Wolverine - There's a lot that is insulting about Rodriguez's statement, but what is amusing to me is that he apparently thinks that Hannity and Rush and Dobbs all think alike. Dobbs' positions are actually quite different than the other two on many issues, but he just picked three white guys he doesn't like and said evangelicals follow them. hee hee...

On the larger issue, I think Wallis and the others are correct - that evangelicals have started to look elsewhere for direction than the old leaders of the "religious right".

Posted by: Eric | January 25, 2008 5:52 PM

A lot of conservative Christians I know do pay a lot of attention to Rush, Sean and Lou (and Goldberg!) and allow scripture to be interpreted according to their pronouncements, instead of their media screeds being evaluated by scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Possessing a mass-media megaphone is no guarantee of infallibility by those psossessing it; more likely, their opinions are elevated mostly because of their novelty, their outrageousness or their potential to generate conflict - and consequently the interest and ratings that come from manufacturing controversy.

That's not helpful for discovering truth or building consensus.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 25, 2008 7:08 PM

Don,

Yes, my comments were removed.

I asked a series of tough but fair questions relating to the comments attributed to Rev. Rodriguez. I hope this was the result of a tecnhical glitch. If they were removed intentionally it was done for no legitimate purpose.

I call on Beliefnet and Sojo to restore my earlier comments.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 25, 2008 8:05 PM

Let's put this another way:
"The major difference between white evangelicals and black evangelicals is that many black evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Jesse Jackson , Prophet Al Sharpton, and the church of the NAACP; and White evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
--The statement above is no less ignorant or bigoted than Rev. Rodriguez's quote that Wallis cited.

Posted by: jesse | January 25, 2008 11:10 PM

Sam Rodriguez: "The major difference between Latino evangelicals and white evangelicals is that many white evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Rush Limbaugh, Prophet Sean Hannity, and Apostle Lou Dobbs; and Latino evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

May ALL of us seek to be like that - listening to God's Word directly. THIS is where we get into trouble - by blindly following any human being. God wants a relationship with each of US. He wants us to ask HIM and seek HIM.

Teachers and leaders have all sorts of valuable insights to share - but the moment they start to wedge themselves in between God and you - they are no longer helping.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | January 26, 2008 12:08 AM

I was in Young Life in high school and Campus Crusade for Christ in my first two years of university. My family is still evangelical.
I started paying attention to political rhetoric in the 92 election and noticed that Democrats espoused values much more akin to "The Sermon on the Mount." Second semester of my freshmen year in university I learned about "Supply-Side Economics" and it's incongruency to the Christian preference for the poor.
I watched the Christian Coalition mobilize and win a majority in the Congress in 94. They were on a witch hunt with Rush right behind 'em. Were we any better off spending $52 million to find out that Monica performed oral sex on Bill. $52M could've helped out a lot of poor folks.
Ironically, it seems like Bill and Hillary are campaigning like Republicans against Obama.
Evangelical Christianity changed in the 90s. It went from a Billy Graham/Johnny Cash flavor to ultra bitter witch-hunt mode.
Having grown up evangelical and still having evangelical friends and family, I don't see the tide turning. (I hope I'm wrong!)
It seems now that evangelicals don't wanna soul-search/repent over the fact they put George W. Bush in the Whitehouse 2X. I think that it's not too far out to say that there is some form of mind control to which evangelicals have subjected themselves.
My family thinks Reagan is the best thing since sliced bread. Reagan wasn't a church-goer. His kids wanted nothing to do with him in the 80s. He said his favorite book was Ayn (Atheist) Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", not the Bible. Why did Falwell's Moral Majority support this guy over 'born again' Jimmy Carter?
Dobson's Focus on the Family is supporting Mormon, Mitt Romney over Mike Huckabee.
Former Christian Coalition Leader, Ralph Reed was best friends with lobbyist Jack Abramoff (who is now in prison.) Reeds Georgia campaign for AG was mired in scandal.
Whether it's FOX News (Bill O' Reilly settled out of court for allegedly having phone-sex with his show's producer) or Rush Limbaugh (who was busted for pain-killer abuse and then caught with a suitcase of Viagra coming back from the Bahamas) evangelicals count these guys as their own. At the very least they tune 'em in.
My more secular minded buddies and wife wouldn't give these wackos the time of day. I can't imagine that moderates are tuning them in either.
For all the hot air over abortion - I've posted this week to see which Beliefnet evangelicals have actually given money to the cause for adoption rather than protest - I have yet to see a post tesifying to donations on behalf of toddlers, pre-teens and teens.
I think Evangelicals have poisoned and dumbed down politics in this country by injecting moral absolutism into it. Politics in a plural society is based on compromise. But feeling righteous is very intoxicating.

