This has been long overdue, and should make this a much more enjoyable place to express opinions.

Posted by: Cads | December 11, 2007 2:09 PM

AMEN!

This hopefully will be a better witness to those who stop by just to see what Christianity is about.

Maybe Neuronurse will return if this new policy is consistently upheld.

Posted by: squeaky | December 11, 2007 2:31 PM

I regularly post on a well read baseball blog. When I found this site, I was dissapointed that there was more respect there than I saw here. I'm glad it is being addressed.

Posted by: Steven | December 11, 2007 3:35 PM

A few comments:

1. I have, at times, referred to Jim Wallis as a "shill" for the Democratic party, or used words to that effect. This is based on an observation that I have been unable to detect any distinction between his views and those of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Or to put it another way, I cannot see any substantive difference between the "Christian Left" as defined by Wallis and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Is there anything new here, or just old wine in new wineskins?

Now this is a tricky issue -- I certainly wouldn't pretend to know all the ins and outs of contemporary liberalism so maybe I'm missing something. At any rate, I wouldn't expect Wallis to go after his ideological kin with the same enthusiasm that he goes after his opponents. But there's a fine line between knowing who your allies are and partisan hackery. I hope you won't pretend that you have a right not to be called on it when we believe you have crossed it.

2. It can be frustrating when a post doesn't go through, and I have what CS Lewis' Screwtape once referred to as an "efficient" temper. I've withdrawn the accusation of censorship almost as often as I made it, but there is one troubling tendency I've run across that I hope Sojo and Beliefnet will look into: it has been my experience that posts with links to conservative publications such as National Review seem to get hung up in the spam filter, and nobody ever seems to come by to check the nets and shake them out. I'll freely admit to being a hothead at times and a smart aleck the rest of the time, but seriously, what's your beef with Buckley?

3. Is Sojo genuinely pro-life? I know you would prefer to see the abortion rate lowered, which is admirable, but the overwhelming majority of pro-life politicians want to see legal restrictions placed on the procedure, and even prohibitions in at least some instances. (Constitutional bans are a whole other matter, and are controversial even within the conservative movement.) Sojourners, as far as I can tell (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) generally is opposed to legal restrictions. Most people would characterize this as "personally opposed", which is distinct from "pro-life". Political taxonomy is another tricky business, but Sojo's status as a pro-life group is open to debate.

In the end this is your forum, you're entitled to set rules. I appreciate your taking time to set out your concerns. I hope you'll consider mine.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 11, 2007 3:53 PM

"...making statements that are deliberately inflammatory..."

I'm definitely going to throw this around as a reminder from time to time.

I think it's good of Ryan to remind people of the guidelines!

Wolverine, as to your comments on abortion, this is probably a post for another forum, but I'd definitely be interested in hearing Wallis' thoughts on his "concerns" about the rates of abortion. If this is a human life, why shouldn't the government step in to protect that life, and if it's not, then why the "concern"? But again, it's probably a discussion for another day.

Posted by: Eric | December 11, 2007 4:19 PM

As a Christian-- born-again, orthodox, what-you-will-- I can continue to function as a political liberal because I'm well aware that the Republican Party is actually unwilling to DO anything meaningful to end or limit abortion.

To do anything about abortion would require social justice, which would require programs to, as the US Constitution says, 'promote the general welfare', which would require government outlays of funds, which would shrink the pot of subsidies and concessions that our legislators could shell out to the corporations who bankroll their TV ads.

And if you think the corporate CEOs and their major stockholders vote Democratic, I have a lovely Bridge to Nowhere to offer you...

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | December 11, 2007 5:26 PM

Have you considered the role of the original writer and editor in 'setting the table' around which we can gather for productive dialogue???

I, for instance, don't buy the basic storyline of the blog about there being a "Religious Right Monologue". It is as if you playing off a media-manufactured "war" and positioning yourselves as the new moderate voice of reason; but primarily seem to focus your 'guns' on the "Religious Right." Then, some of your writers (including Wallis) complain about the "Neo-con" posters.... It might be that they are a product of the storyline in which you elected to create the blog.

Further, I think the guidelines should not be structured around dialogue--but around learning; and that you should reflect as to the kind of learning you hope to see occur as a result of the blog. Then develop your contributors/contributions around those learning objectives. To me that includes the original writer coming back into the conversation at some point to reflect on what they have learned from the commenters, answer any basic misunderstandings, and frame a question for dialogue. (At least come back on and express thanks to the persons for reading and participating.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 11, 2007 7:02 PM

"Maybe Neuronurse will return if this new policy is consistently upheld."

Thanks squeaky, I was just thinking that!

I've been lurking for a few days now and haven't seen a post from the person with whom I had the biggest problem – blocked perhaps?

Peace!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | December 11, 2007 10:38 PM

I have, at times, referred to Jim Wallis as a "shill" for the Democratic party, or used words to that effect. This is based on an observation that I have been unable to detect any distinction between his views and those of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Or to put it another way, I cannot see any substantive difference between the "Christian Left" as defined by Wallis and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Is there anything new here, or just old wine in new wineskins?

That may have to do with your own limitations than anything Wallis actually says or believes -- because, in my experience, the attitude from conservatives is "We do it, so they must be doing it too." But in fact, calling Wallis a shill for the Democratic Party is simply inaccurate since he has historically had nothing to do with the party. (For the record, most African-American leaders are not Democratic shills either -- for some very good reasons they simply hate conservatives, who run the GOP -- and the contempt is mutual).

