Two Fundamental Shifts (by Jim Wallis)
This evening, the presidential election of 2008 officially begins with the Iowa caucuses—intense political contests taking place in every county of that Midwestern state. The national campaign, of course, has already been going on for many months (with the earliest start in the history of presidential politics), but now the endless polling will be replaced by actual election results in state caucuses and primaries. Iowa is the starting gun in the political battle that leads to the party nominations, the fall campaign, and a November election that many believe to be the most important in years.
I believe the religious landscape of the 2008 political year will be dramatically different than it was in the 2004 election. And it's quite amazing how much the issue of faith and politics has changed in such a short time. There are two fundamental shifts which have occurred and, taken together, they constitute a real sea change in American politics.
First, in what TIME magazine has called "a leveling of the praying field" the Democrats now speak as much about faith and values as the Republicans do. For example, it has been the Democratic presidential candidates who have devoted the most time in outreach to faith communities in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - not the Republicans. We have seen top level faith outreach operations as central to the Democratic candidates' campaign strategies and decision-making, their "faith forums" in primary states, newsletters on family and values, and even gospel music tours. All three Democratic front-runners have spoken quite comfortably about their personal faith and its relationship to public life in national forums and debates, at religious institutions and congregations, and in media interviews. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards frequently speak of their history as committed lay persons in their denomination and know the religious community as their own; and Barack Obama sometimes sounds like a public theologian. All three, as well as other Democratic candidates, have explicitly connected their faith to a broad range of issues from poverty to health care, criminal justice, HIV/AIDS, human rights, and to war and peace.
In a striking contrast this year, the Republican Party, which has so associated itself with religion and "values voters" in recent years, has had a serious "God and marriage problem," as many have pointed out. Several of the Republican frontrunners like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson have often seemed uncomfortable and awkward when the language of faith comes up, and, as many have noted, the only one among the early Republican frontrunners with a history of just one wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney, whose minority religion is suspect among many conservative evangelicals. The candidate with the strongest Christian identity, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, couldn't get the backing of the key leaders of Religious Right and finally surged to the top tier by appealing on his own to the grassroots religious base of the party in places like Iowa and South Carolina. The contrast from 2004, when many in the GOP were describing theirs as "God's own party," is quite stunning.
It is now much clearer that "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," as our bumper sticker from the last campaign read; and that is a good thing. There should be no religious litmus tests for politics - committed Christians will, and should be, on both sides of the political aisle. Indeed, people of faith should never be in any party's or candidate's political pocket and should, ideally, be the ultimate swing vote because of their moral independence from partisan politics. Let's all try to remember that this political year.
Martin Luther once said that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than by an incompetent Christian, which is a good piece of wisdom to keep in mind this or any election year. What a candidate's moral compass is should be more important than his/her theology or the doctrines of his/her religious tradition. What kind of leader will a candidate be, what are his/her guiding personal and social values, and what is his/her strength of character? These are all key questions.
Second, and even more important than the religious identities of the candidates on either side, is how the agenda of faith communities has undergone a very significant shift. Very clearly, abortion and gay marriage are not the only overriding "moral issues" for many people of faith now, though the sanctity of life (more consistently applied) and healthy families (without scapegoats) are still critical concerns. But now other key moral and religious issues have taken on great importance in the agendas of faith communities. These issues include both global and domestic poverty, pandemic diseases which ravage the developing world, the extreme violations of human rights in places like Darfur, the alarming threats of climate change and the imperatives of "creation care" of the environment, and the need for a more ethical response to the genuine threats of terrorism and a foreign policy more consistent with our best moral values.
Many recent polls show that the votes of millions in the faith community are "in play" this election season, and whichever candidate - Democrat or Republican - speaks the language of moral values and seriously addresses the wider and deeper religious agenda will find resonance this year among the faithful. And for many in the faith community, both character and competence really both matter in choosing the next president. I hear strong positive responses among people of faith when they see the qualities of moral leadership in presidential candidates.
On the Democratic side, I hear great appreciation for John Edwards' passionate and persistent commitment to make poor people a political priority and his challenging the control of the wealthy and powerful over our political process. I hear great attraction, especially among a younger generation, to Barack Obama's call for change to a new kind of politics, beyond left and right, which actually finds solutions to our most pressing problems; and for the first African American President. And I see a real appeal, especially among women, for Hillary Clinton's persistent commitment to issues like children and health care, along with her experience and readiness that says a woman could be the president of the U.S. for the very first time. All three have been willing to challenge the secular rejection of religion and values talk which still exists in their party, and, in the general election, whoever secures the Democratic nomination will be watched carefully by the religious community to see if they will also take on other party orthodoxies on issues like abortion.
One of the highpoints for me of the campaign thus far came in a Republican debate where both Mike Huckabee and John McCain defended the humanity of undocumented people in the midst of an extended attack on "illegal aliens" by other candidates. In the face of some of the most heated rhetoric, John McCain asked his colleagues to remember that the people they were all talking about were "also the children of God." And in defending his inclusion of the children of the undocumented in his state's scholarship programs, Mike Huckabee stood his ground and said the U.S. was not the kind of country that punished children for the mistakes of their parents. Both have been willing to challenge their party on other issues too - McCain supports both comprehensive immigration and campaign finance reform; and Huckabee was recently accused of being a "Christian socialist" by a leading economic conservative because of how he spent money on poor people in Arkansas. One political commentator on the Republican side told me he thought McCain and Huckabee have been rising in the polls because of the "character" they have shown in these debates. On the other hand, despite Rudy Giuliani's popularity in the Republican polls, conservative evangelical leaders like Richard Land insist that their constituency will not vote for him, not merely because of his stances on abortion and gay marriage, but because of his own marital behavior and history. And the evangelical concerns I hear about Mitt Romney are less about his Mormon religion than whether his changes on key moral issues for them are ultimately trustworthy.
All of that suggests that moral values will indeed be a key criteria for religious and "values voters" this election season; but that the definition and range of those moral values will be much wider and deeper than ever before. This time, more than any election in many years, the votes of many in the faith community are still undecided and will be influenced by whoever can win their support with a genuine moral discourse on politics and an agenda of both social and political transformation.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I have long agreed with Jim's distaste with the Religious right's monopoly on "faith and values," but I can't help but yearn for days gone by when candidates didn't use faith-talk to try to get votes. I may agree with the politics of Edwards, Obama and Clinton more than I do with the candidates of "God's Old Party," but I still squirm when I read that the Democrats are trying to outfaith the Republicans. Religious faith and language is cheapened when it is used as a political ploy, period. Christians should vote and run for office but not exploit their faith as part of their "sell" to the public.
Thanks a heap, Jimmy Carter, for starting all this. (Though I appreciate the Sadat-Begin treaty and normalized relations with China, and the many good things you've done since 1980...)
Posted by: I and I | January 3, 2008 3:29 PM
Once again Wallis shows how he equates liberal politics with God's politics--he praises the democrats for their policies, and praises the republicans when they agree with democratic policies. But then, I guess I shouldn't be surprised--Wallis is a liberal, after all.
I and I,
Nixon normalized relations with China, not Carter. Jimmy's foreign policy was a disaster.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | January 3, 2008 4:04 PM
Jim has some good comments in article HEARTS AND MINDS; we definitely need to turn to God in Christ. We need prayer and Bible, a Marriage Amendment. Times up. wayne k
Posted by: wayne kratzer | January 3, 2008 4:33 PM
Frankly, the talk about faith and values from all of the candidates – Democrats and Republicans - sounds hollow to me. For the past 7 years bush has demonstrated how meaningless his professed Christianity has been to his presidency. American voters should take a jaundiced view of candidates wearing their faith on their shirtsleeves.
What I’m not hearing is what I consider to be the most important issue for this election: getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The rest is nothing but smoke.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 3, 2008 4:41 PM
I liked what Jim said about no party having a monopoly on faith. But last week's "Prayer for 2008" was basically a prayer that the Democrats would win! At least today he alluded to families and sexual morality--his last column had a thunderous silence in that department. My main disagreement is that Hillary and Obama haven't been courageous at all on the values and faith front. They have mentioned it now and then, but there has been no specific criticism of anti-religious forces in their own party (did I miss something?) and no references to the lingering anti-religion bias of the courts. Prior to Bill Clinton's signing of the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" the country came perilously close to having Bible clubs kicked out of elementary schools once and for all. Two switched votes could still change that, depending on whom the next President appoints to the Supreme Court. Respect for judicial "precendent" only comes up when the subject is Roe v. Wade.
Blessings,
Witness for God's Shalom
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 3, 2008 4:44 PM
That's "precedent" of course. I can't spell it, and only Roberts and Alito are enjoined to respect it!
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 3, 2008 4:48 PM
I have to agree with neuro. God is in the mind of the beholder and nothing more. Jim, I wonder if you would also vote for an atheist, if his/her platform coincided with your moral and political beliefs. You could answer here or send me an E-mail.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge. [Enlighten]
The Cygnus Loop The shockwave from a 20,000 year-old supernova in the constellation of Cygnus supernova explosion is still expanding into interstellar space. The collision of this fast moving wall of gas with a stationary cloud has heated it causing it to glow in visible as well as high energy radiation, producing the nebula known as the Cygnus Loop (NGC 6960/95). The nebula is located about 2500 light-years away. The colors used here indicate emission from different kinds of atoms excited by the shock: oxygen-blue, sulfur-red, and hydrogen-green. This picture was taken with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 on board the Hubble Space Telescope.
“My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species." -Carl Sagan, "A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291.
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 3, 2008 4:57 PM
It seems the GOP is trying to get another born again fanatic in the white house, like the present one. People can very well have good morals,be good kind citizen, pray within, with out pretending to be a Christian by attending church. the false ones pray to God on Sunday, and love thy neighbor, but start out on Monday to critisize, condemn, and speak of hate to others of different religions, and color.