Posted by: Brian Horan | January 26, 2008 12:54 AM

"It's not only bigoted; it's woefully inaccurate."

That was Jesse's entire point.

It's also clear that Rodriguez doesn't know very much about Lou Dobbs.

If that's his money quote, it is clear that he has very little to say.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 26, 2008 1:47 AM

Thank you, Toby. Although I can only speak for me, my hunch is there are large numbers on all sides who feel the same; including elected officials--i.e. persons who seek to act with love and compassion....to vote (and govern) the best they know. Our government is flowed; as are 'we the people.'
I weary of analysis and strategy such as "People vote their pocketbooks" or "Voters choose based on their fears."
What Do Evangelicals Want?

This Evangelical wants every citizen to participate in love and as Toby states, "to show the world God's love."
Secondly, I want my elected officials to govern. Just like I want the snowplow drivers to clear the streets. I don't need them arguing for thirteen years whether, when and how to do it. Nor complaining the left-handed snow plow drivers are blocking the others from doing thier jobs. There are a range of snow removal strategies. I like some better than others. But I would trust them to solve the problem--if they would simply say, "We're not going home tonight until the streets are clear."

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 7:00 AM

Just a test - how many self-described politically conservative Christians do find themselves aligned with the public opinions expressed by Rush, Hannity and Lou Dobbs?

I know that I myself once thought, for a couple of years back in the nineties, that Rush was the cat's pyjamas, not just a harmless little fuzzball... as in, "Ditto's, Rush" ...

Waiting for a sincere answer...

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 26, 2008 1:15 PM

Hello Jim, I am new to the conversation here. I like to say that I am a backsliden Evangelical who is a re-born Jesus follower. I used to work as a pastor, fell from the ministry due to a moral failure, and during my recovery and healing have found myself on a different path than my old evangelical roots.

A few years ago I started to work with the handicapped and elderly populations in my community. I am struck and dismayed by how poorly our country and our government cares for these people...more to the point, I was taken completely aback at how the Church pretty much ignores them. Long story short, during my time of recovery and this time of life circumstance, I started to see the world and the work of Jesus in this world in a different light.

I very much appreciate what you are saying, and trying to say to the Church and to those who are just interested in the "Least of these". I wanted to ask a question in reference to what you have written in God's Politics, and what you have written/said elsewhere. Actually it's not so much about what you have said etc...but what things you read etc... that inform those ideas.

Specifically, have you read "Myth of A Christian Nation" By Greg Boyd??

Posted by: Gary | January 26, 2008 1:25 PM

"Just a test - how many self-described politically conservative Christians do find themselves aligned with the public opinions expressed by Rush, Hannity and Lou Dobbs?"
--This is kind of a silly question. Kind of like saying "how many liberals find themselves aligned with opinions of liberals"? Except Dobbs isn't even a conservative.

The point we've been making here relates to Rodriguez's bigoted statement arguing that Hispanic evangelicals are better Christians than white evangelicals. This is a highly offensive statement which Wallis for some reason has chosen to praise.

Posted by: jesse | January 26, 2008 1:27 PM

The point we've been making here relates to Rodriguez's bigoted statement arguing that Hispanic evangelicals are better Christians than white evangelicals. This is a highly offensive statement which Wallis for some reason has chosen to praise.

While that statement sounds offensive at first glance, don't miss the deeper meaning behind it. Relatively speaking, Latino evangelicals (and African-Americans as well) have found they needed to rely on God for daily living far more than white evangelicals, for the simple reason white evangelicals as a whole don't face the societal challenges that minorities in this country do. There is no way around that.

Arguably the strongest churches spiritually in our nation's history (never mind theologically, which was a separate issue) were the black assemblies in the South during the civil-rights movement, which of course came out of the black church, and it learned how to deal with real persecution quickly. Whereas, white conservative evangelicals complain -- relatively speaking, of course -- about a hangnail.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 26, 2008 1:44 PM

James,

In your eagerness to score cheap debating points over the (undeniably tragic) death of Edgar Castorena, you skip lightly past two very important legal and ethical questions.

First: were Castorena's parents actually in any danger of deportation if they had taken Edgar for medical care? Or were their fears based on inaccurate descriptions of HB 1804 spread by the bill's opponents in order to make it seem more draconian than it actually was?

You do know that the bill's supporters argued it wouldn't cover basic medical care, don't you? You do note that the story you quote does not indicate that Edgar's parents have suffered any legal consequences on account of their eventual decision to take Edgar to the clinic.

