime | November 11, 2007 5:27 PM

I've been following Wallis back when the magazine was called "Post America" back in the 70's. As a reader who was interested in Jim Wallis' take on Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani I just want to say thanks to all for their concern for my complexion. I really appreciate the mud bath I received by just reading your comments. It seems the further down the column I read the further off the topic we went. I'm going to shower off the mud packs now but will think of you every time I see my rejuvinated skin. BTW - aren't Sojourners the ones who coined the phrase "God is not a Republican . . . or a Democrat"? Why all the bipartisan arguments? It's more productive to deal with the issues.

Posted by: DocRoc | November 11, 2007 6:58 PM

"It would be like asking an African American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate."
Just to be clear about this: Lincoln was a pro-slavery candidate. He only signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a form of economic warfare against the South. His prevailing goal was the preservation of the Union, Federalism, and the strengthening and growth of centralized government, especially the presidency.

I think the Robertson endorsement is awful, just as awful as any of the other Corporate Candidates' endorsements.

Robertson believes in Israel, eschatologically speaking, and he believes Gulianni is the best hope for the State of Israel. Good for him, if you believe that God's promises were for a centralized secular state organized under the name of "Isreal" instead of for the nation of Jews which is Israel indeed.

"why I'm an apostate for supporting Clinton" is the same reason supporters of Romney, Huckabee, Obama, and Guliani, Brownback, Edwards, etc. are.
All of these support big government. All of them are relatively pro-war. All of them have Corporations in their pockets. All of them engage in group-think.

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | November 11, 2007 7:39 PM

Thanks Kevin Wayne, I'll look for that on MySpace.

JustinTime I was wondering also why the "Christian Right" seems to be more interested in leaving the party and starting an alternative one than getting behind Huckabee. He's a Baptist minister and is in line with all of their core beliefs such as they are. I have read somewhere that the problem seems to be that he does not condemn with the proper vigor- homosexuals, pro- choicers and others that he may not agree with. Oddly enough, that wins points with me. The philosophy should be love the sinner- hate the sin.

It does not appear Huckabee will be given a chance however.... so the point is kind of moot. I am not sure of huckabee's stance on the war- but I,m sure since he's on the republican ticket that he's paying homage to the god of war so that he can maintain what staus he does have... just like most candidates of whatever party.

Mimi, I couldn't agree more. You are on the money.

Mr. Snow, I concur with your thoughts as well I think. I have written quite a lot about Zionism in both the right and left contexts. I have also written about the concept of groupthink and "incestuous amplification". I have a blog post on Geotheology from Saturday, August 11, 2007 entitled
"Incestuous Amplification- AKA The Blind Leading Those Who Will Not See"

In it are these items:

Groupthink is "a concept that was identified by Irving Janis ("a forefather in the study of group dynamics") [in 1972] that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions."[1][2]

Groupthink is also defined as a "phenomenon wherein people seek unanimous agreement in spite of contrary facts pointing to another conclusion."[3]

It is said that groupthink "occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision." Some possible "negative outcomes" of groupthink include:[4]

* Examining few alternatives
* Not being critical of each other's ideas
* Not examining early alternatives
* Not seeking expert opinion
* Being highly selective in gathering information
* Not having contingency plans

Some "symptoms" or "warning signs" of groupthink are:[5][6]

* Having an illusion of invulnerability
* Rationalizing poor decisions
* Believing in the group's morality
* Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision
* Exercising direct pressure on others
* Not expressing your true feelings
* Maintaining an illusion of unanimity
* Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking.
2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions.
3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders.
5. Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree.
6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.

So, then my personal understanding and definition of "incestuous amplification" would be;
"when a group of persons begin to believe that the things they want or assume to be true are in fact true and beyond reasonable questioning."

I personally think that it is the imperative that any freethinking, patriotic, responsible, moral, spiritual person should know, recognize,comprehend and guard against the onset of these concepts, incestuous amplification and groupthink. That would include Christians right,left or center.

God Bless

Posted by: Scott Starr | November 11, 2007 9:09 PM

I have just viewed a worrying video on the Internet dated May 21st 2007 where Pat Robertson appears at a Franklin Graham rally in Norfolk Virginia. In it Franklin describes Pat as a "wonderful persom who he has looked up to and respected as much as his father Billy...........my friend Pat Robertson" !!

Having attended Billy Graham Crusdaes at Wembley, Earls Court and Norwich and read some of his and Ruth Graham's books I have a great deal of respect for their Christ centred ministry despite my reservations about their close links with certain American Presidents and naive support of US foreign policy.