On the other hand, it is entirely accurate to suggest that conservative religious leaders are often shills for the Republican Party because in fact more than a few have openly embraced it. That started with Ronald Reagan telling the NRB, "You cannot endorse me, but I endorse you" -- it made folks feel they had a "place at the table." Later, Jerry Falwell spoke at a Republican National Convention, and Pat Robertson ran for president. (Yes, Jesse Jackson ran as a Democrat, but he has never had chits to call in for help -- he's always been too much of an independent operator even for the Democratic left.)

I'll freely admit to being a hothead at times and a smart aleck the rest of the time, but seriously, what's your beef with Buckley?

I can't speak for Sojo, but I stopped reading conservative publications in the early 1990s because I found them consistently journalistically inaccurate (which many people understand today). It's one thing to put out an opinion; it's another to massage facts in order to do so, which every conservative medium, dominated by opinion mags, does. And, truth be told, National Review is little more than a "niche" magazine which in is over half-century of existence has never made a dime of profit; as such, I think it has more influence than it should. (It survives only at the behest of wealthy conservative benefactors.)

Sojourners, as far as I can tell (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) generally is opposed to legal restrictions. Most people would characterize this as "personally opposed", which is distinct from "pro-life". Political taxonomy is another tricky business, but Sojo's status as a pro-life group is open to debate.

I haven't seen that one way or the other. The biggest problem with the abortion issue is that nearly 30 years ago it was hijacked by conservatives to use as a political battering ram; had that not happened you'd have a lot more "liberals" opposing abortion.

I, for instance, don't buy the basic storyline of the blog about there being a "Religious Right Monologue". It is as if you playing off a media-manufactured "war" and positioning yourselves as the new moderate voice of reason; but primarily seem to focus your 'guns' on the "Religious Right."

Having worked in Christian media for a time, I know this to be accurate. I was a regular guest on a Christian talk show in the mid-1990s, and I'm sure my opinions, which are pretty close to Wallis' more often than not, earned me a ton of abuse. In 1992 I worked as a volunteer for the Clinton campaign, and one of the women from the singles ministry at what is now my church was shocked to see me on TV at the opening of campaign headquarters -- she told me, "I thought all Christians were Republicans!" You really did have a bunch of people on the conservative side who saw us "progressive evangelicals" as, essentially, aliens, and we were rarely given the time of day. (Non-believing conservatives were given almost carte blanche on Christian radio and TV.)

That said, even from the time Ronald Reagan was running for president I personally have found those on the political right to be (generally) arrogant, unyielding and unwilling to admit that they might be wrong about anything even in the face of evidence that proves what they believe is false or misleading, and these days more and more people are speaking up. Some people have said they admire me for never backing down against the conservatives who frequent this blog; however, I haven't found too many on the right that are, at heart, respectful of other viewpoints -- you can tell because of how much many of them seem to, say, protect GWB regardless of his conduct. And that's what fires up people on the left.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 12, 2007 1:21 AM

Ryan,
These new policies could be helpful. I hope I've been respectful to others posting here. I should say that the main reason I and others here have criticized Wallis on the abortion issue is that we believe he has been misleading on abortion, which has led many individuals and even major publications to state that he (wrongly) supports legal protections for unborn children. His views are also identical to many politicians who call themselves "pro-choice" (in fact, every politician with his views that I know of calls him/herself "pro-choice"). Frankly, I'm calling him on it, because I would like to see him change both the misleading rhetoric and his views! As per your request, however, I will attempt to use more precise language.

I should also add that the partisan rhetoric often matches the partisanship of the blogs. That is, when you attack the motives and even faith of your ideological opponents without giving them or their arguments the smallest benefit of the doubt, don't be surprised if you find the commenters doing the same. I'm all for changing the tone, but it starts with all of us.
Blessings on you all,

Posted by: jesse | December 12, 2007 8:01 AM

Rick--I do not disagree that much. For the sake of this conversation about how to nurture a more productive dialogue on this blog--I am trying to express how the framing of conversations is so important.

Our public life consists of the voice of every citizen. But on a mass level, public political discourse is framed by the media and political leaders. The storylines they create set the terms. And in my thinking these 'stories' discourage productive dialogue; and discourage productive governance.

Media stories demand good guys and bad guys. They require oversimplifications and creation of enememies. If there is not a fight going on, there must be an oppositional/antagonistic quote from someone to throw in another's face. Both political parties seem instinctively to think their best interests are furthered by demonizing and conquering the 'other.'

If we are going to work out a more life-giving, Christ-honoring, justice-furthering, dialogue then we need be reflective how we frame our conversations. This includes how the blog is framed, how the articles are written, how we speak, and the assumptions we bring to the conversation.

If we bring the "Left-Right" construct to every issue then we will end up in a "Left vs. Right" demate on every issue. Same with "Conservative-Liberal" or "Democrat-Republican" polemics.

If the blog is framed as a correction to the Religious Right we are pretty much locked into a "Sojo vs. Religious Right" debate. I am just asking Ryan to consider whether the way the blog is framed and edited contributes to framing a constructive dialogue.

Talk Radio hosts often makes the same 'monologue' argument in another way--i.e."Traditional mainstream media is a liberal monologue. We are the balance."

I don't buy that either. And I didn't buy the argument that the Jews controlled Hollywood and the media. The real world and real people are just too complex.