Are you aware of any cases where illegal immigrants in Oklahoma were deported after seeking basic medical care? If you can't, then I'd have to say that the blame may very well fall on those who exaggerated HB 1804's effects, not those who supported the bill.

Second: What are the parents' responsibilities here? Human life is supposedly precious. One would think it would be precious enough that a parent might be willing to risk deportation to get needed medical care for his or her child.

To be fair, it's possible the parents did not fully understand how grave their kids condition was. But if they did understand that their child was seriously ill (and ten days of diarrhea sounds pretty bad to me) then I don't see how they avoid some responsibility for this. Even if HB 1804 is as awful as you say it is, is avoiding detection for illegal entry a justification for neglecting a child's medical needs?

Snide comments about Fortress America aside, it seems to me that you need to get a better grip on all the facts before you start assigning blame.

One last observation: Between Rev. Rodriguez self-righteousness, Beliefnet's censorship, and James Martin's guilt-trips, we've got all the makings for a constructive discussion of illegal immigration. Way to go Christian Left!

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 26, 2008 2:01 PM

"..you skip lightly past two very important legal and ethical questions." Wolverine

You ignore the nasty, fearful climate that the bill has created in your neo-conservative self-righteousness. And by the way, the baby was a U.S. citizen who had just as much a right to be here as you do. Good job, neo-cons!

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 26, 2008 2:21 PM

I'm going to stick out my neck and say that this time I side with those who think Sam Rodriguez' statement is offensive and puzzle as to why Rev Wallis not only included it here, but also managed to praise it. (I'm assuming, of course, that Rodriquez isn't being quoted out of context; always a possibility to consider.)

I'm fully aware of the element of truth behind what Rodriquez said. I'm also aware of the "deeper meaning" behind it that Rick Nowlin talks about in his last post above. Yes, minorities do face challenges that white people don't, and most white people are oblivious to those challenges. I probably wouldn't know about them if I didn't read my students writing about their experiences.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a double standard operating here, as articulated by Jesse's analogy above. If a white person makes such a comment, it's derided as bigoted. But if a minority says it, it is praised as a nuanced way of probing deeper meanings.

Sorry folks. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the ethnic identity of the one making the bigoted statement, or the ethnic identity of the target(s). The facts of the case don't excuse or justify the offensive nature of the way it was expressed.

I think Sam Rodriguez could do better, and I know that Rev Wallis can.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 26, 2008 2:25 PM

Quote: You ignore the nasty, fearful climate that the bill has created in your neo-conservative self-righteousness. And by the way, the baby was a U.S. citizen who had just as much a right to be here as you do. Good job, neo-cons!

The only nasty, self righteous thought going on here appears to be on your part.

No part of what you say is logical or reasoned. It is purely opportunistic pablum.

Posted by: mark | January 26, 2008 2:32 PM

Just a test - how many self-described politically conservative Christians do find themselves aligned with the public opinions expressed by Rush, Hannity and Lou Dobbs

I like Hanity , he seems more of a cheer leader at times though . I will watch his show if they have a interesting guest , many times they do .
But Hanity himself believes Republicans do no wrong and aligns disagreement with a lack of moral qualities as reasons democrats do things at times . Soundsmuch like many here from the left Mr Truth , especially times the editorial writers that are part of Sojouners .
The motives here always are "often" aligned with bigotry , racism , ignorance , never for sincere beliefs that suggest they may possess integrity , character , and love of country and fellow man . I know of only Donny getting called on it , and people from the right also do call him on it . Being sincere here , sure you want to hear it ?

Lou Dobbs I never really watched except to listen in what was going on with Wall Street and such , then he got into this immigration focus , I listened to him , but he never moved on . I don't share his views , I do share his concerns .
And some of his concerns are dismissed here with out any validity . Michael Medved , an ultra conservative on many fronts always puts down the views of Dobbs down .

Rush I first listened to after a friend of mine who told me about this guy who was great to listen to . That was a long time ago , he use to have these parody commercials that really made fun of the Politically Correct , and liberal groups like PETA and such . I thought he was funny as heck .
My wife told me she thought he was a sexist , many people find him pompous and such , I think he is funny and quite articulate when he wants to be . I quit listening , but sometimes will tune in to get the perspective of what is important in DC to many issiues . Yeah I sahre his view we have a media bias on news , and many conservative positions , less government , pro life , but the details . But the attention Rush gets is amusing to many people on the right . Sort of like when I hear still so much focuus on the religious right , for one thing I don't see anything they accomplished . Kind of amusing if you can take some concerns that have been pumped into your mind from the left Mr truth , if I was a real opponent of the religious right , I would think you would be happy as a lark . Even in the 80s , Reagan served maybe as a conduit for many concerns , the culture liked Reagan , but never got behind the concerns of the religious right .