That Franklin Graham should publically endorse Pat Robertson after all Robertson's false prophecies, racist history, dubious financial dealings in the US and Liberia, calls to assassinate Hugo Chavez, views on Isreal etc etc is extremely worrying, especially as Franklin is viewed as his father's sucessor.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 11, 2007 9:59 PM

I actually think Huckabee has a very good chance. His poll numbers and fundraising are up and he's playing very well in Iowa. Plus, governorships have always been a good springboard to the presidency. It's way too soon to write him off.

Posted by: Joe | November 11, 2007 11:45 PM

Well said Nathanael.
Natural Law is God's law BTW.

Posted by: Scott Starr | November 12, 2007 10:17 AM

Below is the CBN press release. I can't find a place to comment or blog anywhere else on their site. I am a registered Republican. The past few years I have been voting for Democrats with the exception of our last local for state senate. I can NEVER vote for a president that has been divorced. If you can't manage your home you can't manage a country. Bad things happen when you are married (I've been married 19 years) and you have to FORGIVE. Marriage is a promise to your spouse and God.

press release
Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Announcement

CBN.com – Pat Robertson as a private citizen has recently endorsed a candidate for public office. As a private citizen he has the right to participate in the political process, and is entitled to express his personal views. CBN, as a public charity, does not support or oppose any candidate for public office, and as a result will not address or comment further on this matter.

Posted by: Barbara | November 12, 2007 10:48 AM

"That Franklin Graham should publically endorse Pat Robertson after all Robertson's false prophecies, racist history, dubious financial dealings in the US and Liberia, calls to assassinate Hugo Chavez, views on Isreal etc etc is extremely worrying, especially as Franklin is viewed as his father's sucessor." no name

Agreed! Does anyone know what Franklin's educational background is?

Posted by: canucklehead | November 12, 2007 11:10 AM

It's a kind of fiction, though legally supportable when parsed that way, that somehow Pat and CBN are disparate entities.

Pat's endorsement as a "private citizen" wouldn't be worth a pitcher of warm spit if he wasn't somehow seen to be bringing along a substantial number of those CBN and 700 Club viewers!

This is true for James Dobson's "private" endorsements as well. They would not be any more valuable than yours or mine were they not "public citizens" by virtue of their religious leadership to millions instead of private citizens with little influence or ability to use mass media megaphones.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 11:14 AM

Franklin also published a hagiographic eulogy to Jerry Falwell in his literature sent out for his mission work - terming any and all criticisms of Falwell as due exclusively to Falwell's faithfulness to God no matter what, disregarding some of the extremely troubling statements Falwell made, both early in his career and very recently.

This means that despite the foreign mission work, Graham is basically a nationalistic patriot pastor, intent upon spreading U.S. political and economic influence as part of the relief and gospel work.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 12, 2007 11:23 AM

I hope Rudy wins the GOP nomination. The media attention he and Pat will receive will be the undoing of both of them and the final downfall of Pat's twisted empire.

Pat has simply lost his mind. Evangelicals are moving into the democratic camp because the GOP has become a gluttonous, money grubbing party void of ethics and willing to sell their souls for money. Rather than address that perception and take the opportunity to stand on principle, Pat proves the point.

Posted by: Peter | November 12, 2007 11:54 AM

Why would we need to "move" into anyone's political camp, as if we Christians are some sort of political refugees looking for asylum and someone to pledge allegiance to?

This makes it sound as if Christians are undergoing yet another "conversion."

The responsibility of Christians, wherever they live and under whatever system, is to be the salt and light to others. They will remind people engaged in politics that all of us as human beings have a responsibility to live in harmony with God's ethics and that whatever laws are enacted and the manner in which they are carried out meets His standards. We are to be the conscience of the nations, in other words, not water carriers for partisan power struggles.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 12, 2007 12:54 PM

Peter
I am not trying to argue with you but I think N.M.Rod's 10:42 post is the reality. If you think that the Democratic Party will not repeat the sins of the GOP once they achieve control of Congress and the Presidency, you have forgotten much of what got the Republicans into power in the first place.
N.M. Rod, Amen and Amen!! Time for salt and light indeed, but this time how about it if we are fewer in words and greater in deeds. After all, cursing the darkness, or Salmonella for that matter, is always useless. Just turn on the switch and shake that salt.

What would happen if we Christians stopped all this castigation and fear mongering that passes for debate and just started doing "things" like caring for people, or volunteering more. What would happen if instead of giving money away and letting it stop there, we started giving our time? When time given had proved itself and the org. to which we donated out time, to be worth while, then we could give as much money as we could bear and then some.