Posted by: marta | January 3, 2008 5:01 PM
Dear Jim,
I am sincerely disappointed that you have fallen into the same hole as the rest of the country. In you email blast, you talk only about Hillary, Obama and Edwards, which are all late bloomers as far as remembering the poor. Why isn’t Dennis mentioned in your messages, the one candidate who has been consistently on the right side, of the people? Not just this century but from the first day he started his public service as a young man, he has never forgotten where he came from.. The one candidate who is not afraid to speak truth to power, does not get an mention. Maybe we need another house cleaning in the temple, to rid it of the money changers and the publicans who serve no one but themselves?
It is my sincere belief that none of the top candidates on either side will do what has to be done, for they are hopelessly compromised by the money they have accepted by those who like this country just like it is at this moment. Maybe it is a good thing for this country to get its comeuppance, for we have surely made the rest of the global south and the bottom 88%of this country, miserable to keep our top 12% in the good life?
Pat Saunders
Patrick R. Saunders, M.A.
American Culture Studies
BGSU Firelands College
One University Drive
Huron, OH 44839
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt
Posted by: Patrick Saunders | January 3, 2008 5:21 PM
I and I:
You said, "I can't help but yearn for days gone by when candidates didn't use faith-talk to try to get votes. I may agree with the politics of Edwards, Obama and Clinton more than I do with the candidates of "God's Old Party," but I still squirm when I read that the Democrats are trying to outfaith the Republicans."
Here, here! I agree with you 100%.
Saganist:
I was going to ask Jim the same question: would he vote for an atheist if that person had strong moral character, high competence and superb leadership skills? As well, while I agree with Jim that there should be "no religious litmus test for politics," what about the separation of church and state? Where does THAT fit in with all the "God" talk we are hearing - from both sides?
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 3, 2008 5:22 PM
Carlton Anthony Chase,
I spent a year volunteering in Ethiopia - Kafa Zone, in the south.
Before becoming a nurse I spent 10 months hitch hiking around Africa. I spent a night in the Hoggar Mountains outside the l’ermitage du Père de Foucault.
I haven’t read the other authors you mentioned, but my grandmother introduced me to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. I’ve read “The Phenomenon of Man,” “The Divine Milieu,” and “The Hymn of the Universe.”
Peace!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 3, 2008 5:30 PM
I appreciated this balanced article. Thanks, Jim, for again causing me to step back and see the positive sides of candidates I felt negative about (just as you brilliantly did with Jerry Falwell). I know that Sojourners is often branded as the voice of the 'Christian left,' but you have reminded us all of the balance we ought to have in our perspectives. This is one that will get passed around.
Posted by: EG | January 3, 2008 5:30 PM
"I and I,
Nixon normalized relations with China, not Carter. Jimmy's foreign policy was a disaster."
Not to get out on a tangent here, but what Nixon started in 1972, Carter finished by establishing full diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1978. They both played a role and both took a risk, Nixon for negotiating with a communist country and Carter for changing our relationship with Taiwan.
It is easy to look at the hostage crisis and say that Carter's foreign policy was a disaster. However, there has been peace between Egypt and Israel ever since the Sadat-Begin talks. As far as the elements of Carter's foreign policy that were disastrous, two of the worst of them became Reagan's foreign policy: U.S. support of the Iran-Contras and U.S. support of the Afghan muhajideen. As for Carter's reponse to Iran, we don't know how Reagan would have responded, but I doubt it would have been much different.
That's all I'm going to say on that topic. Carter's big disservice in this thread's discussion topic was that he brought religion onto the center stage as a campaigning tool.
Posted by: I and I | January 3, 2008 5:31 PM
Last election cycle I recall my pastors eyes rolling in his fool head. He was a man just head over heals in love with the basic goodness of our fine president and the wonderful boys in uniform.
Its Fun. Its exciting. Its war! And best of all,
we're being led by a Christain who talks to God!
It was all so...'heady'
My my, how times have changed.
Posted by: Just A Tourist | January 3, 2008 5:34 PM
Jim,
Has the ground really shifted????
You argue there are millions of voters from the 'faith community' whose votes are in play--and in play based on a greater breadth/depth of issuess than prior elections.
Precisely what constitutes this faith commnity? Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc. etc. were spread across the political spectrum.
Are you asserting they did not vote before; or were a unified vote before, or are integrating faith-based considerations into their vote choices????
I remain unconvinced of any real change in the electorate. Just arguments over who controls the interpretive dialogue/propoganda being created in newsrooms, political gameplans, and pulpits.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 3, 2008 5:35 PM
I agree with the article here. Living in Iowa has given me ample time to hear all the promises from all the candidates. Due to the fact that I could never vote for any politician who claims to be pro-family and pro-choice, I am limited to Republican candidates. I liked Mike Huckabee early on, but was unsure of his stance on some issues. I was afraid that he would use his Baptist background simply to win votes from the Religious Right. But the more I hear him, the more I like him. On Jay Leno last night, he talked about his faith & religious background, but did not manipulate the opportunity to try to win votes on that issue. And his past record of standing up for the poor, and his promises to defend immigrants makes me like him all the more. I will be caucusing tonight, and count it a privilege to do so, especially with the world watching. May God bless the U.S. w/ a president with a character of righteousness, no matter what gender, race, or party he/she comes from. I know who I'll be voting for - whoever you choose, be sure to show up. Freedom to vote democratically without the fear of intimidation or persecution is a blessing we ought not to take lightly.
Posted by: Gregg Stearns | January 3, 2008 5:36 PM
Jim, While it is good for you to have dialogue with Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, I would like your readers to realize that Dr. Land still stands completely and totally behind the seven points of his "Land Letter". This letter was written to Pres. Bush in October 2002 as an encouragement to war in Iraq. I would suggest that your readers go to Land Letter with a search to see the real Dr. Land. Once again, I agree with your outreach to the hard hearted, even Dr. Land and the Southern Baptist Convention. Peace, wp
Posted by: Willis Pope | January 3, 2008 5:37 PM
Patrick, thank you for the comments about Kucinich. I was my area's tri-county coordinator of his campaign when he ran in 2004, and I still think he has the most reasonable, fair and just platform of the candidates. I too wish that he would get more attention for Sojourners--I think there was a great disservice done when only the "top three" were invited to the Sojourners candidate forum.
All that being said, why did that UFO stuff have to come up? It just makes him look like a weirdo.
Posted by: I and I | January 3, 2008 5:37 PM
Gregg Stearns and Jim Wallis (and others)--
I most affirm your shared stance--of participation.
I am an Iowa native and emailed everyone I know from Iowa last night asking they reconsider if they planned to skip the caucuses.
I most seek a group in DC that will choose to govern with 100% responsibility towards a just and effective governance. I do not believe we will ever get there with 10% of the electorate at the caucuses.
A lazy, gluttonous, sit-on-our-butts electorate will get representation and governance that pretty much mirrors us.
Thanks to everyone here attempting to use your minds, hearts, energies, prayers, actions, relationships, labors, etc. to wisely steward our responsibilities in the public sphere--compelled by the love of Jesus.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 3, 2008 5:49 PM
How can a Christian vote for any of the Democrats running for president? More specifically, what candidate in the party has a biblical view of government? Mr. Wallis brings up the issue of poverty and poor people, but where in the Bible does it say that it is the role of government to provide welfare in the form of food stamps, housing and education?
Clearly, the candidate for president that best represents a biblical view of government, not to mention a US constitutional one, is Ron Paul.
Posted by: apologeticsnow | January 3, 2008 5:52 PM
boy do i agree with - letjusticeroll down; jim hasn't said anything here at all. just more sojo mojo spinning his opinions, which in this comment are irrevelent. better he would just come out with his choice in the election and be more honest.
Posted by: jerry | January 3, 2008 6:01 PM
There is a logical disconnect when the discussion turns to forcing the rich and powerful to give the poor and needy political preference? As we are seeing this decade with great frequency in Africa, when the poor and needy get power, they don't stay poor and needy, but instead become the rich and powerful and supplant those who have lost money and power.
I believe it is part of the human condition that the rich and powerful run governments and that in doing so they take care of their own interests first.
Of course, all politicians give lip service to democratic principles and the idea that all should be treated adequately. But it hasn't worked that way.
Maybe it will, but I am not holding my breath.
Posted by: jsens | January 3, 2008 6:34 PM
Maani,
I guess that I am not the only atheist that subscribes to Sojourner’s SOJOMAIL I think that Sojourners is the only light of hope in the religious community, and is probably the most we can expect from the Christian Community. I applaud Jim for all he does to stop fanaticism. It would be GREAT if he and other religious leaders would “preach” about the separation of Church and State. They and all the readers of SOJOMAIL should read more of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." -- Thomas Jefferson
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -- James Madison
“Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing; and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.” -Thomas Paine
And Ben Said...
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle. -- Benjamin Franklin the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)
And most appropriate for today...
"Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin
And from "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary", which the Senate approved on June 7, 1797, and was officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. Article 11 stated…
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." <b>-- Carl Sagan</b>
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 3, 2008 6:40 PM
Jim,
This is excellent news. Thanks for all you're doing to broaden and deepen the discourse. Our criteria as Christians should reflect the values of the Kingdom of God. Albert Schweitzer wrote of how his generation had thrown overboard the heavy weights of its cumbersome values... only to discover they'd thrown out their very life-bread. We've oversimplified the policy and voting implications of our faith, and I'm delighted to see us forced to think about and tackle a variety of issues for the Kingdom's sake.