Sojourners Magazine existed before the Moral Majority. Wallis published books before, during, and after Reagen. Virtually every federal elected official has been a member of a Christian denomination--some Evangelical, but like the population most were not. There were persons of faith across the political spectrum active and organizing to exercise their political freedom before, during and after the Moral Majority. There were Evangelicals across the political spectrum before, during and after. Did you consider Senator Hatfield part of the monologue? What about Jimmy Carter?

If the 'progressive Evangelical voice' was invisible in the public dialogue, who made it invisible? The place it did not exist was in the storylines of the mainstream media. Why did the woman at your church think "all Christians were Republicans?" Was that true? Who promoted that storyline?

A change in discourse usually requires a fresh use of language and mental constructs; otherwise we just play out the same conversation in a thousand different varieties.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 10:19 AM

I meant to say the following:

As I've said before, very, very few conservatives (because of their perceived power in the evangelical world) respect the convictions of those evangelicals who don't agree with them.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 12, 2007 11:13 AM

Rick--I agree there is a Christian media (i.e.broadcast media) in which progressive Evangelicals have been largely invisible. But that media does not have the capacity to make progressives invisible in the broader media world; nor have I ever perceived the mainstream media to adapt the worldviews of CBN, FOTF, etc. So why were they inivisible in mainstream media?

Yes I notice the number of African-Americans involved in these conversations (and women). And yes I understand reasons most consider it a waste of time; and why I appreciate your generosity in engaging (i.e. extreme generosity). So in the broad sweep of the mainstream's reporting of Christians bringing faith to bear on political life, where did they place African American Christians over the past 25 years?? Or last 50 years??

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 12:52 PM

Rick,
"As I've said before, very, very few conservatives (because of their perceived power in the evangelical world) respect the convictions of those evangelicals who don't agree with them."

Define "respect" and "convictions" for me.

I ask because your experience is polar opposite to mine. I do know that when dealing with post-moderns and with younger liberals or extreme liberals or extreme anything that to disagree with them is often taken as personal offense. I'm not trying to put in you in these categories, I'm just relaying the challenge of talking with some people I'm trying to understand

So is "respect" mean to agree? Does "convictions" mean opinions?

I've got to go for awhile, but I check your response later.

Blessings,
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | December 12, 2007 1:29 PM

There's a ton of people on the right who see abortion as a useful tool to cut down on the number of the poor using up resources and causing tax increases. We even heard that echoed in a person self-identified with the right wanting forced sterilization and advocating geriatric euthanasia by withholding medical treatment.

Posted by: N.M Rod | December 12, 2007 1:47 PM

I might add that many on the right do not want to see universal health care for the same reason - because they see the poor as unfit and unworthy and growing in their dysfunctionality to consume more and more productive resources. If they receive health care, they live longer and propagate themselves, increasing the dysfunction of society and impeding growth. When they are denied care, they will tend to die off and their numbers will diminish. In contrast, caring for those who have the means to pay regardless of cost rewards the more fit members of society and strengthens society. allowing more resources to be committed towards productive goals rather than being eaten up. This attitude is the source of our poster on the right here referring to poor mothers as "brood mares" who ought to be sterilized "poking out" illegitimate babies in order to eat up the taxes of the financially productive and the underclass males he imagines as animalistic "studs," and their poor elderly eating up tax resources to keep them alive when they are no longer financially productive or never were.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 1:56 PM

I agree there is a Christian media (i.e. broadcast media) in which progressive Evangelicals have been largely invisible. But that media does not have the capacity to make progressives invisible in the broader media world; nor have I ever perceived the mainstream media to adapt the worldviews of CBN, FOTF, etc. So why were they inivisible in mainstream media?

Simple -- the "progressives" never really draw attention to themselves nor do they have the money to do so. Just consider the budget of ESA compared to FOTF. As I said, the conservatives were able to put together a strong infrastructure fairly quickly, in part to counteract what they believed were "anti-God" forces, including (and perhaps especially) the MSM. As I said, it's easier to raise money if you have a target.

So in the broad sweep of the mainstream's reporting of Christians bringing faith to bear on political life, where did they place African American Christians over the past 25 years?? Or last 50 years??

That's a tough question to answer because the black church was for many years the center of the community. Before segregation, black men who sought to exercise community leadership went into the ministry because that was the only avenue available to them. I remember a TV commercial some years ago that depicted a number of families, and it showed a black family just coming from church -- so, unless the person who thought that up had special insight, it probably wasn't questioned.

So is "respect" mean to agree? Does "convictions" mean opinions?

Oh, no. One of my closest friends and I think virtually nothing alike, yet neither of us tries to "convert" the other -- there are things we don't talk about because our relationship is too important to break up over relatively trivial matters. That said, we need to be open to learn from each other, which causes growth -- I doubt she had ever even met a "progressive evangelical" before me.

Convictions, to me, are opinions but backed up with experience and basic principles that are non-negotiable, in my case informed by the Scriptures. Sometimes that's not obvious, but God has given me special eyes to see what will happen years, even decades down the road. While I have since refrained from endorsing or opposing specific candidates, I opposed Ronald Reagan from the day he announced for president (and I was likely one of the very few evangelical Christians to do so) because of where I believed he would take the Christian faith -- divided as we see on this blog. My view on him has not changed at all since.