What if we dared to actually fall, headlong, into love with all humanity, the way Jesus told us to. What would happen if we stopped saying hateful things about the sinners, whom we all claim to love despite their sins, and actually started doing something, like making a friend, attending a party, experiencing with these "sinners" (pick your favorite group to gripe about) their hurts and their joys? What if we dared to be Jesus enjoying ourselves at the party and weeping at the funerals of sinners?
It is never enough to just give thought to a subject, or even to give of our finances. God can confound any thought and surely we know He can take our money any time He wishes to do so. We should know by now that piety will never please Him, so why should our doctrine do so?. It is ourselves that He is asking for and that He will never take without our permission. We are the only gift God can receive as He already possesses everything else. We are also the only gift He wants, and evidently He is willing to pay any sacrifice to convince us of this fact.

Both the Dems and the GOP have ceased being ideological platforms. They are just telling us what we want to hear.
They are not to blame for this, we are.

Posted by: wayne | November 12, 2007 1:09 PM

As long as we are touching on the subject of the relationship of Theology to Politics, I have a couple of juicy links from none other than N.T. Wright:

Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm

Where is God in ‘The War on Terror’?

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_War_On_Terror.htm

I'm in the process of reading the 2nd one and will read the 1st one later. But I can't help but be struck by how many similar themes to Sojouners is sounded out by Wright. It tends to make me think that what we need is further De-Americanization of the American Christian Church. Wallis was so correct in his challenge to us to listen to overseas voices. And he was correct in ways that are too numerous to even count here.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 12, 2007 2:00 PM

After losing tax exempt status for meddling in American politics and faced with hundreds of millions in back taxes, Pat Robertson is forced to sell his interest in African blood diamonds.
But even this doesn't cover the enormous tax debt.

Will the Reverend Sun Mying Moon donate a generous sum to keep his close friend Pat, out of jail - just like he did for his close friend Jerry Falwell?
True fascists look out for each other, don't they?

Posted by: justintime | November 12, 2007 2:35 PM

America should have been paying more attention to Pat Robertson, starting in the 80's until the present.
Secular America thought Robertson was just another humorous, harmless huckster, selling spiritual snake oil.
and all the while Pat was mapping out the Dominionist take over of America.

Was this God's Politics?

Posted by: justintime | November 12, 2007 3:01 PM

America should have been paying more attention to Pat Robertson, starting in the 80's until the present. Secular America thought Robertson was just another humorous, harmless huckster, selling spiritual snake oil, and all the while Pat was mapping out the Dominionist take over of America.

I sure was -- in fact, I stopped watching the 700 Club back in 1985 when Robertson came out in favor of South African apartheid (with the excuse that it was better than Communism).

Of course, it's possible that you meant to say that government has the authority to protect innocent life as early as conception. If that's what you meant you might want to clarify things.

I think that's what he meant, and that's my view too. That said, not even law has any meaning outside of community -- just because some entity may establish a law it is its duty as citizens to question it, asking, "What is its purpose and does it do what is best for all concerned?" If not, it should be amended or repealed. I would even say that God's law works the same way; we need to know the thinking behind it. I think Kevin is right when he suggests that libertarianism can be tantamount to selfishness, and that's a root of the abortion issue (most libertarians are "pro-choice").

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 12, 2007 3:33 PM

Scott said
"I am a sinful person in my own right and do not judge GWB for his weaknesses, I pray for him and all of our leaders every day. However, I believe I am justified in taking offense to the false image engineering of those who were grooming him for president which he was a willing participant in. "

Thank you Scott , I wish I knew you better and this was not a blog . But what you say if true, is quite the revelation to my thinking of who Bush is . I can not understand why it has not been in seen by others and brought out by the mainstream media ?
I was taken into the compassionate conservatism theme of Bush , and have made some excuses in my perspective on his administration because of my partsianship I guess at times , and the Iraq war getting his Adminsitration off track . At first I thought this would be a good thing with him in office , then 9/11 . Your web page is so one sided in my first look through that it is hard for me to not to see this as Jerry Falwell type attack on Clinton.

I have heard from people who have great respect in the Evangelical community that all say he is a sincere man , and have heard people call him a drunk on the left that have no knowledge of his drinking , only from his own admission .
Please don't consider it a future conversation stopper , you bring a fresh persective here .
Use smaller words , I am from NJ .