Posted by: Cory Trenda | January 3, 2008 6:49 PM
We can worry and argue about this or that faith perspective in the presidential candidates and on their positions on issues of concern only to Americans, but I, for one, am much more concerned about the fsct that we know next to nothing about candidates' perspectives on foreign affairs. Where do they see America's role in the world? Have they all travelled overseas, and if yes, what countries have they visited? What did they learn from these foreign experiences that would be of help to them if they were president?
What are their positions on Kenya, Darfur, Russia, and all the other countries whose governments the U.S. has tried to influence in recent times? What would they do to rectify the disastrous effects of President Bush's recent interference (my word, obviously) in Pakistan's governance vis-a-vis Benadir Bhutto? Do they share the President's belief that he has the right to interfere in any country so long as it will help the U.S. (who cares what it does to the country itself?)
How can you vote for any candidate for president, satisfied with their moral values but without knowing the answer to at least some of these questions?
Posted by: bren | January 3, 2008 7:27 PM
My main disagreement is that Hillary and Obama haven't been courageous at all on the values and faith front. They have mentioned it now and then, but there has been no specific criticism of anti-religious forces in their own party (did I miss something?) and no references to the lingering anti-religion bias of the courts.
Which are basically a figment of the conservative imagination -- the "anti-religious" forces are concerned about the people who want to shove religion down everyone's throat. Not everyone is participating in the "culture wars" -- I certainly never have done so.
Mr. Wallis brings up the issue of poverty and poor people, but where in the Bible does it say that it is the role of government to provide welfare in the form of food stamps, housing and education?
Contrary to the views of most people to the right of the political spectrum, it's not at all about direct provision of goods and services -- it's about changing the system so that the poor can make their own way. It's about justice so that the poor don't need charity. Yet no one is talking about that on a consistent basis. Believe me, no one wants to stay on the government's dime for long periods of time.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 3, 2008 7:54 PM
I share some of the concerns that have been raised.
I am afraid that the proliferation of candidates speaking in faith terms - and largely in Christian terms - makes me wonder if it isn't just further denigrating the idea that it should mean something to be a Christian. Their political stances generally don't seem to me to measure up very well to the Gospel.
Would Jesus Christ support the insane militarism of the United States? Every candidate Wallis mentioned is publicly in support not only of present militarism, but of increasing it.
Would Jesus Christ support the demeaning of life of the most vulnerable, the unborn? Every Democratic candidate mentioned by Wallis (and most of the others; Biden is slightly better) supports abortion in any and all circumstances, even when it is arguably infanticide rather than abortion.
Would Jesus Christ support the kind of pandering to the super wealthy that marks most of the candidates in their efforts to raise obscene sums for their campaigns?
I no longer live in Iowa, but if I did I probably would either not be at the caucuses at all or would walk out before being counted. As a registered Democrat, the 15% rule would probably force me to caucus with someone whose policies IMHO make them an enemy of the Gospel, or to walk out and forfeit participation.
Interestingly, the "born again fanatic" in the race actually makes more sense than most of the rest. At least he seems to be a real person, not just a political image. He's certainly got his share of bad stances, but he does seem to genuinely stand with the poor. His populist rhetoric I find mainly believable, while that of Edwards seems a put-on given his record and his love of ostentatious wealth.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 3, 2008 8:22 PM
Surely one of the primary functions of government is to try to limit theft. The free market capitalist system that most conserverative Christians appear to think the Bible supports is based on the theft of labor. That is, given a surplus of labor and the non-interference of government, wages will quickly fall to bad food and housing in exchange for 16-18 hrs a day of labor. Note that Jesus makes no mention of requiring labor in exchange for food, water and medical care in the Judgement of the Nations in Matthew 25.
Who would Jesus whip?
Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | January 3, 2008 9:19 PM
There seems to be an unwillingness to discuss whether one can move from the teachings of Jesus to any Republican position on any issue. Can you start with Jesus' teachings and get to support for Iraq? Lack of support for universal health care? Deposing undocumented workers? Tax cuts for the rich? I just don't see any Republican position being built on the foundation of Jesus' teachings.
I am looking forward to Huckabee explaining how his faith in Jesus leads to his support for the war. It's interesting that many Republicans have criticized Huckabee for pardoning too many people--which is one way he has demonstrated Christian mercy. I don't see why he doesn't apply that same compassion to innocent Iraqis.
I couldn't support Huckabee because of his stand on gays. Since I see Jesus welcoming into His kingdom those who were born without the capacity for traditional marriage, I can't support someone who doesn't offer the same welcome.
(P.S. There is no evidence that the Ethiopian eunuch was castrated, BTW. He had come from worshipping in Jerusalem. If he had been castrated, they wouldn't have let him in the Temple. Also, Philip didn't heal him, so there probably wasn't any physical defect to heal. Therefore, the likeliest explanation was that he was physically intact, but uninterested in procreative sex. Like me and many other gay men who have accepted Jesus as their Savior and been baptized.)
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 3, 2008 9:41 PM
What I find most questionable about the 3 Democratic frontrunners is their willingness to collude with the media in excluding the other candidates from the debate. This is un-Christain , un-Democratic and cowardly. It narrows and debilitates the honesty of the debate.
In several large issues based polls a strong majority of Independents or Democrats polled agreed with Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on the Issues. Their voices should be part of the debate.
Excellent thread with a good diversity of thoughts and individuals.
Posted by: jonabark | January 3, 2008 11:48 PM
Saganist:
Thank you for your response. However, in all fairness, I am not an atheist. Indeed, I am an evangelical minister. But that does not mean I have to subscribe to the views of the so-called Religious Right re the separation of church and state - or any other issue, for that matter.
My feeling is that there is certainly a place for a candidate to be "informed" by his/her faith in considering policies, positions and decisions. However, I do not believe that faith should be the overriding factor in any such policy, position or decision. A president, indeed even a local politician, makes decisions, and signs laws, that affect EVERYONE - including atheists and agnostics. To suggest that they should be left out of the equation simply because the majority of Americans are people of faith is anathema to the intention of the founding fathers.
The founders separated church and state for the good and safety of BOTH. And I firmly support that separation.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 4, 2008 12:19 AM
Maani,
Sorry for the misinterpretation. I strongly support your political outlook and wish that more Christians would understand that when they try to make our great nation into a Theocracy, they are ultimately hurting themselves.
We could end up as a Muslim nation, then where would they be?
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
Carl Sagan’s article in the March 1996 issue of Parade magazine, titled "In the Valley of the Shadow", spoke movingly of his illness and his attitude to death as a non-theist and skeptic,
“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 4, 2008 12:39 AM
Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
Posted by: THE SAGANIST
I think Custer said that .
But separation of church and state makes sense to me also . But with me its more out of respecting the freedom of choice for other faiths and non faiths under the protection of a civil government . .
Posted by: Mick | January 4, 2008 1:35 AM
"How can a Christian vote for any of the Democrats running for president?"
Posted by: apologeticsnow
People have different world views , and priorities . Culture , experiences , friendships even . the Apostle Paul descibes the body of Christ as parts of the body , spme of us are the the mouth , head , foot etc .
I think of republicans as the head , and democrats as the foot , which they usually put in their mouth.
But we need each other .
Posted by: Mick | January 4, 2008 2:03 AM
I agree mostly with letjusticerolldown's analysis of the situation. Not much has really changed as far as Christians and their voting patterns go. The only thing that has changed is that the Democrats decided that they want to try to split off some Christians from the Republican camp and have tried talking about their faith. As neuro nurse said, it's a little hollow.
One note...Jim said "the only one among the early Republican frontrunners with a history of just one wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney..." What about Mike Huckabee (the winner of the Iowa Caucus!!)? Has he been married more than once?
Posted by: Eric | January 4, 2008 7:28 AM
I find it interesting that some on the left (Wallis included) are so obsessed at the Right having the 'faith and values' cornerstone.
Do you think that Kennedy and Dobson went out and shackled people to their bibles and forced them to believe a certain way. GWB talks about his bibles study and they accuse him of pandering to the right. But HRC talks to a congregation on a Sunday morning - she is being inclusive.
We still have freedom of speech and thought in this country and maybe the mojority of people 'agreed' with what they heard. It was my liberal friends that called the 'majority' of Americans voted the way they did in 94' and the Contract with America.
Maybe they liked the way they were talked to by most on the Right because at that time the Left were beating people up. Many times the message gets lost in the delivery. (Gore should learn about that one)
I don't believe it was so much that the Right had the 'God Talk' as it was that the left 'didn't' do the God Talk. Wally Mondale and HHH the 3rd shreaded people on the news here in MN on this very subject. Now people on the left are happy because the right no longer has a corner on the market of God Talk? 'HELLO' - they never did, it's just that the left, left God out of their talk for a number of reasons and then cried fowl.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 4, 2008 8:10 AM
While I agree that it seems encouraging that both parties are espousing faith and values, I find it impossible to avoid cynicism.
There is very little precedent that suggests we should take heed in campaign rhetoric. Remember when George Bush promised "compassionate conservatism?" Didn't get much of that, did we? Remember when Bill Clinton promised to abolish heterosexism in the military? We got "don't ask, don't tell."
The real challenge in the forthcoming elections is not what the candidates say, but rather, who can we trust to live by the principles and values they promote in their campaigns? And what criteria do we apply to measure trust?
Posted by: Todd Steele | January 4, 2008 9:26 AM
Mick,
Put the entire quote in Google and you will get about 10 websites that attribute it to Carl Sagan. I Googled Custer and could not fine it there. I sure hope Sagan isn’t a plagiarist.
I also agree that separation of Church and State is for respecting the freedom of choice for other faiths and non faiths under the protection of a civil government. I was just pointing out that Christians that think they have the only answer and want to make it the law of the land, could potentially lose it all.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
“A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner of later, such a religion will emerge.” –Carl Sagan
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 4, 2008 9:44 AM
Do you think that Kennedy and Dobson went out and shackled people to their bibles and forced them to believe a certain way.