I think this organization would have more respect by many Evangelicals if they took to task the pro abortion crowd, instead of always atatcking the conservative religious political views "all the time"

I doubt that. First, the "pro-abortion crowd" isn't anywhere near as organized as the anti-abortion contingent -- witness its focus on such organizations as Planned Parenthood, always a whipping boy. Besides, [secular] conservatives hijacked the issue of abortion in the late 1970s only for the sake of power, not because they particularly cared about the "sanctity of human life," as N.M. Rod suggested earlier. That's why I almost never refer to anti-abortionists as "pro-life."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 12, 2007 3:08 PM

Having been an executive in corporate America, I can tell you that the majority of CEOs and financially powerful are country club Republican - fiscally self-interested and mostly financially conservative - which mirrors their deep business experience and belief in the personal benefits of capitalism.

Most of those who I will call disciples of Gordon Gekko do see the classes of people who are not financially well off as those who aren't the type of people who ought to have their numbers encouraged. They don't make good customers since they are not flush with dollars. And if they need resources they can't pay for, they take away from profit.

They even end up needing to divert financial resources and increase taxation, which is obviously anathema to Wall Street, regardless of Main Street's realities.

What's failed to be considered, of course, that the failure to be able to afford services is often because those who are more well-off have bid the price for those services into the stratosphere. They wouldn't be so expensive were there not such a disparity of wealth which can have providers chasing after the most lucrative bidders for it and leaving everyone else in the dust.

Realize, too, that the stated electoral strategy this term is to make those who still have good health insurance desperately afraid of losing it in the name of making it more available, to play off the "haves" against the "have-nots." To make the "haves" fear sharing the fate of the "have-nots."

Who does this serve? This benefits those who are well satisfied with the extremely profitable skewed system we have and benefit mightily from it in terms of finances. These lobbyists are spending billions this election cycle to make sure all things continue along the current trajectory, regardless of the impact on those getting lopped off at the bottom end, because they are able to provide less and less to fewer and fewer at increased profit.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 12, 2007 3:31 PM

Waitaminute Mick,
Your state taxed the collection of rain water? Why? What state do you live in?

Posted by: squeaky | December 12, 2007 3:55 PM

Posted by: neuro_nurse | December 12, 2007 1:08 PM

Great to see you back - you are back...

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 12, 2007 4:17 PM

No Squeak , they proposed legislation in 2005 , the proposed legislation was sponsored by my state senate rep .. Also much attention was given to the attempt to tax the well water .

I live in a very strange state . We have grown quite radidly in population , and most areas use septic systems , people have their own wells etc . This tax on rain water got national attention two years ago , bascially on conservative information systems as examples of government gone amok .

It is suppose to be tried again , our state has a strong majority of democrats , little debate on many of the issues when either party has really little opposition .

It will be interesting if this picks up steam this time . Much of the water supply in many areas is from underground streams . I cant see the logic in this one though , I got emailed the information the other night , and I am sitting on it to see if this guy tries it again .

He also tried to make it illegal to have your car idle dor more then 10 minutes in a ferry line above freezing tempatures . That bill failed to get out of committee also . I can just see me getting out of my selling booth and telling someone to turn their engin off or they are going to the gray motel .

he did get his his stricter emmissions bill passed, I beleieve we like california now .

Most of the state is somewhat more tolerant , but the biggest population and political power is King County , where Seattle is .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 12, 2007 4:59 PM

I think we certainly need rather more respectful listening from some quarters to what Jim Wallis et al really do believe about abortion. (Maybe the occasional statement on the subject from Jim wouldn't go amiss either?)

I can't speak for Jim or for Sojo, but I am pretty convinced that the policy that I would like to see enacted - a ban on all abortion except where the mother's life is at risk - is not enforceable in a meaningful way in any developed nation without disastrous unintended consequences. At present that sort of policy choice would put the back street abortionists back in business, creating more problems than it solves. It would undermine respect for the law, and it would probably undermine respect for human life among the majority who see abortion as a sometimes necessary procedure.

So with a heavy heart I accept that some abortion has to happen legally. (Though rather less than is currently legal in my native England, and a lot less than is currently legal in Canada - I don't know the US situation well enough to comment.)

Does that make me "pro-abortion"? Would it be helpful to label me by saying that I "think abortion should be legal"? I don't think so - even if it factually represents one facet of my position it doesn't do me justice, and I would respond pretty strongly to being pigeonholed in that way.

If we accept that a total ban on abortion would be no more successful than prohibition on sale of alcohol was in early C20 USA and Canada, the issue then is surely how to save as many lives as possible. The incremental approach pursued by "pro-life" British parliamentarians (seeking to reduce the age limit beyond which abortion is permitted, etc) is surely part of the answer. And working to eliminate poverty is surely another enormous part.

You see, the whole thing is so much more complex than can be done justice to by tags like pro/anti-life, or pro/anti-choice, or even Kevin's more respectful "thinks abortion should be legal".

Mark

Posted by: Mark | December 12, 2007 5:29 PM

Is anyone inclined to offer any more responses to the original article on management of this blog??

Maybe you could make a brief "hot under the collar" article every 2 or 3 days and let folk debate whatever they want to debate; carry on one-on-one debates; make unrelated comments; and give speeches. Then dump comments from the regular lines of conversation that are unrelated into the "Hot Under the Collar" posts.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 12, 2007 5:43 PM

Disagreement can certainly be respectful. It becomes offensive when, instead of trying to understand the disagreement, or agreeing to disagree, we call the other names. If I disagree with you, say, about the importance of dealing with the appalling number of children who live in poverty, I respect your right to say, No, I don't think that's the most important issue to address. I will be offended, however, if instead of saying either: I disagree with you because.....; or What prompts you to say that? you dismiss me (whom you don't know) and my argument (which you don't like) by calling me a liberal--or whatever name you want to use.