Justintime

Mike Huckabee appears to be right on from many of his positions . Someone pointed out his web and I checked him out in more detail . But he is not getting his message out , I guess its the" Kuccinch or Biden candidate anaology ,depending how left you are "
Not much of political machine behind them , the best man or women does not always get your party's nomination . The left appears better in my opinion in building coalitions where they all get behind their front runner , then after he or she is elected they eat their own . The right has a habit of eating their own before they get to election day from way I have seen it .

Does it bother you that Hillary said she is neutral on Nuclear Power ? In this day and age , all the issues of oil , Middle East , Global Warming and the effects there of from Fossil Views , you would think a candidate would have studied that option as a serious way to stop the need of the large amount of oil we depend on , then say she is neutral . That kind of stuff ticks me off more then Pat Roberston saying Rudi is his man .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 12, 2007 4:31 PM

But what you say if true, is quite the revelation to my thinking of who Bush is. I can not understand why it has not been in seen by others and brought out by the mainstream media?

It actually was. Bush was all but selected the presidential nominee back in 1999 by the Republican Governors' Association, and I remember it got quite the coverage when it was announced.

Does it bother you that Hillary said she is neutral on Nuclear Power? In this day and age, all the issues of oil, Middle East, Global Warming and the effects there of from Fossil Views, you would think a candidate would have studied that option as a serious way to stop the need of the large amount of oil we depend on, then say she is neutral. That kind of stuff ticks me off more then Pat Roberston saying Rudi is his man.

I haven't specifically heard that, but if she did I understand why. The left in this country, such that it is, for years has had a very strong anti-nuclear contingent that opposes nuclear power for two reasons, related to waste storage: 1) Where do you get away from radiation? 2) Do you use it for nuclear weapons?

Kevin Wayne -- We are indeed on the same page. I see my opposition to abortion as similar to such things as unneccesary war, racism and pollution in that they all hurt the community in the long run. We talk about that a lot in my conservative, evangelical church. Furthemore, law to me represents nothing more than the proper ordering of relationships, which is why it cannot exist for its own sake.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 12, 2007 5:48 PM

Kevin Wayne wrote:

Hillary was right about one thing: It does take a village to raise a child. That's why the Village should have a say in the matter from the get go. And that includes conception.

Now at some point we have to think about what we are saying and how it might be taken by someone who doesn't share our precise point of view. And what you say here is that the community has some undefined authority over how children are raised, and this undefined authority "includes conception".

I hate to bore you with grammar, but grammar matters, and grammatically what you said was that conception itself is under the authority of the community.

This is quite in keeping with the overall image of a "community" that appears in your posts, which is not that of a group of people with common interests and common values, but rather of a group of people who are bossed around by a some sort of authority.

This comes out of your riff on the NRA:

Thus, the NRA and the NARAL both commit the same sin: believing in "my right to my guns" and "my right to choose," respectively. The results are the same: The fabric of society is torn apart in the name of ragtag individualism. And killing is justified in the process.

Now, let me ask you, if a thief is deterred from committing robbery, does it matter to the community just who does the deterring? No. If a homeowner prevents a crime, the entire neighborhood benefits because they are all able to be more secure in their homes.

Now I'm not advocating vigilantism, where individual citizens hunt down suspects, but within one's home passivity towards crime is not always in the best interests of the community.

If I am able to prevent an attack on a loved one, the community benefits because my loved one is a part of the community. If I am able to defend myself from an unprovoked attack, the community benefits because I am a part of the community and am of value to the community, while the criminal has effectively revoked his or her attachment to the community.

You may recall that the Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia". This is part of what the founders were talking about.

The right to self-defense, and by extension the right to bear arms, is not based exclusively on a dog-eat-dog worldview. It is actually grounded on the notion that most members of a community can be trusted to make decisions for the good of the community and should be empowered to defend themselves, their loved ones, and the community as a whole.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 12, 2007 6:22 PM

Now I'm not advocating vigilantism, where individual citizens hunt down suspects, but within one's home passivity towards crime is not always in the best interests of the community.

The problem with that mentality is represented by the following: How much firepower do you actually need to defend your family/property? Being armed to the teeth only creates more problems, one of them resentment, because people eventually will come with bigger guns. That's just the problem in the Middle East right now. There's a reason Jesus said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 12, 2007 11:20 PM

Legal abortion was largely considered to be off limits until the last half of the 20th century, and when it became an issue, the GOP sided against it.

False -- I've already told you how the GOP came to oppose abortion; it would never have happened had the right wing, including the "religious right," not taken over the party (and, yes, Viguerie was indeed part of the reason).