In practice they did, but they were preaching to a large group of people who thought the same way. Their focus was not on God but on changing the culture so that they could live in it and avoid spiritual warfare -- which represents a "lazy" form of evangelism.
HRC talks to a congregation on a Sunday morning - she is being inclusive.
She's attended church virtually her entire life, if you haven't noticed. Heck, she's a converted Republican!
'HELLO' - they never did, it's just that the left, left God out of their talk for a number of reasons and then cried fowl.
That was out of respect because of the conservatives -- the "God talkers" in those days disrespected everyone who didn't think like them. They still would except for certain changes over the last couple of years.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 4, 2008 10:22 AM
"Very clearly, abortion and gay marriage are not the only overriding "moral issues" for many people of faith now,"
For the Sojourners, it is not even an issue at all.
"It is now much clearer that "God is not a Republican or a Democrat," as our bumper sticker from the last campaign read; and that is a good thing."
Oh really, I would be very curious to know 1 thing, just 1 thing, on which Wallis agrees with the Republicans.
My pet peeve is when people pretend to be something they aren't, and Wallis pretends to be part of the fabled "Evangelical Center". I do not take issue with Wallis's belief system, theological or political, but I take issue with his continual proclamations that he really thinkgs God is a member of neither party when on every issue Wallis lines up with the left.
Posted by: Chance | January 4, 2008 10:42 AM
Saganist:
Thanks for your response. Re a theocracy, I doubt we are in any real danger of that, even were Huckabee to become president: it takes more than simply having a president who is evangelistic, since that president still has to deal with Congress and the courts. True, Bush has gotten away with alot re signing statements, executive orders, back-door machinations, etc. in centralizing power in the executive. But I think it would be MUCH harder for a president to attempt to create a theocracy, or even a quasi-theocracy.
Rick:
Always nice to see you on the boards. Re "avoiding spiritual warfare," that is not simply a "lazy form of evangelism," but an absurd one: one cannot avoid SPIRITUAL warfare no matter WHAT one does, since it goes on around us all the time. Rather, I think their attempts (some successful, some not) to "change the culture" were simply standard fundamentalist moves to bring the culture more in line with Judeo-Christian principles - which some see (mostly correctly) as imposing one's specific faith on others. This is exactly one of the things that the separation of church and state was meant to preclude (on the one hand).
Finally, re Hillary, I think she made the best comment during the CNN/Sojourner discussions on faith and politics when she noted that, unlike the Christian Republicans, she doesn't "wear her faith on her sleeve." If memory serves (and it does so less and less these days...LOL) she also made some comment comparing those who do so to the "temple priests" and their ostentatious show of religion.
What I think some on this board are saying is that it is a shame that those politicians who had heretofore practiced their faith quietly and privately - the "correct" way in a representative democracy with a separation of church and state - have been "forced" to discuss it openly and, to many of the them, ostentatiously.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 4, 2008 11:03 AM
Hsow are "evngelicals defined"? How is "faith community defined'? I don't have the answer, but I know that to me "faith community" is much more open and inclusive and "evangelical" seems limited and exclusive for those that don't believe like "I" do. I am much more interested in candidates that appeal to thea values that are held in a variety of "faith cummunities" than one that appeals to just "evangelicals". And this is written the day after the Iowa caucuses!
Posted by: helen ackerson | January 4, 2008 11:03 AM
Pretentious,
Ha, ha… Cute… I like it!
Rick,
True on all three accounts.
Maani,
You are welcome.
Re a theocracy: BUT… True, Bush has gotten away with a lot re signing statements, executive orders, back-door machinations, etc. in centralizing power in the executive. That and congress continuing to be a lamb led to slaughter is all it takes. And what about those nine in black robes. Is anyone here aware that the new DEMOCRATIC president can add new Justices to the High Court, making it (say) eleven.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us. --Dr. Carl Sagan & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 4, 2008 11:58 AM
"I was just pointing out that Christians that think they have the only answer and want to make it the law of the land, could potentially lose it all."
Posted by: THE SAGANIST
That was tongue and cheek on my part about Custer . I was trying to say that your zooming in on religion is a bit one sided . Extremism of beliefs in politics and government is what separation of church and state is all about in my opinion . I thought Romney made a great speech defining it , he takes an oath to his God to represent All the people . Secularism and the idealogy one holds can be just as ruthless and one sided as say a Roman Catholic or an Evangelical . Stalin is an extreme example , Hitchens comes to mind of a person who shares no repect for other faiths while promoting his non faith .
When you make a point by excluding religion in the public square , you make a point for extremism . When one makes a policy that only promotes their religion , it is the same thing .
Yes it is abalancing act , one that has more to do with basic respect of your neighbor then anything elese .
Or is that a religious belief only ? I don't think it is .
Posted by: Mick | January 4, 2008 1:14 PM
"When you make a point by excluding religion in the public square , you make a point for extremism . When one makes a policy that only promotes their religion , it is the same thing .
Yes it is abalancing act , one that has more to do with basic respect of your neighbor then anything elese ."
This is why I think the original wording of the First Amendment is more helpful than the concept of "separation of church and state." As long as the state does not prohibit or endorse religious expression, I think it is easier to satisfy this balance.
The "separation of church and state" - I have problems with that phrase because it can be used against the establishment clause of the first amendment and say very little about the freedom of religious expression. A child at an elementary school could have his own voluntary religious expression repressed in the name of "separation of church and state."
Posted by: Chance | January 4, 2008 1:27 PM
Now people on the left are happy because the right no longer has a corner on the market of God Talk? 'HELLO' - they never did, it's just that the left, left God out of their talk for a number of reasons and then cried fowl.
Blessings to all -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 4, 2008 8:10 AM
'HELLO' - Are you still saleep yourself?
Sorry, but I distinctly remember copious conversations in the past with the average Joe & Jane Evangelical wherein Abortion & Homosexuality were all they could focus on, and things like South African Apartheid were beyond thier ability to even grasp. And who was on TV peddling the GOP position on Apartheid? Why none other than Robertson & Swaggart. No small wonder people didn't get it.
Years later I had a friend in seminary who was from South African and he used to amaze at the way people would talk more about the Middle East than other parts of the world. "Because that's where there's money involved" was his explanation. I have to concur.
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | January 4, 2008 3:30 PM
I am a Democrat, and I am pro-life, which means I am as heart-sick about Darfur and Iraq or tens of thousands dying daily in Africa from preventable/treatable disease as abortion. I am most disturbed by the neo-cons and religious right's co-op'ing the abortion issue for political gain, rather than moral resolution. We must remember that overturning Roe v. Wade does not outlaw abortion, but likely sends the issue back to the states. We all saw what happened in South Dakota when they attempted to outlaw abortion, because like it or not, the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice, meaning abortion may then be legalized everywhere -- permanently. If not, abortions will still continue. Consider that in the Netherlands and Belguim, where abortion is LEGAL but women have adequate resources and rights, there are 7 abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. In contrast, in Brazil, where abortion is ILLEGAL but women do not have adequate resources and rights, there are 50 abortions per 1000. (Thanks to Jimmy Carter's Endangered Values book for being one of the first to point out the hypocrisy evident from these WHO stats) When the pro-life movement is more concerned about legislation designed to chastise for moral turpitude than to develop realistic strategies for saving the unborn, what has become of the Bible? For in the U.S. (and similarly internationally), the common demoninator among 2/3 (more, if you go by my local pregnancy crisis center's outreach results) of the women seeking abortion is poverty or extreme financial crisis. This is not about entitlement, this is about an agenda that is focused on the sparing the rich from the capital gains tax or shipping US manufacturing jobs overseas to benefit investors who pay a lower percentage in taxes than middle class Americans or policies that have resulted in the top 1% having more than the bottom 90% combined or millions more joining the poverty ranks, and so on. What they have done on the abortion issue hurts -- they have used it as a bait-and-switch Machiavellian manuever at the cost 4,000 surgical abortions a day rather than truly seeking to save lives. These wolves in sheep's clothing are not fishing off the wrong side of the boat, they are in effect trying to sink it. I could go on and on with statistics and facts, but don't wish to hog the blog. I am encouraged, though, as Jim Wallis pointed out, the climate is changing. For when it comes to abortion, we are now seeing some movement toward uniting pro-choice and pro-life interests together on where we can find common ground to address the issues that are driving women into abortion clinic doors -- such as poverty, inadequate child care and women's rights, adoption-friendly policies, etc. What is discouraging, but not surprising, is that some estimates are that abortions have INCREASED 25% since "Pro-life" Bush took office. If Christians can not see through the guise of leaders who lie, inflame passions, use only select pieces of truth to cloak the full substance (which conveys something quite different), and pander for policial and economic gain of the few, how does that bode for the biggest test yet to come? And the danger of just such an unholy merger of narrow, distortive religious views and the government, and failing to appreciate the separation of church and state, is the very real risk of falling into religious facism and government interference in the way we choose to worship.
While God may be neither a democrat nor republican, I take my guidance in making political decisions from scripture. And by the way, He asked for a donkey! Wishing you peace and agape.
Posted by: Rev. J. Webb | January 4, 2008 5:05 PM
Change for the better? Afraid not. See the following:
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
PM Friday, January 4, 2008
Examining Candidates' Foreign Policy Advisers:
How Real a "Change"?
KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS, kv@kelleyvlahos.com
Vlahos wrote a piece for The American Conservative titled "War
Whisperers: The 2008 hopefuls promised a change in foreign policy then
hired the old guard," available at:
.