I would also argue for respectful language when expressing our own positions. It was the description of men as studs and women as individuals who have lots of babies primarily to stay on welfare, that made me give up on this blog. We know nothing about the individuals being described, so such disrespectful language says more about the speaker than the person being described. And it does nothing to further dialogue.

Posted by: bren | December 12, 2007 7:37 PM

That's just the kind of ideological labeling I'm talking about that has especially hurt the anti-abortion movement

Rick Actually I asked you a few questions and for whatever reason you did not answer them . You labeled and stereotyped as you always do .
Answer the questions if you can .

You believe taking the life of an unborn child is wrong ?

That we should have laws to protect the unborn , or are you saying we only need policies to make the need for abortion to go away ?

Because you know many people will always choose abortion , even if all your "political" beliefs are carried out . Would you still favor no laws stopping abortion , parental consent etc ?

Why so many on the right see the left religious pro life support any more then window dressing for the left political machine is the very excuses you give for not standing up for the unborn ,
fear full of being "locked in" , Good grief , locked into what ? I never have seen liberals involved in organizations that promote life issues , it would be welcomed . The problems of pro life conservatives dealing with the republican party shows me you know little of what you speak to ,

In fact , it would possibly cause what you believe conservatives should do if there was actually more support from the left on the issue , your locked to the lefts dogma and coalition , as you prove by your comments .

Quite interesting Rick .. Thanks as always for the insight and conversation .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 12, 2007 9:25 PM

moderator - is the following inflammatory?
"white evangelicals are out of touch with the concerns of blacks."

bring in the race card rick; what if i said ..black evangelicals are not intouch with the concerns of whites"?
all your opinions.
let's face it, this is wallis' blog and contrary opinions will be moderated. why can't everyone just git along? like the democrats do.
nice, Godfearing christians should not make emotional statements about social injustice or abortion or crime or immigration. why can't everyone just git along? political blogs are not politically correct forums. if you let your contributors comments go without our comments in return then turn it into a wallis monologue with the supporting cast of "progressive" followers. as a conservative, i can live withthat. i will still read it.

Posted by: jerry | December 12, 2007 9:59 PM

jerry -- Whether you want to admit it or not, race is an issue in the church of Jesus Christ and your denial of that reality is not helpful, especially on this blog. My point was, and is, that there is a group of Christians whom the "religious right" never spoke for, and many are African-American.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 12, 2007 10:35 PM

moderator - is the following inflammatory?
"white evangelicals are out of touch with the concerns of blacks."

It is insulting Jerry , but actually I see the reverse here . The one thing I have learned here is never say your for local control via states rights at a NAACP meeting , that is seen as a cover up for racism . I guess that may inflamatory , but it is being truthfull .
Too bad , past political views have been used to hurt people of different races , just as religion has .

Columbus was an explorer , Native Americans see him as an invader . But your right , a softer approach would cause a better understanding , I see your point all too well . There does seem to be a softening in many African Americans from these kind of views . Not everything is blame someone else , and not every answer that you disagree with has to be a reason to ridicule your belief or promote a view that belief is based in anythign but a sincere conclussion that your life experiences and common sense has taught you . .

"Well, not everyone who opposes legal abortion -- and I've made it very clear that I do "

Well now you have , it was never clear to me . Blame conservatives for the problems of abortion is what I have always seen your point to come out to , no concern with liberals coming out of their authoritive circles on your part . You tend to see everything as right or left , unborn children , they have no political beliefs .

Your strategy is my way or the high way . Sorry , the pro life folks are way too diverse and the liberal activists to seem to say you know of unwilling to confront their own leaders in any substantive manner . You saying they do does not make it so , which is obvious since the left wing pro life movement is no where to be found or heard from . Other issues that the left wing has sure make it to the TV set and politcal discussions . Even without any kind of organized effort .

Nor have you any supporters here from your political compass. I admire you for saying you are against having abortions legal , actually I do admire you Rick . Your just so blasted wrong all the time .
.

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 13, 2007 4:53 AM

Well now you have, it was never clear to me. Blame conservatives for the problems of abortion is what I have always seen your point to come out to, no concern with liberals coming out of their authoritive circles on your part. You tend to see everything as right or left, unborn children, they have no political beliefs.

Now, you know full well conservatism was never really about unborn children, so please don't use that canard. We're talking about an ideology that intended to put its critics out of business and establish itself as a de facto aristrocracy by hook or by crook, and people are starting to figure that out now. "Pro-life" activists diverse? Puh-LEEZE! I'm on a local anti-abortion e-mail distribution list, and the attitude and tactics haven't changed since the 1980s! One woman is trying to start a pro-life ministry at my church, and I'm encouraging her to adjust things so that we don't make the same mistakes they keep making.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 13, 2007 8:14 AM

"..the left wing pro life movement is nowhere to be found or heard from."

Actually, there are plenty of folks who are against abortion on demand and who also favor liberal fiscal policies. The Democratic Party, to its detriment, has marginalized us on the abortion issue, but many of us do not see the current Republican Party, which in turn has marginalized fiscal and foreign-policy moderates, as a worthy alternative.