Joe -- Susan B. Anthony and other anti-abortionists in her day didn't focus like a laser beam upon the unborn; they first focused upon the circumstances of unwanted pregnancy. Once those were taken care of there was consensus about its legality and every state had it banned.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 8:56 AM

RE: Communitarianism

Wiki was informative, thanks for the referral.

I think its lovely that people want to espouse a philosophy which assumes a kind of altruism in individuals. If the community is prior to individuals and they only participate in the public debate, helping to shape the community, things work out nicely.

I have a hard time accepting this philosophy however, because I see humans as, under sin, self-interested. Self-interested individuals cannot be converted to altruists through political philosophy. No matter how persuasive or self-consistent that philosophy is.

The only occasion for humans to become purely altruistic is through Christ. Once an individual has accepted the redeeming work of Jesus, he also receives the peculiar Christian ethic which enables him to love his neighbor. The Christian no longer works for a reward, because he has received his reward in full - Christ is his reward.

The only occasion for true community then is in Christ. The only legitimate collective is the church. We are able to live together and forgive one another thanks to the blood of Jesus. Absent His blood, between any two individuals someone has to die.

The only think balking murder is self-interest. People don't murder each other because they realize they can get more of what they want by living near one another and participating in a market. Objectivism allows selfish individuals to get along with one another, and to work individually for the benefit of all.

Other communities have been made possible, but always at the expense of some individual. Pagans practiced human sacrifice. The ancient Greeks did, too (what did you think an election was? Socrates was elected - to death.) Communists murdered anyone who allowed their self-interest to show - outside the party.

Communitarians must provide a basis for their community which allows self-interested individuals to become altruistic. Apart from the death of the individual it cannot be done.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | November 13, 2007 10:00 AM

Rick,
On what basis do the oriental societies practice communitarianism? Is there protection for the individual within the communitarian system? Is dissent or secession permitted? Do women have rights? (read Wild Swans) Do minorities enjoy protection? Is pluralism of any kind admitted?

I will ammend my earlier argument.
If a society can find a set of common scapegoats, then it may act altruistically toward one another. One scapegoat alone may suffice. Omelas comes to mind.
Yet such a society does much damage to human dignity, and deliberately neglects the individual.

I will stick my neck out and say that the oriental societies, absent Christ, were evil. Western societies were just as evil. Any society absent Christ is evil.

But classical liberalism has the most rational solution to the human problem. Instead of assuming away our self-interestedness it makes the best use of this trait. It completely neglects the suffering and the poor - as they should.

The least of these are the full and exclusive responsibility of the Christian. We alone are accountable for their condition. Any other set of arguments is an appeal to absolution of responsibility. It is cowardice.

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | November 13, 2007 11:25 AM

All are responsible to do good, not just "Christians."

Christianity can't be yet another schism in this world of phony self-righteousness. That bumper sticker had it right - the difference is in salvation, a gift of God, not an inherent moral superiority. "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

In fact I know a number of unsaved who are morally superior to myself.
That is a humbling realization, believe me. I would imagine the final exam hasn't been given yet.

Sometimes salvation is a process, where a person's realization comes upon them more slowly as they grow spiritually, being led by His Spirit. We ought to remain unjudgemental and respectful of this process - even in awe of it, seeing our fellow humans as a gift to us, not enemies or threats.

Since Jesus said acceptability to him will be judged by deeds, not words, people may be very surprised at the summing up.

Especially if our own deeds belie our words!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 13, 2007 12:11 PM

"False -- I've already told you how the GOP came to oppose abortion; it would never have happened had the right wing, including the "religious right," not taken over the party (and, yes, Viguerie was indeed part of the reason)."

Your narrative is facile at best, inaccurate at worst. I will concede that Christian conservatives had quite a bit to do with the GOPs strong opposition to abortion. However, to suggest that abortion was a non-issue before RIchard Viguerie decided to make it an issue is absurd.

"The GOP approach seems to be to campaign on it..."

Well, yeah.

" try to get the stars to align just right with Supreme Court justices, Congress, Senate and the executive branch"

At present, all we need is judges with a proper judicial temperament. Or, at least five of them (and we have four).

"... and then what? "

The issue goes to the states, a number of which already have laws passed that will ban abortion once Roe v. Wade is overturned.

"Are they simply going to manufacture a case that overturns Roe V. Wade?"

No moreso than abortion rights groups manufactured a case to get Roe v. Wade decided.