I am pretty conservative , A Reagan Consrvative if I was to label myself . People here find that disgusting , amazing being in America and supporting one of the most popular Presidents in our time , and having people who say they represent the sermon on the Mount view of politics foam at the mouth and say the most beliegerent personality traits that are associated with people who sahre some of my view points .
Listening to some of the views on Air America that have nothing to do with Christ , Sermon on the Mount , in fact they are secular liberals who represnt the majority of the liberal "political " agenda often have radio ads for a religious free America and the folks here agree with them on political issues almost to the letter , trash talk and all .

I find that amazing when I fist came on board here . It did not make sense. Nor the fact it is seen as something that the religious left should be concerned about . One nice happy coalition I guess ? That does not bother you , the folks on your side of the political compass ?

.I find the most interesting , and sadly , the religious left using the Bible in a contorted un balanced way to rationalize some very extreme political positions , then using the better then thou view when questioned on it . Plus having so much heat come from the same political allies against people who want Winter Vacation to be called Christmas Vacation again . The political left successfully scared the majority of Americans about people who believed a time of silence before school started would bring America down . Yet say nothing when the religious left promotes polcy on immigration , governemnt expenditures , taxes all based on the Bible according to their minority view points .

Just what many concervative Evangelicals were dismayed about the religious right for doing the same thing . Without Love , the Gospel does not go very far .

Posted by: Mick | January 26, 2008 3:09 PM

"I'm sure that is true of you, but I can't help chuckle a bit. I don't know if this is still the case, but there was a time when followers of Rush Limbaugh referred to themselves, with great pride, I might add, as Ditto-heads."

True, but that was at a time when Rush was attractive to latent conservatives who hadn't really heard a voice like his on the airwaves. It was very unpopular to be conservative in the early 1990s. The "ditto" thing was a way of saying "I've been thinking this all along, but didn't have the guts to say it."

White evangelicals, as Rick Nowlin will happily inform you, had been vocally conservative throughout. Rush was not tapping this demographic, by and large.

At any rate, the term is not in common parlance now. Talk radio is mostly background noise for commuters, anyway, and the various prominent conservative outlets are hardly in lockstep about major issues.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 26, 2008 3:43 PM

Not to pull the conversation completely off track, but...

My problem with what I have heard from Hannity, Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, Fox News, the View, and even the McGlauphlin Group (although I kind of enjoy that from time to time), is this extremely flawed and annoying debate tactic of constantly interrupting and bullying those who you disagree with. They will be giving an interview, ask a question, and before the interveiw-ee gets five words out explaining his or her position, they have already interrupted him or her. They always degrade into shouting matches in which the loudest voice wins, whether that voice is right or wrong. It's an extremely combative tactic, does nothing to allow the expression of contrasting viewpoints, and no listener or viewer can possibly gain a sense of understanding of all the complex sides of any issue other than what the host is promoting. There is absolutely no hint of balance in this type of "news", or "debate" if you can call it that, and for that reason, I do not waste my time on it, and for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would. Contrast that with NPR shows like "Talk of the Nation" and "Diane Rehm", and the Sunday morning TV news shows. Both of these outlets bring in guests who represent more than one side of the issue, they let the guests speak, ask questions respectfully allowing the guests to get their point across, and when two guests with opposing views start stomping on each other, they step in and moderate the discussion so each can fairly speak their minds. I don't know how many times I have thought "huh--that's a good point" about something someone I don't think I agree with has said, and I am thankful for the perspectives I can gain from these outlets. That is nearly impossible on the combative shows, and again, why in the world does anyone waste their time with them? They are completely biased, often full of half truths, and you learn absolutely nothing from them. What's the attraction?

Posted by: squeaky | January 26, 2008 4:30 PM

What's the attraction?

Apparently, some people like having their own views constantly reinforced rather than having to think through an issue's complexities or possibly be challenged to reexamine those views.

D

Posted by: Don | January 26, 2008 4:37 PM

Thanks Sojourner--very good reflections.

Posted by: squeaky | January 26, 2008 5:04 PM

Fascinating discussion.

Mark,

I am a progressive, liberal Christian. I believe Jesus lived, died and rose again. I believe he sent his holy spirit to bring me into union w/ the Father. I believe that God is one in three persons. I am against abortion but I find myself not being judgemental of people that have them.
I am also pro gay marriage because I don't believe ancient Judaic law should be forced on gentiles. I believe every American should have the right to decide how they live their lives.

Sojourner is right to point out that many conservative white evangelicals listen to Rush and others as gospel. I have some liberal friends that do the same for Chomsky. I guess my point is that we are all standing up for our beliefs. Many conservatives believe in the myth of America's Christian status all the while ignoring the poor.