"Other issues that the left wing has sure make it to the TV set and political discussions..."

Others, yes, but not all others. There was hardly room for anti-war views in the fall of 2002, and there continues to be little room for discussion of an overhaul of health care in the Democratic Party (even though the Republican Party made plenty of room for discussion of an overhaul of Social Security).

Just remember that the Democratic Party is not synonomous with the Left. Many of us continue to vote Democratic because we don't see viable alternatives. And in the short run, many of us pro-life liberals see more harm in voting for Republicans than any gains that continuous Republican leadership could make on the abortion issue. Like Rick said, where the rubber meets the road, the Republican Party never really has been about abortion anyway.

Posted by: I and I | December 13, 2007 11:22 AM

N.M.Rod
First, just want to say I appreciate reading your comments. Yau are one of the more thoughtful and informative posters here. But, I find myself disagreeing with your last comment tat pro-life consistency gains respect from those who disagree.
First, here's what I b eleive -- God is best left in charge of life and death matters. He does use us to enhance the life of others but we are so dismally inept on death issues, that we must leave that to Him. So I am an across-the-board "lifer". I am pacifist, anti-death penalty and believe abortion immmoral. That makes absolutely no one happy or respectful. My church-going friends on the right deride may anti-war stance and consider me unpatriotic, my friends on the left think I am ready to tank women's rights and that I have basically lost my mind. My beliefs are based on Christ's teachings as decribed in the New Testament, so I am also chided as being theologically incorrect, that because I rely on Christ's teachings I am rejecting the rest of the Bible. Fortunately, my relationship with God is strong enough to withstand the impact of derision by others, I still have found it's best not to talk about it too much.]
Like the man said, I don't get no respect.

Posted by: c kitty | December 13, 2007 12:49 PM

People with experience and who have paid a price for their convictions can still have a conviction contrary to yours. Agreement and respect are not the same thing.

Point taken, and there are myriad examples of such. The key for me is: Can those convictions be supported by overwhelming evidence? That is, is something really true or is it something I simply want to believe? More and more I find myself checking things out for myself to see if they're true, though I've always sought to do this. Many of the brouhahas I've been involved with on this blog have had to do with things I knew were true that directly counteracted the conservative agenda and the conservatives who frequent it dismissing my findings.

That said, I stand by my original statement that ideologically conservative evangelicals as a rule do not respect the views of even other evangelicals who don't agree with them, and my proof is this thread. Hopefully, that is changing soon and we "progressives" will be accepted as full "brothers and sisters" in the LORD.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 13, 2007 1:06 PM

"Is there a link...?"

I think it turned into a practice run at polite blogging. If anything it shows that fair and considerate conversation is still possible on God's Politics, and that the moderators may be pleasantly surprised at having to enforce the new rules less than anticipated.

Posted by: I and I | December 13, 2007 1:55 PM

Is there a link between your comments and the issue of the article about management of the blog?? (This is an inquiry not a rhetorical challenge)

Not in my case, I honestly don't believe.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 13, 2007 3:12 PM

Great! This is a wonderful approach. Your arguments are well reasoned and make a lot of sense.

Posted by: Larry Johnson | December 13, 2007 5:21 PM

Off Point

Many of the responses to posted blogs are off-point. Posting tends to follow the unwritten rules of ordinary conversation where drift sets in and the original topic of conversation morphs into something else. When people come to a post and its comments they are often forced to skim through a long line of posts that have little to do with the original topic.

There are technical solutions to these problems. For example, the Washington Post’s On Faith blog has a number of standing topical blog areas that posters may post to at any time. If abortion, Jim’s shilling, and so forth are standing issues that people constantly post about, perhaps permanent topical areas would do much to off-load these kinds of comments from blogs dedicated to separate topics.

Second, some blogs like the Huff Post, have threads within responses such that if I want to respond to Mary Jane on something she said and John Doe on something I said about her, a separate thread is established. In this nested approach, someone coming to the post can save time by ignoring subthreads, personal responses, flameware, and the like.

Third, many posts have abuse buttons that readers can activate to indicate when they believe that a blogger has violated the use terms of the blog.

If the hosts of the Sojo blog (beliefnet) can implement the above or similar technical solutions to housekeeping issues, it may be able to avoid other, heavier-handed approaches (bouncing messages, banning participation) to rule abuse.

Posted by: Brent | December 13, 2007 7:13 PM

Rick,
"That said, I stand by my original statement that ideologically conservative evangelicals as a rule do not respect the views of even other evangelicals who don't agree with them, and my proof is this thread. Hopefully, that is changing soon and we "progressives" will be accepted as full "brothers and sisters" in the LORD."

Good enough. I also stand by statement that my experience is that progressives seem to be less tolerant of other viewpoints. I also would say this my proof is this thread. I believe the Golden Rule comes into play here.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | December 13, 2007 10:30 PM

I also stand by statement that my experience is that progressives seem to be less tolerant of other viewpoints. I also would say this my proof is this thread.

I don't recall your making that statement, but I firmly disagree with that. What has happened is that over the years those of us who are not conservatives have been targeted, usually unfairly, for the sake of raising money and passion -- I'm in the "mainstream media," so I'm particularly sensitive to that -- and some of us got tired of that and began to fight back. I challenge you to show me some instances in which progressives denounce conservatives simply for being conservatives they way they do with us.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 13, 2007 11:19 PM

What peculiarly conservative ideas have worked in the last fifty years?