ALLAN NAIRN, allan.nairn@yahoo.com
Currently in New York City, Nairn is available for a limited number
of interviews through Monday. A noted independent journalist, he runs
the new weblog "News and Comment" at .
His latest piece is "The U.S. Election is Already Over. Murder and
Preventable Death Have Won." Nairn said: "Advisers for Hillary Clinton
include Madeleine Albright; she was the main force behind the Iraq
sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. Another is
General Wesley Clark; he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia; he
publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical
plants, like the TV station there. Others include Richard Holbrooke;
while in the Carter administration, he oversaw the shipment of weapons
to the Indonesian military as they were illegally invading East Timor
and killing a third of the population there; he kept the UN Security
Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. Another is
Strobe Talbott who, during the Clinton administration, oversaw Russia
policy which backed Yeltsin, resulting in turning over the national
wealth to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia
of about 15 years -- massive, massive death. And you have various
backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation and the recent escalation,
people like General Jack Keane, Michael O'Hanlon [at the Brookings
Institution] and others.
"Barack Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave
an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted
about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi
movement -- the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. ... Another
Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, was the main force behind the U.S. invasion
of Haiti in the mid-Clinton-years during which they brought back
[Jean-Bertrand] Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to
support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an
increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the
current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
"Another key Obama adviser is Dennis Ross, who for many years under
both Clinton and Bush II oversaw U.S. policy toward Israel/Palestine. He
pushed the principle that the rights of the Palestinians, the rights
recognized under international law, must be subordinated to Israel's
desires to do whatever it wants in the Occupied Territories. And Ross
was one of the people who led the political assault on former President
Jimmy Carter when he was so bold as to agree with Bishop Desmond Tutu of
South Africa that what Israel was doing in the Occupied Territories was
tantamount to apartheid.
"It appears that many of the military lobbyists are working on the
Edwards foreign policy team. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that
do the military contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like
Raytheon and Boeing, etc.
"Rudy Giuliani's big adviser is Norman Podhoretz. Podhoretz's new
book is "World War IV," which Giuliani seems to like. Podhoretz says,
bomb the Iranians, he says he prays that this will happen. Ex-Senator
Robert Kasten, an old major backer of the Pakistani military
dictatorships and the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia, is another key
Giuliani adviser.
"John McCain has General Alexander Haig, who oversaw the U.S. policy
of mass terror killings of civilians in Guatemala, El Salvador,
Nicaragua and Honduras, when American nuns and religious workers were
abducted, raped and murdered by the Salvadoran National Guard. ...
"Mitt Romney has Cofer Black, a longtime CIA operative who was one
of the key people behind the invasion of Afghanistan. ... He organized
Detachment 88 in Indonesia just recently, the supposed antiterrorist
outfit that recently went after a Papuan human rights lawyer.
"It's not clear who Mike Huckabee's advisers are." Nairn wrote the
recent piece "Huckabee Fails to Get Tough on Crime." Further comments
from Nairn and Vlahos are available at:
.
Posted by: C A Ridge | January 4, 2008 6:49 PM
Jim, first let me say that I agree entirely with your praise of Huckabee and McCain in standing their ground on the immigration issue. Immigration is a life issue in the sense that the argument is about whether persons represent a problem or an asset. Life is good and should always be treated as such, and I think our immigration policy needs to begin with that premise.
However I do want to comment on the following line from you post:
"Very clearly, abortion and gay marriage are not the only overriding "moral issues" for many people of faith now, though the sanctity of life (more consistently applied) and healthy families (without scapegoats) are still critical concerns."
I don't think this is accurate -- what I am hearing, and admittedly we talk to different groups -- is the abortion and marriage remains the motivating force for religious conservative voter.
This certainly accounts for the sudden popularity of Huckabee in Iowa with Evangelicals.
I agree that there is new awareness of environmental issues among Evangelicals and conservative Catholics, but not to the level of being a determinative factor in voting.
Posted by: Deal Hudson | January 4, 2008 9:30 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/04/6184/
The comments are much more interesting and insightful then the article.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." -- Carl Sagan
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 4, 2008 9:42 PM
"We must remember that overturning Roe v. Wade does not outlaw abortion, "
It has been a long time since I have encountered a conservative who did not know this.
"We all saw what happened in South Dakota when they attempted to outlaw abortion, because like it or not, the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice, meaning abortion may then be legalized everywhere -- permanently. "
The South Dakota bill failed because it did not include a provision for rape or incest. Otherwise, it would have passed overwhelmingly. Are you being intentionally dishonest, or have you just not done your research?
" the common demoninator among 2/3 (more, if you go by my local pregnancy crisis center's outreach results) of the women seeking abortion is poverty or extreme financial crisis. "
Can you please cite the source indicating that 66.7% of women seek an abortion because of poverty or extreme financial crisis.
"What is discouraging, but not surprising, is that some estimates are that abortions have INCREASED 25% since "Pro-life" Bush took office."
Which estimates are these? Even Glen Stassen (who was proven to have engineered his data to provide a false result) never made this claim.
"use only select pieces of truth to cloak the full substance"
Ironic, given what you just wrote.
If all of what you say is true, then you should absolutely hope that Roe v. Wade is overturned, and that the issue is returned to the states. This would, for once and for all, eliminate the Machiavellian substitution of pro-life politics for real justice, yes?
"While God may be neither a democrat nor republican, I take my guidance in making political decisions from scripture. And by the way, He asked for a donkey!"
Translation: God is a Democrat because I am a Democrat, but I'm being cute about my assertion, so please don't offer any criticism.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:40 AM
quoting myself: http://www.graphictruth.com/2007/12/thats-not-relativiism-its-sociopathy.html
All of these various ethical philosophies state that it is the outcome of an action that matters, rather than the choice of a particular action, or the inherent virtue or lack in the person. I would argue further that consequences - the observable outcome of a particular choice - is all that we have to objectively determine how "good" or "bad" a particular set of assumptions and choices were.*
If you wish a Christian summation of that - there is the parable of the fig tree, which is as succinct a summation of this principle as can be imagined. According to the parable, it matters not at all whether the fig tree is beautiful or ugly - if it's fruit is bitter and useless, it should be cut down, because it's wasting both space, cultivation efforts and nutrients to produce nothing of value.
Christ Himself was arguably a Utilitarian ethicist.
However - and this is a rather LARGE "however" - Situational ethics, moral relativism, however you wish to refer the idea, and whatever particular flavor you prefer - work only when you apply them to the truism like the fine-tuning knob on an old TV.
The idea is to ensure that the basic principle is applied with accuracy to the situation - not to arbitrarily decide that a small difference amounts to a total distinction.
The basis for a legalistic approach to morality and ethics is as follows, that a rigid application of The Law will tend to produce more beautiful trees with sweeter fruit, on the whole, if the assumptions made by those who set the law in place were accurate.
... a moral code must provably result in better outcomes than some other set of morals or competitive ethos. And when such a code even arguably, much less provably results in worse outcomes than none, from any reasonable standpoint, that "moral code" is unethical, and practicing it for oneself is immoral, much less attempting to impose it upon others as a cultural and legal standard.
Posted by: Bob King | January 5, 2008 2:24 PM
"What is discouraging, but not surprising, is that some estimates are that abortions have INCREASED 25% since "Pro-life" Bush took office."
Which estimates are these?"
That's not true. Check the CDC website for "abortion surveillance." There might have been a slight increase in the number of abortions in the U.S. since bush took office, but not enough to lay blame at his feet.
Sorry.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 5, 2008 2:55 PM
Jim is getting old, but not wise.
Mrs Clinton is continually referred to as the most experienced candidate. She isn't. She has had a short stint in the Senate and that is all. To claim that she has 8 years as the president's wife is not anymore experience than claiming my wife's 32 years next to me im my pastoral ministry makes her an experienced pastor. My wife is a better person than I am, and that is her character, not experience.
Posted by: Ric | January 5, 2008 3:17 PM
Now people on the left are happy because the right no longer has a corner on the market of God Talk? 'HELLO' - they never did, it's just that the left, left God out of their talk for a number of reasons and then cried fowl.
Blessings to all -
It is typical , unfortunately , the way Evangelical Christians are charactercized .
I know my denomionation , which is in the "religious right by media definition " is an Evangelical church speaks to many issues , and always have that Sojorners and liberals speak to . Assembly of God .
.We have supported those in need throughout the world with care . food , supplies and Love of Christ for years . Never thought to politicize these issues , therefore my assumption is those in the political and secular world really have no knowledge of them . It has been and still is , politicizing Christ and your personal Faith in politics seen as an uncomfortable position , and one not promoted in my denomination .
Just strange that an organization like this , saying it has people of Faith in in would join in the chorus of the pagan left in their chants because of political differences is just unfortunate .
Makes no sense , I can tell their are believers here , perhaps they should go to investigate these churche " two issue denomiinations" themselves .
If they are truly concerned about the causes they say , I would think some of them would be quite glad what they find .
If they have political agendas , they will not bother or care .
Posted by: Mick | January 5, 2008 3:33 PM
Ric said: "Mrs Clinton is continually referred to as the most experienced candidate. She isn't. She has had a short stint in the Senate and that is all. To claim that she has 8 years as the president's wife is not anymore experience than claiming my wife's 32 years next to me im my pastoral ministry makes her an experienced pastor."
I respectfully disagree.
If Hillary has had "only a short stint in the Senate," then Obama has had even less. As well, living in the White House cannot HELP but add to one's experience, however marginally (or not). Your wife may not be an experienced pastor, but she has learned a great deal, and almost certainly knows as much or more than many "experienced pastors."
Most importantly, in the heat of the Obama "rock star" moment, people are forgetting that a president does not - cannot - "change everything" by sheer dint of will or personality; there is a Congress to deal with, among other things.