I know liberals that do the opposite and ignore the poor. No one side is perfect but I side w/ liberal ideology because it does allow for more freedom of thought, more acceptance and notice I did not say tolerance. I realize that's the buzzword conservatives want when they use their bigotry to discriminate against homosexual marriage, illegal immigrants, or the poor but there are many liberals that don't subscribe to tolerance.

I am one of them. Tolerance is a joke. Why would I tolerate bigotry, racism, fear...? It makes no sense. I believe in love. Love is not always nice.

Liberal ideology allows for the marginalized to be who they are w/o having to change it. I like that. It seems that conservative ideology is about forcing people to change or keep their lives hidden. Most of the people I minister too would not feel comfortable in a conservative baptist church. It would not matter if it were black or white. They just want more love than that.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 26, 2008 6:38 PM

payshun... You had the same problem I had, I see. Hopefully the mods can delete the reposts.

I just guessed that I got posted, though the next page never loaded, and Viola! I dodged the "multipost annoyance".

If we are to discuss Christianity, and faith, I would have to say that we hopefully agree on our salvation being purchased by Christ's self sacrafice, the actual method of the Plan of Salvation, and our flawed human inability to be perfect. At this point, I could just drop any further, and we'd be in agreement on our faith. I hope, at least, at least enough in agreement that we understand each other and smile and on we go about our daily lives, encouraged by each other's faith.

And so I do.

And then we part company when it comes to politics. I don't see any "guidance" from the Bible when it comes to what role the government should play in a self-governed society.

I see the repeated instructions to be generous with each other. To go out and DO GOOD FOR OTHERS. I submit to you the notion that command is NOT for the "good of others" but for for our OWN good. The real purpose is not to feed the hungry. Christ can do that from nothing. We, on the other hand, need experience, the humbling, and the constant reminder of our own blessed situation and how much we have to thank God for.

The commands to care for the ill, visit the jailed, comfort the weary, and so on are instructions on how to save our own souls. God doesn't need us to do any of this. We need to do it for our own salvation.

Whether it's our own mental health, staying humble and grateful, or just keeping our minds occupied off our own selves, engaging in service to others is very much for our own personal good.

And this is why I reject liberal othodoxy. Not on religous grounds, but because it is imcompatible with human nature, it is destructive to humanity itself. It teaches that generosity, giving, service to others is the province of the state. That you've done your part if you just pay your taxes. Oh, and burn a few conservative books ,and try to squelch the infidels Rush, Hannity, and Savage.

I read endlessly the wailing and moaning of liberals and conservatives alike, complaining that churches, communities, individuals... all failing to act out of compassion for people who through no fault of thier own need our help.

It is it any wonder, when you've ground into them that "private charity doesn't work" and that only government can REALLY care for the sick, feed the hungry, and house the poor?

I find liberalism to be entirely and utterly at odds with Christianity, then. Nor must I be 'closed minded' to know that some things are wrong. Nor does "tolerance" require me to accept all manner of behavior as "ok". Quite the contrary, I HAVE to recognize what's right and wrong, and then accept that ALL are sinners and that even the most repugnant of them are as worthy as me in the sight of God. I do not need to "accept" bad ideas or bad behavior. But I still must accept every ONE as being my sibling in Christ.

Posted by: Mark | January 26, 2008 7:08 PM

"I see the repeated instructions to be generous with each other. To go out and DO GOOD FOR OTHERS." Mark

"Sojourner... You're pretty arrogant sounding, especially when you use your "religious message" to promote a very secular liberal agenda." Mark

No disconnect here!

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 26, 2008 7:31 PM

Quote: We have "pro-life" folk who are for small government...

...except when it comes to building jails, hiring police, border guards, massive military expenditures, fighting wars and the death penalty. Most of these want to spend even more, when those expenditures are already more than the entire rest of the globe spends combined.

I'm a little confused, here. Honestly, because I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not sure if you're being saracastic, or serious, or just sort of running off on rhetoric.

I'm not exactly sure any of us want criminals free to roam the streets unhindered, when they're a danger to people.. So is it then wrong to build jails to relieve overcrowding? It seems like that's a pretty proper function of government, and really, this country doesn't spend much of its public budget on it as far as percentages goes.

And what's wrong with hiring police? Are there too many of them? If so, can you make that case? I know that in some places, like where I live, we have a serious shortage of law enforcement people. Again, I'm not understanding your point.