Seems to me we're heading into the biggest mess yet, courtesy conservatives, the biggest since the liberals messed up before that.

What if we're looking at the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression? That would be an even bigger mess than what liberalism did for us.

Please don't make such simplistic, unexamined statements.

Maybe you're taking Ann Coulter's advice on how to talk to people you think are liberals?

Please think for yourself!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 14, 2007 1:54 AM

The answer was finally revealed to me and that was that there is no diffence between a Liberal Christian and a person who does not believe in God at all.

Doug, we've heard this kind of garbage from you before and it's exactly what we're talking about. FYI, the most dangerous people I'm aware of in this country are secular conservatives, which have always outnumbered Christian conservatives -- in fact, I daresay that your worldview is influenced far more by a secular conservative ethos than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Someone had proposed that such terms were inflammatory and ought not to be used... and I disagree, and put forth I think a nuanced and accurate assessment.

True, because people don't want to take a good look at themselves; they think they're right but don't understand how their policies, attitudes etc. pollute the atmosphere.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 14, 2007 9:14 AM

Oh, well, so much for our polite-blogging practice run. Perhaps Doug posted his inflammatory comments as an example of what Sojo is seeking to remedy with its new moderation procedures, or to test our responses. I urge folks to ignore posts like that and not give them the compliment of rational response. Let's all practice "isolating" the irrelevant or inflammatory posters and leave it to the moderators take the responsibility to deal with them. Then the flow of conversation can go on unimpeded. Let's tolerate a diversity of viewpoints and let the manner of presentation be our indicator of whether to respond.

On an unrelated note, if there are other Sojo posters in the mid-Michigan area (Lansing et al) let me know and maybe we can meet for coffee or beer. Esp. fun if if our views differ on some things!

Posted by: I and I | December 14, 2007 10:55 AM

I and I--I fully understand.

But silence can be taken as a 'passive agressive' response. I blurt stuff out at times that is silly and harsh. If you give me opportunity to take a deep breath and talk with greater thought and consideration--and then I persist with 'silly/harsh'; then I think you are more than justified in turning me off.

I have had persons come at me very aggressively (yelling) in entirely unfair terms; who at the end of the day were saying things I needed to hear.

I think the quality of the blog rests in how we each choose to speak; but moreso in the quality of our listening.

I agree it is very disruptive to flow of conversation if someone tosses in a bomb and then there are ten responses and counter-responses. But I hope we engage together in a way that when one of us goes off, someone can open the door to a restatement without it taking us off a long tangent.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 14, 2007 11:15 AM

Perhaps Doug posted his inflammatory comments as an example of what Sojo is seeking to remedy with its new moderation procedures, or to test our responses.

That doesn't always work, however -- Doug, I suggest, really believes what he says, won't simply moderate his posts, does not respect other viewpoints and, thus, believes this entire blog is off-base. On top of that, one poster has recently made statements bordering on racist and which should not be tolerated. I've seen every episode of "All in the Family," and Archie was simply not one to be reasoned with -- and I remember a few times he looked like a fool because of his bigotry.

I'm not one who believes in locking certain viewpoints out -- heck, that happens on the time in "Christian" media -- but some things are right and other things are just plain wrong and need to be addressed as such. This blog is about peace and justice, in a religious context at that; if we believe in justice that assumes there is injustice. And I do not believe in "peace at any price"; that broke up my family because issues were never confronted.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 14, 2007 12:21 PM

Nutshell,
You have so many sterotypes of consevatives in there it is hard to pinpoint just one. I am a conservative so I just don't care about people at all. I am for dirty water, no health care coverage, etc. All the lies that have been spread for decades and have not worked.
All the ideas you site as having worked I see as failures. Health care is now considered a right, people are loosing there jobs to companys being forced to pay for health care coverage (think Detroit auto workers) and it was actually conservatives that brought down slavery. Conservatives that believed in God I might add.

You all miss the point. I was a liberal before I became a christian. I realized after I became a christian that I needed to change my thinking from the way the world thinks. I needed to start taking responsibility for my own actions and stop blaming others for my problems. Secularists and Liberal Christians walk hand in hand. They both believe that abortion is a right, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and that govt. through taxes should redistribute wealth. If it came right down to it and your answer confirmed it Liberal Christians do not think that Jesus is the only way to heaven where secularists if they believe in God at all think the same way. As a Christian all those ideas are an abomination to the Lord our God. It is why my worldviews are the way they are.

Rick,
I hope that you have a great day. How can I not like you when I do not know you. I belive that we are brothers in Christ. I just believe that you are sincerely wrong in your liberal worldview. I know that working for the drive by media has to influence you and how you think. I just can not believe how a man of God can continue to rip on people who are doing our Lords work,ie Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D.J. Kennedy and Jerry Falwell to name a few. Then at the same time defend two people who have done more harm to our country then any two people have in a long time- Bill and Hillary Clinton. You can not deny that those people are not doing the Lords work no matter waht they claim. You tell me to think outside the box. I do. I read and read a lot. You need to read some conservative works for once. It is after all how more then half the country thinks by the way. Have a blessed day.