"There is no case in front of the courts right now, at least not to my knowledge, that will undo Roe V. Wade."

Right. Nobody is going to challenge the issue as the court is presently consituted because it will be a waste of time. What will most likely happen is that a state like South Dakota will introduce a bill banning abortion except in cases of rape our incest (the latter provision being necessary for passage). The case will eventually go to the Supreme Court.

"If a real abortion law case comes up I will make a vote that helps make tougher laws concerning abortion- but that's just it... we don't really get to vote."

See, to me that is part of a grave larger problem. We have an enormously contentious issue, and we do not have the power to even decide it with our own votes. The courts have simply taken it out of our hands. They have done this in other arenas as well, and it is no less problematic. I am not willing to throw my hands in the air and say "oh, well, looks like I don't get a say," and simply throw my vote toward someone who wants to reinforce this status quo.

While I agree that many Right to Life chairs (many of whom are Democrats, btw) enjoy the continued employment, I think many of our leaders would like to see this issue resolved, and find it cumbersome. Think Giuliani doesn't wish this issue would go away. I'm glad it isn't, and I'm happy to saddle my leaders with it because legal abortion is a travesty. Not a "bum situation", but a travesty.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 13, 2007 1:46 PM

Rick,
Cite the prophet you are talking about. Demonstrate how the command delivered by that prophet was for the pagans as well as for the monotheistic Jews.

The best we can hope to expect from unredeemed humans is self interestedness. They can not be moved to altruism through regulation, or through establishment of alternative institutions (a la Rawls). If they could there would be no need for the Cross. If we are not fundamentally altered in our human nature through the Cross then what use is there in believing it?

Taking humans as they are as a given, there is no better system or set of institutions to channel human action than unregulated, unihibited free markets. Such a system will develop of its own accord a system of natural rights and laws which are respectable by all men.

Distributive justice is impossible without an altruistic motivation. Joshua Cohen and Rawls are clear on this. They fail to demonstrate where this altruism might derive from if not from regeneration.

N.M. Rod,
“All are responsible to do good.”
But not all are capable. All your good deeds are as filthy rags because they cannot be performed without self-interested motivations. Only the Christian can perform good deeds without hoping for some personal benefit, because they alone have already received their reward in the person of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the ability to perform the good work IS the blessing. It is cruel to insist on pure altruism from unbelievers who are not empowered by the Holy Spirit. They have no rational motivation, nor any spiritual empowerment to do so.

When an unsaved person performs a good deed it is grace to them from God. We may rejoice when this occurs but we must not hold them accountable to continue in doing good deeds. That accountability is God’s alone. We are, however, told to hold one another, as believers, to doing good works. There is room for abuse even there, so there are qualifications, but the hard line is drawn regarding unbelievers.

Therefore, since no one other than the regenerate in Christ may be held accountable for caring for the least of these, it remains the full and exclusive responsibility of Christians to care for the least of these.

Again, I will call out any attempt to be absolved of this responsibility as cowardice and denial of the power of the Cross.

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | November 13, 2007 3:57 PM

Hey Rick- Isaiah 44:9-20 is a good passage to refer to for that. Ch 40 vv. 15 7 & 17 are good for showing the precedent that becoems the controlling variable: "the nations."

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 13, 2007 4:41 PM

The only occasion for true community then is in Christ. The only legitimate collective is the church. We are able to live together and forgive one another thanks to the blood of Jesus. Absent His blood, between any two individuals someone has to die.

While that is certainly true Biblically speaking, it's kind of a moot point here. Since we are talking about abortion and how it's carried out in our secular society - that we Christains particpate in (unless you follow the older Mennonite paradigms and don't vote) - then we are talking about how society in general does or doesn't have a say in legal access to abortion. IMHO, it does have a say in it.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 13, 2007 4:48 PM

Christians must realize that walking in the Way of the Cross, may indeed lead to a cross. If you are "nice to people", the possibility exists that one may be killed
Posted by: Scott Starr

Scott I believe your view here is in essense shared with those in a Evangelical Theology . Perhaps honestly I would say that if it is not followed it is because of lack of Faith and conviction rather then blind nationalism , but that is from my perspective .

The problem I have with your side on this is that you realize if you greet certain types of terror spurned on by evil with a view we are to bow our heards and let them be cut off , that you allow that evil to move on to others , and that force could in actually move through a Continent or more as we have seen in the last century even .

I think that is where we disagree , or perhaps you see many who disagree with your pacifists position as being too quickly persuaded to say , no , time to fight back in order to save lives .
But is that disagreeing with your position , or just your passionate position of when to return evil with the Love Of Christ , and when does it become throwing your pearls before swine .