"border guards"? Now I'm terribly confused. What's wrong with that? If there's ONE function of the federal government that ANY or ALL of us should agree upon, I would think that policing and guarding the borders of the country would be a federal government duty -as charged by the Constitution. I know that the percentage of the federal budget devoted to it is miniscule. Are you arguing that it's too much, or too little... or what?

"massive military expenditures"? What level of military do you think we should have... and why? Personally, I think the human cost of failing to have a mobile and powerful army that can project force anywhere on the globe at any moment is is beyond calculation. There are madmen who seek the most horrifying of weapons and seem perfectly willing to use them with no concern for the consequences.

I actually have no understanding how this is a left or right issue. I think we'd agree that the federal government at least, is the one that runs the military. At that moment, left and right become meaningless, and we're left with ascertaining the wisest means of accomplishing national security. That's up for debate, and always will be.

"Fighting wars". Well, my thoughts on that are: If we're going to fight a war, win it." The cost of not winning, failing to fight when you should, or being defeated seems overwhelming compared to winning. Again, this seems to be about reason, logic, historical experience and practical matters, not really one of ideology. Maybe it's not to you? If so, explain why or why not?

The death penalty. Now there's almost as may opinions on that as there are voices talking about it.

I do think there are situations where the taking of the life of people with no redeeming qualities seems like justice. If you're wanting to argue this is incompatible with the historical role of government to defend "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", argue away. I find the discussion interesting, at least.

But now I've read all the way through your first real comment, and I've come away without any sense of there being any overriding purpose or principle. Which means I don't understand your point, which is what I said in the first place.

Let's not leave it that way. Explain, please.

Posted by: Mark | January 26, 2008 8:03 PM

I think what Mark's saying is that it's self-evident he's right, so how could any reasonable person possibly disagree, since his views are informed by fidelity to reality, as he will be the first to tell you.

Oh, yeah, and if you don't see it his way, as anyone truly reasonable would, well then, you're mighty dumb.

And since he won't acknowledge any of your points, you need to explain it to him... again. And then he will say that you need to make your point, since he says you haven't done so.

Quod erat demonstratum. I guess.

I think one of the side-effects of Sojourners' increased media attention and influence, is going to be that a disorganized ad-hoc effort is going to be made to inundate it with propagandistic, rude and dismissive posts, in service of "the cause."

Obviously, we don't need people taking Ann Coulter's bogus advice on how to talk to a liberal... if you must.
Especially since Christians of any stripe are not garden-variety "liberals," nor should they be - and not conservatives, either, whatever that happens to be this year.

But the unexamined talking points seem to be the same ones, enumerated with singlemindedness, if not with any peculiar attention to their accuracy.

For instance, if we've not spent enough money on prisons in the "land of the free" then why does a country with a few per cent of the world's population, have an incarceration rate that is 25% of the entire incarcerated population of the whole earth's population?

And if so many of America's population are evil, and one portion of terrified citizenry needs heavily-armed protection from fellow Americans, then how can America substantively be "good" with such a high preponderance of law-breakers? Or perhaps all evil's attributable to aliens, legal, illegal or maybe from Area 51. Maybe we should ask American Indians about that - if they think the anglo majority's ancestors were thieves or no, and their descendants are merely reverting to type.

And if no price is too great to pay (until it reaches financial decrepitude, which is very close) in service of having a military that can dominate all other peoples (force projection anywhere and everywhere with over 800 foreign bases), then does the expenditure which is currently far more than the entire rest of the world combined, really need to be dramatically increased?

And do we really need a heavily subsidized munitions industry that now amounts to 85% of our remaining manufacturing infrastructure, building "jobs" by selling the latest weaponry to all sides in every conflict?

Even principled conservatives and libertarians, none of whom are liberals, find something's seriously wrong with such reasoning. And in fact many liberals are for the status quo, with negligible if nuanced differences from Republicans. That's why virtually nothing's changed for the better since November 2006.

We don't need, as Christians, to ask, what will Hillary or Huck or Rudy or John or Obama will do - we already know. And it isn't going to measure up to what Jesus would do - unless we fulfill our prophetic function of speaking in truth to power, and making it stick, regardless of prevailing ideology.

Christians don't need to be constrained by all these political advisers of every stripe. I liked Reagan, too, so let's take a page from when he was on the electoral rocks and it was decided to unleash him, to "let Reagan be Reagan," - and let Christians be Christians.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 26, 2008 8:58 PM

Quote: I think one of the side-effects of Sojourners' increased media attention and influence, is going to be that a disorganized ad-hoc effort is going to be made to inundate it with propagandistic, rude and dismissive posts, in service of "the cause."

Are you serious?

You've decided that I'm some kind of Ann Coulter follower (disciple?) who's here to be arrogantly dismissive of ... something?