In this regard, Hillary has it all over Obama. First, her tenure in the Senate has been longer, and even the GOP readily admits that she has been among the most bipartisan senators in Congress - "reaching across the aisle" in a way totally unexpected when she arrived.
Second, Hillary already knows all the major leaders in the world. Obama would have to start from scratch creating those relationships. This is not a small thing, given the current global geopolitik.
These are just two reasons why Hillary is, as she claims, MUCH better prepared to "hit the ground running" if elected.
Finally, since abortion seems to be a topic du jour, let us not forget that Hillary was person who called for abortion to be "safe, legal - and rare" - a perfect balance, and one that even many on the right felt was a good beginning for compromise.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 5, 2008 3:47 PM
"To claim that she has 8 years as the president's wife is not anymore experience than claiming my wife's 32 years next to me im my pastoral ministry makes her an experienced pastor. "
Hillary was given a lot of responsibility while in the White House. The position of first lady doesn't necessarily bestow presidential experience, but she clearly took the reigns on a lot of issues, often to the chagrin of her husband's aides.
"Second, Hillary already knows all the major leaders in the world. Obama would have to start from scratch creating those relationships. This is not a small thing, given the current global geopolitik."
This is also true.
"let us not forget that Hillary was person who called for abortion to be "safe, legal - and rare" - a perfect balance, and one that even many on the right felt was a good beginning for compromise."
This is less true. It was generally perceived by the right to be pure rhetoric accompanied by a policy that reinforced the liberal status quo on the issue. Which, of course, is what it was.
Clinton is noted (by both sides) for feigning right in an attempt to build presidential credibility. I don't think very many knowledgable people sincerely regard her as a moderate.
But yes, I'll take her any day over Obama.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 4:26 PM
I don't think very many knowledgable people sincerely regard her as a moderate.
Rich Lowry does.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 5, 2008 5:29 PM
By world political standards, Hillary is quite a moderate. So is Obama, for that matter.
Take a look at how the candidates stack up in the Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org). Be sure to read the background information about the site first, so you understand how it is constructed. The surprising thing is that all the major US presidential candidates--Republican and Democrat--aren't really all that far apart. All but Kucinich fall in the same quadrant--socially authoritarian rather than libertarian and economic rightist rather than leftist. The differences between all of them are really rather minor. Obama isn't all that much farther left (on the economic scale) than Clinton, and Edwards is actually slightly to the left of Obama. And Clinton isn't a lot more to the left than the most "liberal" Republicans--Giulinai and McCain.
And you might also want to do your own political compass, too. I did mine and was rather surprised where I found myself. (I did it twice two months apart and came up with essentially the same results.)
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 5, 2008 9:01 PM
Well, I don't know where in the Bible God tells us to take from the rich to give to the poor; he says "Love your neighbor as yourself," which to me means that I as an individual have to do what I can for the poor, and yes, use my influence to make the system just. But if we study the bills that Congress offers, almost all of them would "give" to the poor. After all, where in the Bible (or the Constitution) does it say the government has the duty to assure all Americans have health insurance? All the laws in the world won't stop murder, including abortion, the death penalty; greed, selfishness. Only when hearts are changed will these evils be uprooted. It seems our efforts (and prayers) would more effectively be used to this end.
Posted by: Annie | January 5, 2008 11:56 PM
Annie,
I have never read the Bible, so I do not know where or if it says to take from the rich and give to the poor. But I bet Jesus said somewhere that the rich should give to the poor. And that is what our tax dollars should do.
If you should have a massive heart attack or get cancer, what will the bible do to save your life? And if you do not have enough money or insurance will you just lay down and die, or will you go to a government run hospital (every large city has one) and get free medical treatment? Be honest now, because God will know if you are lying. And then you will not get into His Kingdom.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." -- Carl Sagan
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 6, 2008 12:55 AM
Kevin:
Thanks for the support. Re your comment about Hillary "feigning to the right in an attempt to build presidential credibility," this explains her "tough" defense stance over the years, including her original vote "for the Iraq war" (a misnomer, of course). Hillary knew that no woman would EVER be elected if she could not also be seen as CIC. Yet her "feigning" here may actually be a positive thing; while it is sad that she "had" to do that in order to build CIC credibility, it may mean that it is only "skin deep"; i.e., she is not REALLY as "pro-war" as that vote indicated to many.
Annie/Saganist:
In Mark 10, Jesus says, "...Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." While this obviously does not address how Jesus might or might not have applied this to governments, it is certainly indicative of what He expected of us individually.
Saganist:
You make some incorrect assumptions about faith. For example, faith and medicine are not mutually exclusive; i.e., there is nothing "unfaithful" about relying on doctors, free or otherwise. (After all, God created doctors too, no? LOL.)
As well, dishonesty is not connected to "getting into His kingdom." While Christians should indeed be honest, dishonesty does not per se affect our salvation. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," yet this does not affect salvation which is achieved by "confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead." Indeed, assuming we do this, and repent honestly and humbly for those sins we do commit, Paul makes it clear that, "[N]either death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
You know, Saganist, it would not hurt you to read the Bible just to see what all the fuss is about (LOL), as well as to be able to discuss it from a position of at least some basic knowledge. And I can promise that reading it will not harm you. LOL.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 6, 2008 10:47 AM
Okay, am I the only one who thinks this whole Saganist thing is creepy? You had to be thinking it. Moving on.
"I don't think very many knowledgable people sincerely regard her as a moderate.
Rich Lowry does."
No he doesn't. He regards the Clintons as purveyors of a self-styled Democratic centrism, which is altogether different from suggesting that Hillary is moderate. She is not that.
Let me ask a question for the Hillary fans here. Sojo has levelled the charge that Christians often vote based upon their views of abortion and gay marriage at the expense of all others. This claim, while overblown (Christians lead the way in terms of school choice, for example), is not without merit.
Keeping abortion legal is non-negotiable for Hillary. She'll do her able best to recast the issue, but she isn't going to change her position one bit. Yet she has been willing to substantively modulate her position on the Iraq war.
For those Democrats in the Lieberman camp who are for the war, this is obviously understandable. But for those who believe we should pull out as quickly as possible, is there any measure of frustration that most Democrats are unwilling to change their position on abortion?
Without regard for what the political right is doing, why or why not?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 3:54 PM
No he doesn't. He regards the Clintons as purveyors of a self-styled Democratic centrism, which is altogether different from suggesting that Hillary is moderate. She is not that.
In your case, "moderate" means "moving to the right," so you're saying nothing. I've read what Lowry actually wrote and stand by it.
For those Democrats in the Lieberman camp who are for the war, this is obviously understandable. But for those who believe we should pull out as quickly as possible, is there any measure of frustration that most Democrats are unwilling to change their position on abortion?
Democrats will change their position on abortion when, and only when, it is recast as a "justice" issue rather than a "moral" issue, as it is usually framed. Remember, the right hijacked the issue in 1978 for the sake of cultural power; that forced the "left" to defend the other side.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 6, 2008 4:09 PM
"In your case, "moderate" means "moving to the right," so you're saying nothing. I've read what Lowry actually wrote and stand by it."
Moderate means neither right nor left. I read what Lowry wrote, and probably before you did. Show me where Lowry has said that Hillary is a moderate.
"Remember, the right hijacked the issue in 1978 for the sake of cultural power; that forced the "left" to defend the other side."
That doesn't answer my question. Would anyone like to take a stab at the question I actually asked?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 4:42 PM
Show me where Lowry has said that Hillary is a moderate.
It was in an op-ed I read on the wire at work. As such, I read it before you did. Besides that, based on your previous posts anything to the right looks centrist to you.
That doesn't answer my question. Would anyone like to take a stab at the question I actually asked?
It does answer your question because the abortion issue is no longer simply a matter of legality -- it has always been used as part of the "culture wars," which pits one side against the other -- and the fight over it has to be perpetuated somehow to raise money and passion. I predict that when Bush and his neo-con coterie have left D. C. and other people on the political right moderate their rhetoric -- which is happening right now -- more Democrats will change their position on abortion, starting with black elected officials (most of whom already are privately "pro-life").
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 6, 2008 10:11 PM
"It was in an op-ed I read on the wire at work. As such, I read it before you did. Besides that, based on your previous posts anything to the right looks centrist to you."
I suspect, then, we read it at the same time. It doesn't matter what I consider centrist. Show me where Lowry considers Hillary a moderate.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 11:41 PM
I'd have to check my archives to find out exactly what he said. But, ultimately, it almost doesn't matter because you've already deigned her a flaming liberal (even though she never has been that).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 6, 2008 11:44 PM
The only thing that matters is the truth. it does not matter if it is liberal or conservative. in america there are far too many christians who are being decieved by the enemy and don't even know it. The one issue that seems to be coming up on this site is morals or values. The enemy of Christianity has somehow managed to convince way too many christians that somehow things that are morally wrong are right and things that have that have nothing to do with morals are now moral responsibiliies. A partial list of those things are as follows- healt care, global warming, poverty, taxation. These are not issues that are morally right or wrong whatever you postion you happen to have on them. Mostly the left has fallen for this trick the enemy has played on them.
Posted by: Doug | January 7, 2008 1:10 AM
FactCheck.org
During the Democratic portion of the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate:
Obama claimed we are "back where we started two years ago" in Iraq. Actually, all indicators of violence show dramatic improvement compared with two years ago.
Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was "larded with all kinds of special interest breaks" for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
Obama stated that U.S. medical care costs "twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation," which is incorrect. U.S. spending is double the average, but not double that of all others.
Clinton said there is no reason that U.S. troops should be in Iraq "beyond today," but she has also conceded that she might keep combat troops fighting there for years.