Many believed going into Iraq would save lives ,but that is how the war was sold . That was proven false in my opinion , but some still hold that view and I do respect their view . Just as a I do respect a pacifist view .

I have always had problems with those who meet after a church service who come up to me and say God told me to tell you .

Example , I just gave an example of Hillary saying she was neutral on Nuclear power as being less then sincere . . In a time of dependecy on oil being such a politcal and even national security problem , where global warming is causing a desire for new energy sources , etc . You would think someone would have thought about this would have a real responce to her position on it , either yes or no , or at least yes if cetrtain conditions are met . I mean France uses Nuclear power , no problems , Soviet Union has had bad experiences , the envirnomental lobby in this country is against it , but many folks see it as PART of the solution to help get off the poluting middle east band wagon .

. A very condemning spokesperson of conservatism , always mixing sinsiter motives and ignorance for conservative positions , partsian and claiming spirtual truth on this webb answered my statement with of couple of excuses expressing her neutral position on the probelms of nuclear energy . To myself , this has all the examples of group think that you see magnified in the right , but in my opinion blindly notice from the left . Being neutral is a good answer on a serious question facing our nation ?

Thats human nature , please as if I am without sin here in this regard . I took my 25 year old to the Seattle Seahawks Monday Night Foot ball game last night . First football I went to since 1982 . For Veterans Day they had a great pre game show , Three Tuskagee Airmen were there , various WW 2 vets , Korean War , Vietnam War , and This war in Iraq vets . On this site I have heard many times how can a Christian be a soldier . I have no respect for that view , I took my hat off and put it over my heart , and I thanked God for those men down on that field . I don;t see them as being anti God , I see them as willing to give up their lives for you , me , their friends , and this country . It is up to people like you and me , Christians together to make sure we never put those people into situations that is contrary to fighting evil as the last solution . I so mucg agree with you on that . I don't want those "heros" having to risk their lives unless it is the last possible alternative to keeping the future peace and allowing freedom .

That is what I see attacked here Scott, the love of people and a belief that America is good , that it respesents the best in us , not that it represents the way we treated the Natives who we found here , or the minorities , even the Irish like me when we first came , but that we strive to do what is right , that is why I love America , not because of the many many wrongs we have promoted at one time , but we strive to make it right , maybe slower then others wanted , maybe quicker then some , but we all as one people see that treating each other as our equal in the sense of offering opportunity , is what makes us a great nation . That even though your a Jew , or I am an Evangelical , we are equal in the site of this government . Though you be gay , but I am straight we should be judged by how good I do my job . That because you are black or you are yellow , we both have a right to live where we want if we can pay the rent .

I see many people hating that belief here Scott , and I don't get it . Becuae I think America stands for good , but is not always good I am seen as some nationalistic zombie / thats group think .

God Bless ,

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 13, 2007 5:01 PM

Wolverine:

Much of your post is kinda convoluted and a but muddled, but I think I'll limit my responses to just the following:

The fact is, conception is part of the issue, or you have lost the whole pro-life argument. If life has begun when we conceive - or even if it begins as a result of conception, then we are in fact making a judgment call regarding the validity of protecting that life from the moment it appears.

The thing is- what the pro-choice camp points out - and you won't acknowledge- is that this is a taking away of a personal right. I'm acknowledging that it is in fact that. I'm saying personal rights should be subject to the betterment of community.

To unpack the NRA thing:

Now, let me ask you, if a thief is deterred from committing robbery, does it matter to the community just who does the deterring?

Hell YES it does! I don't want some mentally unstable nutcase bearing arms no matter how he manages to flush out 1 thief. Next, he might decide I'm a thief and use it on me!

Now I'm not advocating vigilantism, where individual citizens hunt down suspects, but within one's home passivity towards crime is not always in the best interests of the community.

This took about 2 or 3 times to read it in order to get what you meant. Here you lapse into what is commonly called the "myth or redemptive violence." See NT Wright on that, 2nd link I posted. That seems to undergird most of the rest of your post. You assume in all circumstances that if I use lethal force to stop someone from breaking in and entering my home, then I'm doing the best for community.

In point of fact, what if I don't use violence, but I witness to the guy and he converts to Christianity? Then I’ve actually done not only better for the community then as well as the attacker!

You may recall that the Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia". This is part of what the founders were talking about.

Then join the National Guard. Or go and organize a real "well-regulated militia." Because that's what you are talking about. But nobody ever does this.