You are right about something, though. You have no intention of "understanding" anything about me, or what I believe. And because of that, your only option is to pretend that you're so much wiser and more enlightened than I, that my opinion aren't worthy and my questions are insincere. Oh, yeah, and unchristian, too.

It's all settled in your mind, isn't it? I'm evil, and that's all there is to it?

So, if I ask you to talk to me in straightforward terms, to explain what you actually think, so we can agree or disagree, it's all hubris? I'm "talking down" to you, as a debate tactic, to influence other people to look down on you?

Grief. What kind of opinion must you carry about your fellow man? When one person comes to the table and says "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1), you must answer with "Your debate tactic is born of ill will. Go away with your false humility, you're just a pompous jerk"?

I asked, because you demonstrate a grasp of the language that amazes me. One that reveals considerable intellect and thought.

I just didn't realize that prejudice and rage was going to prevent communication on any level except the flung insult.

My mistake. I'll look for someone else.

Someone less infected with "liberalitis". Grief. And you people wonder why there's friction between the left and right and so much animosity.

Posted by: Mark | January 26, 2008 9:27 PM

"I think Sam Rodriguez could do better, and I know that Rev Wallis can."

Don, as a fellow white educator, I agree.

kevin s: " It was very unpopular to be conservative in the early 1990s."

You can't be serious. Clinton studiously avoided the term "liberal" when running in 1992.

Posted by: carl copas | January 26, 2008 9:47 PM

What do Evangelicals want?

This was a curious conversation in response to that question.

What have we demonstrated in this conversation that we want?? There have been many good points; but what has the conversation demonstrated that we want.

Folks can't see Jesus these days--in the flesh. Well, except for His Body---whose love for each other will draw others to Him.

There are times to speak brothers and sisters. There are times to stop. There are times to listen. There are times to be gracious and sincerely express gratitude for the other person taking time to express their ideas.

Being right is its own reward--and the only reward. Do you have any relationship in which love has become deeper because you were right?

"Lord make me an instrument of thy peace...
for it is in dying,
that we are born to eternal life."

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 26, 2008 10:34 PM

I'm an Evangelical. Here's what I want:

I want Sojourners, Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Sam Rodriguez, and Rick Nowlin to quit making the presumption that just because someone is conservative he or she therefore

-does not care about the poor
-does not care about social justice
-can be labeled as "Religious Right"
-is only concerned about the rapture
-gets his or her marching orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, and Dobbs
-doesn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke (esp. 18:9-14), & John
-is guilty of every sin a conservative has committed against Rick Nowlin

Posted by: Sacred Frenzy | January 26, 2008 11:50 PM

Many conservatives care about the poor but they don't want the government involved in it. That means that the poor get a bigger shaft than they would w/o the government. there was a time that there was no government intervention. The poor suffered greatly, and then the government got involved. For some things got better. For others things were slower. My point is that conservatives need to understand that government can be a great tool to help people. Our own history backs that up.

p

Posted by: Payshun | January 27, 2008 1:09 AM

Hmm... it's not just those on welfare who develop a sense of entitlement! :-) or should I :-( ...

From the beginning, those who arrived on these shores since 1492 had a grandiose sense of their entitlement to take whatever they saw and to dominate or destroy others.

You can't plead historical ignorance to evade responsibility. Ignorance of the consequences of breaking God's laws doesn't stop them from occurring. Saying we are not responsible is wilfully evading the responsibility incumbent upon knowledge, and it's like lying to God as Cain did when he offered a curt "Am I my brother's keeper?" Scripture makes it clear that the consequences of sin extend through multiple generation and don't have short statutes of limitation where injustice is concerned.

Perhaps it's not seen as so severe as all that to those who claim they did nothing wrong personally, but it smacks highly of "as long as I don't hurt anyone else, I can do whatever I want" and "I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off my stack." Moreover, I think folks don't realize just how deep is the effect of sin in their own souls since it's often only cursorily examined. It is highly probable that any one of us, if not cognizant of our own potential to do evil, will under similar circumstances and influences do just the same things we condemn in others. We all bear responsibility for making redress for sins, even of others, as much as we can. This is called doing good.

A certain streak of Ayn Rand libertarianism, formed by a Russian immigrant mesmerized by Hollywood depictions of the ideal American capitalist as gangster, infects conservatism due to the Republican alliance with that movement. It makes the case for selfishness being elevated to the highest possible philosophical virtue as a sort of revered "rugged individualism." This was expressed in these forums by the person who extolled his own Horatio Alger story of pulling himself up by his bootstraps and achieving "financial independence" as a kind of Christian conversion story away from the dependence fostered by community solutions.