Richardson said the price of gasoline in New Hampshire is at a record high. It's close, but lower than he said, and lower than it was a few weeks ago.
In the analysis section we note further misstatements and twisted facts, and we find that Clinton was close to the mark when she criticized Obama for shifting positions on the USA Patriot Act.
Posted by: Truth | January 7, 2008 2:18 AM
The enemy of Christianity has somehow managed to convince way too many christians that somehow things that are morally wrong are right and things that have that have nothing to do with morals are now moral responsibiliies. A partial list of those things are as follows- healt care, global warming, poverty, taxation.
Doug -- You simply haven't read all of your Bible since, given the context, ALL of these can be considered "moral issues." Poverty not a "moral issue"? Not with all the Biblical references to it. Stewarship of the earth that God created? Of course it is. The same Bible that causes me to reject, say, abortion tells me that racism is unacceptable.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 11:54 AM
Doug:
To piggyback on Rick's comment, two comments.
First, to suggest that the enemy has convinced Christians that "things that have nothing to do with morals are now moral responsibilities" beings to mind Jesus' comment: "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" How would it benefit the enemy to make us MORE moral?
Second, re racism, another passage covers this well: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Although not specifically stated, clearly this includes "neither white nor black" (nor any ethnicity at all).
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 7, 2008 1:57 PM
"If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" How would it benefit the enemy to make us MORE moral?
Which is why Satan is the ultimate loser; he's so blinded by hatred of God he tries to play both ends against the middle -- even using partial truth from Scripture.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 7, 2008 3:11 PM
Maani,
Minor correction, most if not all of Paul's letters were written before Mark was.
"Paul's letter were probably written in the 50's A.D."
http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/01/intro.html
p
Posted by: payshun | January 7, 2008 3:29 PM
Interesting.
I'm a 'mere Christian', to use CS Lewis' term, I was saved about 60 years ago at Christmas time when my grammaw– we called her 'Dammer', but that's another story– took me on her knee and taught me 'Silent Night', but grew up in a liberal, or Sadducee 'church', the Congregational, now the U'CC'; I thought I was the last Christian. But it turned out all right, because as a naturally studious child of academic parents, I grew up reading the Original Source. And you can't read that seriously without learning that the LORD is Love and justice.
I have warned you of the danger of raising up a cop of Democratic hypocrites who'll talk the talk, like the Republicans we've seen recently, without walking the walk
I was recently carrying on my 'coffee house ministry' here in this most liberal of Madison Wisconsin hoods, the Marquette Hood, talking to a politically enlightened young woman of JW ('Jehovah's Witness') background, who commented on hearing what must have been your 'faith-based' debate and hearing Hillary and Barack and all spouting religion.
The worst thing that ever happened to the Church was the Constantinian Establishment, and the best thing is the Separation of Church and State. It protects the State from the Church, AND THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. This is tricky ground we walk here.
(Most of us politically liberal doctrinally orthodox types aren't white, like you and me, they're black, God love'm, and most-if-not-all of the Dem candidates are religious liberals, which is pretty thin brew for me; I'd rather not listen to their religion. 'Been there, done that.')
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | January 7, 2008 4:17 PM
Ok, I see I have been deleted. Par for a Christian forum. Refuse to hear the other side. I guess faith is just not strong enough…
Maani,
I understand that faith and medicine are not mutually exclusive, BUT Annie said that the government should NOT do charitable work from HER Christian point of view. My point was that as a Christian (acting Christ Like), she should embrace government welfare and healthcare. So she is another hypocritical Christian, as is most of the right wing Christians.
Dishonesty may not keep one out of His Kingdom (though it should), BUT is NOT acting Christ Like. And the bible does say that the way is through Jesus AND Good Works.
Though I have not read the Bible and cannot quote from it, I am familiar with what it says. And as you say PAUL is the one that tells Christians what to do and how to act. It is all hearsay, as not one word was written by Jesus, and most of it was written about 100 years after Jesus’ demise, and Paul never knew him personally, so double hearsay. Also aside from the Bible there are ONLY a few lines written by Hebrew and Roman historians. None mention the Crucifixion (which would be a major news event), and most of what they say is dubious. So, DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? And his “Story” (a virgin birth, resurrection, and ascending to heaven) is a copy of many previous deities (Babylonian, Egyptian, and Indian, etc.), some of with precede him by more than 1000 years.
And the Bible was assemble by Constantine (a Pagan, “converted” to Christianity for political reason) and he choose to omit many Gospels, such as Thomas, Judas (recently discovered – and it turns out he was a GOOD guy who conspired with Jesus to make him a Deity), and Magdalena (who was one of his Apostle and probably his wife).
So I really feel no need to read the Bible.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
“My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species." -Carl Sagan, "A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291.
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 7, 2008 6:57 PM
Payshun:
Yes, of course you are right. Thanks for correction. After all, Paul is said to have died by 67 A.D., so his writings would have had to predate the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, if not Mark's.
Saganist:
No, you were not deleted. And I have already responded to your absurd post. Scroll back for my response, if you dare (LOL).
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 7, 2008 8:01 PM
I read your reply, and it also was deleted.
Or at least I cannot find either of the posts. All of our other posts are still there.
If you repost your answer, I will reply.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
“My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species." -Carl Sagan, "A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291.
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 7, 2008 10:30 PM
this is my first post on sojourners--been following for some months but never dared enter the debate. looks like you "regulars" have established your identities--emerging, evangelical, atheist, liberal, conservative, etc.
none of you seem particularly interested in defining yourselves by a particular denomination (which is good).
my background-mother was bipolar (since my childhood) so, every other sunday--southern baptist--every other sunday unity (NOT unitarian, although they are cool. but, unity believes in the existence of God and the deity of Jesus).
i participate in neither one of those Christian denominations now. now, i simply (or not-simply) want to be more Christ-like.
i am anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-capital punishment, anti-war.
those are the "anti's".
the pro's--pro-LIFE--human (babies and adults, all colors and creeds), animal, planet.
i think every "believer" must ask the question "what does it mean to try, everyday, to be more Christ-like than yesterday".
What does Christ-like mean?---put aside the old law, love my neighbor as myself, put down my weapon, turn my cheek, put aside my intransigent notions (eat meat or not eat meat) identify with and cast my lot with "fallen humanity", eat with "sinners", befriend "outcasts", care for widows and orphans, share my "stuff", chastise the greedy, the self-righteous, the "establishment", recognize that this world and this body are not the "end all-be all" of my existence ("greater love hath no one, than that they lay down their life for their friend", "this world is not my home", etc.)
getting back to jim's original post. i think it was pretty balanced. my feeling is that jim isn't pro-democratic. he is just pro what lines up with his belief system. the dems may not represent a cohesive Christian message but they happen to offer answers to jim's questions(more often). when the GOP represents what jim believes, jim likes 'em.
and for the most part, i like jim. jim represents what i believe. jim doesn't care who is in office, who is in "power". he just wants whoever is there to care more about people (of all nations; not just the artificial CONstruct of AMERICA-USA)--not their job, their legacy, their power base, their future income potential).
why is caring about people so important? Jesus said the greatest commandment is "love the Lord your God with all your heart (Mt 22:37-40)
This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ "
for true Christians, Christianity isn't a religion, it is who we are. we believe that Christians are compelled to strive to do what we believe God says is the "right" thing. we hope that other Christians struggle to determine what that "right" thing is.
in the united states many of our "moral" choices are based on religious precepts of "right and wrong". we don't need to look for a "Christian" candidate, in fact, we can eliminate faith (or religion) from the dialogue altogether (based on what many Christians believe that could be a good thing).
as Christians, we want leaders who do the "right" thing even if they don't claim the Bible as their moral compass.
what is the "right thing"?
martin luther said, "i'd rather have a good Turk for a leader than a bad Christian". as for me, it'd be great to have a candidate who keeps the 1st commandment and "loves the Lord God with all his/her heart" (as long as they define that love as trying (every day, every moment) to be more Christ-like and therefore making Christ-like decisions).
But if they think "loving the Lord God with all their heart" is something other than being Christ-like, i prefer one who keeps the second, "love thy neighbor as thyself".
Posted by: seeker-finder | January 7, 2008 10:48 PM
Saganist:
Funny, I found it with no trouble just a few posts above your last one...
Here it is:
"You make some incorrect assumptions about faith. For example, faith and medicine are not mutually exclusive; i.e., there is nothing "unfaithful" about relying on doctors, free or otherwise. (After all, God created doctors too, no? LOL.)
As well, dishonesty is not connected to "getting into His kingdom." While Christians should indeed be honest, dishonesty does not per se affect our salvation. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," yet this does not affect salvation which is achieved by "confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead." Indeed, assuming we do this, and repent honestly and humbly for those sins we do commit, Paul makes it clear that, "[N]either death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
You know, Saganist, it would not hurt you to read the Bible just to see what all the fuss is about (LOL), as well as to be able to discuss it from a position of at least some basic knowledge. And I can promise that reading it will not harm you. LOL.
Peace."
Posted by: Maani | January 8, 2008 12:38 AM
Maani, I am very busy and will get to you tonight. You too seeker-finder.
I am...
Etc.
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Kevin S. Ipse Dixits:
This is less true. It was generally perceived by the right to be pure rhetoric accompanied by a policy that reinforced the liberal status quo on the issue. Which, of course, is what it was.
While many disputed Stassen's claim, I have yet to hear anyone dispute that abortions went down under the Clinton administration.
Clinton is noted (by both sides) for feigning right in an attempt to build presidential credibility.
Not by anyone on "my". We note her and her husband as capitulating to the right as much as if not more than most any other Democrat
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | January 8, 2008 3:02 PM
Seeker-finder,
This is also the first thread I have posted on and it is also the first one that I have ever read, although I have been getting Sojo for about a year now. It is the only Christian news letter I subscribe to as it has a reasonable outlook on life and politics, as well as trying to make a better world for all.