And besides all of this- I'm not really a Constitutionalist. As far as I'm concerned, if the 2nd amendment turns out to be what you insist that it is, then I say it be revoked. The UK doesn't even allow for their police force to carry guns. But out here in the good 'ol USA, we can hardly conceive of such a thing.

I'm saying this:

Gun ownership is not a sacrosanct right that it cannot stand a certain amount of legitimate legal regulation. Those include background checks and waiting periods, and the forbidding of firearms ownership by those declared to have a mental illness. Which Oregon does. One of my best longtime friends has to take it on the chin for that. He's a lifelong hunter and fisherman for sport, but as the circumstances are what they are, I’m glad he's limited to his fishing pole.

I even once knew a co-worker who hunted that was OK with it. He basically said that whenever he wanted to go hunt he put in for a background check a few days early. no problem. He'll say "see ya in 4 days" and come back later to pick up his new hunting rifle.

And THAT- is what is indeed the best for the community!

Posted by: Keivn Wayne | November 13, 2007 5:22 PM

I was making a more general point, and applied to abortion, it depends on the incidence of life. If it is legitimate to protect unborn human lives through pagan laws, fine.

The failure in that kind of thinking is in the reality that nations that have more "primitive" and less "advanced" societies, especially in the "global South," as a rule make abortion illegal (China being an exception).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 5:55 PM

I used to believe only Christians could do real good. In retrospect I was pretty dumb to get captured by a theology so ungrounded in practicality.

That was until I had more real-life experience and found that not only could believers positively do evil (while hiding that from themselves by appealing to the fact they couldn't possibly since they were Christian, after all) but that unbelievers (as far as one could tell by their own honest statements) could be moved to great compassion and generosity, without any thought of recompense or any hope of any. In other words some people really do believe that doing good is its own reward.

And truly, those are not far from the kingdom.

We need to get off our high horses. This kind of thinking really is considerably to blame for the debacles we have created in our efforts over the past decade and more in power politics. And a lot of us still don't get it.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 6:41 PM

I think a lot of the motivation for blind patriotism is that people
"love to love their country." It's a very strong desire to see things in a self-approving, highly comforting way that gives a sense of security and that all is well with the soul and that essentially there isn't anything wrong.

Arguments to truth don't work well against such a mindset because it is so highly desired by the emotions and will. If logically disproven, such people will set their faces hard to believe what they wish nonetheless.

"A person convinced, against their wiil, is of the same opinion still."

Posted by: Anonymous | November 13, 2007 6:58 PM

favor an approach that assumes more responsibility. If you are not willing to pay the pregnant woman to carry her child to term and then to adopt that child, then you have no authority to insist that a pagan act in any way other than the way pagans do. Pagans sacrifice human life. It ought not to be any surprise to us.

Juris- I think we are on the same page here.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne

Yikes , then how about if a Pagan wants to steal from another ? What if a pagan wants to kill your friend ? Or kill the brother of a friend . Should the Christian be required to stop that murder only if they are willing to pay for that persons upkeep ?

What you are saying is you understand with that pagans view that the life is not as valuable , you understand that you and him place a higher value on a life that is out of the womb then one that is in it . You are sharing the Pagan's view , that is called pro choice .

Now please explain your view that you don't mind taxing that pagan in the name of God to pay for someone elses life out of the womb.

You don't mind forcing him to pay for people you value , or causes you value .

Your view sounds insultated from what is so obvious to believers .

Posted by: Mick sheldon | November 13, 2007 9:20 PM

Still not wanting to deal with the NIE or the Silberman investigative findings, eh?

Then kindly explain why Colin Powell fell on his sword and other top military brass who disagreed with the conclusions were forced into retirement.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | November 13, 2007 11:18 PM

Hi Mick,

I wrote a good response to your thoughts... but my computer locked up and I lost it. I'll reconstruct it later. But, for now don't forget the paragraph in which I explained what pacifism meant to me. I belive that the term "Christian Peacemaker" actually fits better.

Posted by: Scott Starr | November 14, 2007 8:33 AM

Nathaniel-

I'm equivocal here. Either way, I wish the Pro-life movement would take the Good Samaritan into account.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 14, 2007 2:04 PM

I'm still wondering, what was the purpose of writing "Robertson for Rudy (by Jim Wallis)"?. Doesn't change my opinion of Robertson or Giuliani. Wouldn't vote for either one. Might change my opinion of Wallis, but then everyone has bad days...

Posted by: Steven Estergreen | November 27, 2007 2:46 PM