I do recall, however, that "foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

Personal wealth and security are not necessarily blessings indicative of the degree of God's approval. I have wondered, having experience a certain amount, while thanking God for it, whether or not it was some sort of terrible test, which failure could render a curse.

There is a kind of common sense to the protestant work ethic, no doubt, but what God's spirit teaches us is uncommon sense, which is not about materialism and self-seeking.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 27, 2008 4:14 AM

From the beginning, those who arrived on these shores since 1492 had a grandiose sense of their entitlement to take whatever they saw and to dominate or destroy others.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. — GEORGE ORWELL (attributed)

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious^ lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to. — THEODORE DALRYMPLE

Posted by: RealTruth | January 27, 2008 4:39 AM

So does that mean I should sacrifice as though I had the opportunities it is convenient for you to assume I had?

Yes -- your conservative demand for cultural dominance, which you've done on this blog consistently.

But at that point we would have left elements of conservatism as well.

And that's the rub -- some folks just don't want to give that up.

But for some strange reason it's ok for him to spout off and lump all white conservatives together saying we don't get our teachings from John, Mark....and instead are so stupid as to actually vote on what the consevative talk shows tell us, I am insulted!

You'd be surprised just how much the conservative agenda is informed by secular values, not the Scripture -- which was Rodriguez' point.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 27, 2008 9:06 AM

Encouraging people to have abortions, engage in homosexuality and other sexual perversions, and taxation-to-socialism, are literally causing people to stumble. No Apostles supported immorality or tax collectors. They tried to change them into Christians. Precisely because they were preached to and taught BY Christ Jesus.

Time for the truth:

How many liberals and progressives are really following the Humanist Manifesto in word and deed and not the New Testament? I sure cannot see a difference between what liberals and progressives say and do and what the Humanists preach and teach.

They all appear to be an oddly different and somewhat altered copy of Christian culture.

Mr. Wallis?

Posted by: Donny | January 27, 2008 11:10 AM

Donny--Do your words convey a love for your Brother that compel the world to know Jesus? We are to judge with profound caution, making sure truth-telling is done in love. And honestly, have you taken the time to listen to and know Jim Wallis and the ministry of Sojourners?

These are not rhetorical questions with an implied answer? I am looking for your objective assesment.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 27, 2008 11:53 AM

"But is it an impasse? Do you hold to a Gospel that can break down barriers and reconcile where there has been hostility?"

Yes, but Rick's arguments essentially boils down to "Rodriqguez will continue to disrespect conservatives because of who he perceives them to be." Not much wiggle room there. I'd rather just ignore Rodriguez and focus on people who are capable of having a conversation.

"If you accept Rick's "demand" you will find yourself on a journey of submitting in ways you don't want to submit. It is like learning to say "Yes Dear" (with sincerity) to a wife even when "I know" she is wrong."

I don't see submission to belligerent Christians one has never met manifested in scripture. I believe the scriptures would call on Rodriguez to educate himself here. Further, Rick is calling on a collective set of individuals, who may or may not be Christian, to sacrifice for a Christian, which is completely backwards.

Further, Rick adds this:

"Yes -- your conservative demand for cultural dominance, which you've done on this blog consistently."

But, by his definition of conservatism, conservatism inherently seeks culutral dominance. Nowhere on this blog (much less "consistently")have I called for cultural dominance by conservatives.

What he is asking me to do is change my ideology so that those who hold an uninformed view of that ideology will embrace, well, what exactly? The new, less ideological me?

Why is this inherently valuable? I have a number of friends who are not saved (conservative, moderate and liberal), and who don't argue by way of senseless piffle the way Rodgriguez does here They have learened to respect those with whom they disagree, even during periods of disagreement. Why should I cede everything I believe about politics to those who are incapable of this? Because they are highly confident that they are right?

Rick's defense of Rodriguez is absurd.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 27, 2008 12:20 PM

We know as a matter of constitutional law that the president WILL CHANGE. The president has served his two terms. Ergo, presidential change will happen.

Change for the sake of change is silly and juvenile. Change, brought about by careful consideration and sober judgement - that's the most likely change to be positive.

Certainly, there is nothing new under the sun that Obama is offering or promising. We have heard the endless recitation of the precisely the same mantra of "raise taxes, more handouts, soak the rich, hate the Republicans" for longer than I have been an adult, and the only thing it has brought us is the ever enlarging welfare state, more dependency as a lifestyle, worsened social ills, and all the associated misery these things have wrought on the nation.

So, do I look forward to some kind of "change" brought about by the people who have done the worst damage to this nation it has ever seen?

No.

Posted by: mark | January 27, 2008 12:54 PM