I agree with your definition of a Christian, though sadly most Christians do not, and if they do, they do not act Christ like at all.
Some say that Jesus was in India during his “missing years”. His teachings are virtually identical to the teaching of the Buddha. The only real difference is…
Jesus says that Salvation and entry into God’s Kingdom is through me (Jesus) (and Good Works).
The Buddha says Enlightenment (fulfillment and “salvation”, Buddhist do not use that work) is through yourself. Look with in for strength, truth, and peace. The Buddha says he will show you the path to Nirvana, BUT do not take his word for it. Look within and find it for yourself. While Christians say do not question or look for answers, just follow the Word (or their interpretation of it).
The Dali Lama says the same thing. Do not take his word, but search for your own truth.
Maani,
Religion (faith) is:
(a) a pre-scientific system of explanation and technology;
(b) a source of meaning, direction and emotional expression in life;
(c) a means of social control;
(d) a means of coping with uncertainty and death.
-- Max More PhD
My statement about free doctors had nothing to do with faith, but acting Christ like. My question to Annie was, do you think Jesus would support government universal health, and since she does not would she seek this help if her life was in danger. So from her statement she is not Christ like in helping others and IF she would take this help for herself if she needed it, then she would also be a hypocrite.
Dishonesty my not keep on out of His Kingdom, but again it surely is NOT Christ like. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" is a very negative outlook on life and surely not good for ones well being. "Confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead" is purely a belief of faith for which there is absolutely no evidence of His being raised from the dead. Same for the virgin birth. In the Old Testament, the foretold Messiah would be born of a MAIDEN. When the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew to Latin, the word was mistranslated to virgin.
“Paul makes it clear that”… Yes, the whole Christian religion is based on Paul and his interpretations of Jesus’ teachings. You should be called Paulians.
I know that reading the Bible would not hurt me, but it would waste a whole lot of my valuable time.
Peace.
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." -- Carl Sagan
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 8, 2008 10:37 PM
saganist--
you make some interesting points and are in many ways, unfortunately correct about too many of us. because we are human, we Christians often lose sight of the fact that pride, ego, and the need to "prove our point", and "win" blinds us to the notion that Jesus would not have embraced the type of strident debate in which we engage.
here's where i disagree with you. you say that we don't look for answers, don't question our teachings.
i know many Christians who realize that there has been much erroneous teaching and many false teachers in the Church through the centuries. we are accepting that we have a brain, that God expects us to use it for critical thinking. we're looking at scripture through a more enlightened lens and in historical and cultural context. we are looking within (as you say Buddhists do) to hear God's voice (remarkably God doesn't seem to speak through burning bushes these days-lol) and without to see if our leaders are truly Christ-like. not only with regard to the so-called Christian issues of homosexuality, divorce, abortion, etc., but with regard to the issues Jesus most consistently addressed--peace, poverty, slavery, racism, self-righteousness, generosity, greed, self-control, kindness, compassion, patience.
i think Christians are finally, well, evolving.
Posted by: seeker-finder | January 8, 2008 11:54 PM
Saganist:
"'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' is a very negative outlook on life and surely not good for ones well being."
I disagree. I believe it is an honest statement and helps keep one humble, and thoughtful of one's equality with others. I have never found it to be negative in any way.
"'Confessing with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead' is purely a belief of faith..."
True. But faith is by definition "the substance [i.e., actuality] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It is the aspect of "religion" that science cannot understand and will never be able to "explain away" with theories and use of the scientific method.
"...for which there is absolutely no evidence of His being raised from the dead. Same for the virgin birth."
Perhaps. But neither is there any tangible evidence for particles that exist in two places simultaneously, particles that spin in both directions at the same time, and many other seemingly impossible things proposed by science. Even the Big Bang is theorized based on "echoes" that may or may not be correct.
I am not suggesting that science is wrong about any of these things. What I am pointing out is that, as your namesake (the REAL Carl Sagan) said: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
"Yes, the whole Christian religion is based on Paul and his interpretations of Jesus’ teachings. You should be called Paulians."
Not quite. There are the four Gospels, which would suffice even in the absence of ALL of Paul's writings. There are the writings of James, Peter, John and Jude. As well, we know that at least a couple of the Pauline epistles or letters were not written by him, but possibly by Timothy. In fact, of the 27 books of the NT, only 14 are attributed to Paul (again, with at least two, and possibly three, probably not written by him).
"I know that reading the Bible would not hurt me, but it would waste a whole lot of my valuable time."
Any more than you are wasting here DEBATING the Bible from a position of not having read it?
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 9, 2008 1:36 AM
seeker-finder,
Again I applaud you. You are very unusual and I would say that only one in a hundred (or maybe even less) Christians are like you. I would consider Maani and Jim to be reasonable Christians, but I do not think they are like you. Of course my impressions are only form reading what you and they write, so I may be wrong. But my point is that even when you consider the reasonable Christians, most are not Christ like. I suspect that you come pretty close, though I know that you will deny this.
Peace and keep promoting the “good” word of true Christianity.
Maani,
We can go on back and forth and in circles and still never agree with each other. I am glad to see that you do have a reasonable understanding of science, and presume that you believe that evolution is a fact.
When some one believes something (as ridiculous as it might be), I have no problem, but when they try to force those beliefs on me and other, I have a big problem. And this is the problem I have with the right wing fundamentalist Christians, forcing creationism/intelligent design into our science classes. If they succeed in doing this across the country in high schools and especially universities, that will be the end of America as the leading scientific R and D nation. This will also reduce our technological lead, which the Asian nations are already eroding. And at that point we will be reduced to a second rate nation.
You said… Perhaps. But neither is there any tangible evidence for particles that exist in two places simultaneously, particles that spin in both directions at the same time, and many other seemingly impossible things proposed by science. Even the Big Bang is theorized based on "echoes" that may or may not be correct.
I am not sure, but I think it is that a particle can bounce back and forth between two locations. And I know (and think you are referring to) that a particle can be measured to location and speed, but not both at the same time. The theory of the Big Bang is based on much more that “echoes”.
A scientific theory is based on evidence that is TRUE, or it would not be a theory, but a hypothesis. If the evidence turns out to be flawed or new evidence contradicts, then the theory is modified or thrown out.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Carl Sagan also said…
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion. -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
And…
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
I am…
THE SAGANIST, Seeker of Truth and Knowledge.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." -- Carl Sagan
Posted by: THE SAGANIST | January 9, 2008 10:37 PM
A few Days ago, Rick Nowlin replied to my concerns about religious freedom with a dismissive reference to right wing propaganda or something like that. Even implied, that doesn’t raise the level of discouse around here. Two "for examples"—just because the Left uses global warming for fund raising scare purposes, does that mean it’s not happening?
And, more to the point: what if three members of the current court were on record as opposing public schools allowing gay students to have meetings at which the propounded their views, would the Left be complacent about this? Wouldn’t they accuse the Right of plotting to replace two votes on the other side so 6-3 becomes 4-5? In light of Niemoeller’s "First they came for the Jews….." comment, I wouldn’t be so complacent. Until Jefferson’s "wall of separation" is erected by the AMENDMENT process, let’s ignore that and stick with no state church and "no law restricting the free exercise" of religion, OK?
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 11, 2008 2:07 PM
Saganist:
Thank you for your kind comment re seeker-finder, Jim and myself. (In my opinion, Rick, among others, qualifies as well.) I do attempt to live as TRULY Christ-like a life as it is possible to do in this world. It is not easy, and of course I stumble. Consciously living a life of love, peace, humility, forgiveness, compassion, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth is not easy in a world-system that acts against those concepts.
In answer to your specific queries, I do believe in evolution, though with "first cause," just as Darwin did. In The Origin of Species, Darwin did not set out to disprove the existence of God (or even that God did not create life), but that each species was not "specially created," instead coming about through the processes of random mutation and natural selection. However, Darwin always attributed the creation of "life" to the "Creator," saying that evolution was a "process set in motion" by that Creator.
Re your comment that "When someone believes something...I have no problem, but when they try to force those beliefs on me and others, I have a big problem." It might interest you to know that I am one of only a handful of evangelicals who have signed the Americans United for Separation of Church and State petition to the president and Congress in this regard. I have always felt that while an elected official's faith should certainly inform their decision-making, it should never be the overriding REASON for any decision.
As for science in general - and at the risk of sounding hopelessly unhumble (LOL) - my understanding is far better than "reasonable." My mother is a geologist (formerly with NAS), and I have a much-better-than-working knowledge of geology, paleontology, biology, physics (including astrophysics and quantum mechanics), psychology, even string theory (my college professor was Michio Kaku, one of the early proponent of the "super string" theory).
These are my bona fides as a "thinking" person. LOL. Yet I have never found any conflict between this and my unshakeable faith: I have always found the so-called "war" between science and religion to be lots of heat and hyperbole, but little light or attempt at finding common ground.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | January 12, 2008 11:37 PM
A friend of mine is a tenured Professor at MIT's artificial intelligence lab. I am still yawning and can't locate the link to her personal web page. I expect you'll find it VERY interesting.
Meanwhile, check this out from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/22/a_teacher_with_faith_and_reason?p1=email_to_a_friend
It begins:
DID YOU hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John."
Blessings,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | January 13, 2008 7:32 AM
"the Democrats now speak as much about faith and values as the Republicans do."
Yes, but the Dems are so transparently fake about it. You have these folks who are so pro-abortion that they loudly defend partial birth abortion, and they want to convince us they are Christian. Right.
Posted by: Neil | January 28, 2008 5:59 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?