Posted by: Doug | December 14, 2007 1:26 PM

Doug,

I'm sorry but I don't believe that you my comments very closely. It would appear to me that you are projecting and that you are guilty of stereotyping. I guess I am more liberal than I am conservative but I don't know any born-again person whether or liberal, conservative or moderate who thinks abortion is okay or a right. I certainly don't believe in gay marriage in spite of the fact that I know and am friendly with gay people. I neither support nor do I agree with the lifestyle (and I didn't either before I became a Christian). Please refer to where I said Conservatives don't care about people?

I find your comments about liberal Christians and Jesus to be highly subjective and judgmental. Of course if you are referring to Unitarians, I would agree but I don't believe they are Christians. In fact, the belief system you refer to is diametrically opposed to Christian belief for anyone who calls themselves a Christian. If you are accusing me of that, I would state emphatically that you are wrong.

You asked a question about what positive thing has happened as a result of liberal thought. I recounted a list but you neither acknowledged, rejected or accepted the examples I listed. Considering that health care was not even an option before the mid 20th century I dare say your argument is not a strong one. I didn't say health care was perfect (heavens no!). It is something that has evolved as part of living and working in our country. Considering the thousands of years of life/work in civilization, health benefits are extremely new.

And finally, I am a businesswoman. I own my own business. I am not at all interested in wealth redistribution. You are the one who is generalizing and stereotyping.

Frankly, I get sick and tired of this from you guys. If someone argues a different viewpoint, you personalize an attack, question their Christianity, stereotype and call me and others names. Did I or did I not answer your question about anything positive? Can you name a liberal Christian in 19th century America who wanted to perserve slavery? Can I name conservative Christians in 20th century America who defended segregation, Jim Crow, apartheid, etc? Yes! Does Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham count? I certainly believe Rev. Graham changed his opinion and I have great respect for the man, but at one point he was wrong on these issues. My father-in-law is as conservative as they get but I don't demonize him. If he's wrong on an issue, I say so. I don't question his Christianity. He is definitely a man with a heart for God as are many Christians of all stripes.

You sir, are the one who is stereotyping.

Posted by: Nuttshell | December 14, 2007 2:38 PM

I certainly believe Rev. Graham changed his opinion and I have great respect for the man, but at one point he was wrong on these issues.

Actually, Billy Graham always did oppose racism and segregation. In the 1950s he demanded that his Southern crusades be integrated. In 1957 he called a black man to be part of his staff. In 1958 he had Martin Luther King Jr. deliver a prayer at his long New York City crusade. And for many years he refused to preach in South Africa precisely because of apartheid -- when he finally did go he said, in no uncertain terms, "Your system has got to go." (Some people believe that was the first crack in the wall of apartheid.) In fact, when he did his last crusade in my city in 1993 it was the black churches who invited him.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 14, 2007 2:46 PM

"I'm sorry but I don't believe that you (read) my comments very closely."

Nuttshell, with all due respect, this is precisely the reason I recommend not engaging with these folks. You won't get anywhere. He's probably laughing his arse off right now at his office computer because he got a rise out of a liberal. I think you have a lot of value to contribute and I've appreciated many of your insights, but I just suggest not wasting it on him or on others who don't take this stuff seriously. I hope my comments are well taken.

Posted by: I and I | December 14, 2007 3:11 PM

It's a difficult dilemma. Certainly some of the discourse here is far from edifying, and tends to distract from real dialogue rather than promote it. But it is also really difficult to moderate objectively.

I wonder if you could find some balanced, objective people who don't work for and are not identified with Sojourners, and give them the job of moderating. It's really hard to moderate something about yourselves, and it is impossible to appear objective while doing so.

I do think that different perceptions of groups and public figures are legitimate. Putting on a filter of whether or not you agree with the characterization is not appropriate moderation, IMHO.

Your Wallis as Democratic shill is a good example. Apparently you will prohibit it because you don't think it is accurate. But there are many reasons why people do think it is. He has actually been an official Democratic spokesperson on national radio, has been invited to a Congressional Democratic conference, has sponsored one (and only one) Presidential forum to which only mainstream (pro-militarism, pro-abortion, pro-death penalty) Democratic candidates were invited, etc. From what I've seen, none of the special opportunities with Democratic politicians have been used to speak prophetically about them. Rather they are copiously praised even though their positions are inconsistent with the Gospel, even with what otherwise seems to be Sojourners' claimed understanding of the Gospel. It is the perception of some of us that Wallis is being used by the Democrats. You can disagree with that, but it seems to me fair to state that perception.

Naturally Sojourners staff is unlikely to think that criticism of Wallis and Sojourners accurately portrays them, but it is unfair to thereby just call it not factual and delete it rather than recognize it as real perception of them based on actual information (in my case, almost 100% of that information is from Sojourners itself).

Posted by: Bill Samuel | December 14, 2007 5:43 PM

Bill -- I understand your concern. That said, we "progressive evangelicals" have been locked out of the process for so long it's going to take a while for us to get our sea legs, if you get the drift. As for moderating a Republican debate, Sojo may have tried -- but it's probably just as well that they didn't, with GOP candidates imploding at every debate they've had (and even turning down one moderated by an African-American group). But in the long run, among evangelicals of Wallis' generation it probably matters little -- even Evangelicals for Social Action, which is non-partisan and non-ideological, is still perceived by many conservatives a part of the "religious left" because it doesn't follow all the right's priorities. I remember about three years ago reading an interview in World magazine with Ron Sider, and I could tell by his language that Gene Edward Veith was trying to get his goat.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 15, 2007 11:39 AM