And that is why I say the monologue of the Religious Right has ended and the evangelical agenda has broadened

When I hear the religious left speaking to the hurtful messages that children of our culture are exposed to , the travesty of the unborn, Gods Gift of life being trampled upon , , lessening the burden of the middle class , I say the same thing about the left. Get with Jim , divesrsity in the right has alays been there , just as it has in the left . Its only because you and I were not looking for it . The church was growing long before we got involved .

Posted by: Mick | March 6, 2008 11:35 AM

Ashpenaz,

Would you mind sharing the Christian, specifically the Scriptural, basis for your initial comment on "lifelong, sexually-exclusive gay relationships?"
I'm just curious. I think it's scripturally clear that not only divorce is sin, but sexual activity outside of marriage is also sin. And qualifier terms such as "lifelong, sexually exclusive" doesn't make the act less sinful. It would be similar to saying that masturbation isn't lustful, as long as it's lifelong and it doesn't affect others.
Scripture does say that anyone who sins sexually sins against their own body. I think that includes "lifelong, sexually-exclusive gay relationships," don't you?
I would appreciate your thoughts and any scripture you could point me to that would show your perspective on the heart of Christ. Thanks.

Posted by: Andrew | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM

Ashpenaz,

I would like to repeat the questions raised by Andrew to you, plus I would like to add that Obama and Clinton both oppose and do NOT condone same sex relationships. They DO oppose a federal amendment preventing them from getting married because they believe that violates their American (notice I didn't say Christian) rights.

Please go here for a good cross examination of their stand on this issue:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html

Posted by: Matt G. | March 6, 2008 12:13 PM

divesrsity in the right has alays been there, just as it has in the left. Its only because you and I were not looking for it. The church was growing long before we got involved.

Sorry, but neither is true.

I live in what in the 1980s was one of the most "religious right" areas in the country outside the South, and believe you me I was definitely considered an "outsider" because I was a Christian who didn't suppor right-wing policies. I remember being pilloried as a "socialist and hedonist" for supporting Walter Mondale in a Christian newspaper and was abused on Christian radio when I had a regular segment.

One other thing: Many of the "left" reject faith and religion altogether.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 12:26 PM

Liberals like Wallis have had their chance to resolve poverty and have failed to do so. Christians should reach out as a body and as individuals to comfort and aid the poor, but don't come down on the fiscally conservative and free market supporters that simply endorse a more personal, privatized ministry to the "have-nots".

Au contraire -- in fact, almost all government-sponsored anti-poverty programs worked quite well. It's just that conservatives always intended to sabotage them because they didn't benefit and were able to do so beginning with Reagan due to the spreading of propaganda insisting that they failed. President Johnson' support of the Vietnam War because of his fear of those same conservatives didn't help.

Besides, it's not simply about giving to the poor -- it's about changing the political, economic and social situations that keep people from rising above their circumstances. Huckabee seems to get this, which is one reason why I would have considered voting for him (but also why many of the "religious right" wrote him off).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 12:41 PM

Paul -- Did you really read Jim's commentary? No one is saying that evangelical Christians are abandoning abortion and gay marriage as important political issues, just no longer the only ones worth voting on. Those were the only two, however, that leaders in the "religious right," at the behest of its secular backers, consistently raised, for the purposes of raising money and passion; however, they failed miserably in 2006. (No amount of religious propaganda can forever hide ideological arrogance and administrative incompetence.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 1:44 PM

Sorry Jim, although I agree with you on many things, Mike Huckabee is still a fundamentalist who promotes religious bigotry with his exclusionary views.

Posted by: Steve | March 6, 2008 2:27 PM

I largely agree with Jim Wallis on this. Huckabee's campaign has made him the most prominent evangelical in the political realm. He certainly has his blind spots, but he has been very clear that the Gospel brings a broader agenda than the old religious right pushed.

I do think Huckabee's campaign is a watershed in the decline of the old religious right and the return of the evangelical movement to a broader understanding of the public policy implications of the Gospel. The old-style religious right had already been seriously weakened, but I think Huckabee's campaign marked its virtual death.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | March 6, 2008 2:35 PM

I am a political liberal and a loyal Democrat who is also a progressive Christian. While Huckabee would likely never get my vote or support, I found him the best hope for rescuing the GOP from the stranglehold of the hard right wing of the party and I was encouraged by much of what he said.

Until he hit Warren, Michigan. There, he told supporters that the American Constitution needed to be amended to bring into line with the "word of the Living God." That soured me on him and frightened me of his candidacy, which at the time was on an upswing.

One's religious views ought to influence and inspire one's decisions, but any attempt to impose those views on the proper role of government must be resisted. I hope Huckabee does have a good influence on the slowly changing evangelical Christian movement, but I also hope he never re-enters the public arena.

Posted by: Dan Shafer | March 6, 2008 2:48 PM

Dan Shafer? Do you know what you're talking about?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 2:52 PM

[H]ow can you be sure Reagan was 'spreading propoganda' about the failure of the welfare state? Maybe you were getting bad information from your sources and Reagan was resolving the issue.

Hardly -- do you think that Reagan's 1976 comment about "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" was anything but a slur, not against just the poor but also blacks? Besides, well-funded conservative think tanks back in the 1970s were already making noise about it and continued to do so after conservatives got a hold of political power. But in fact, the poverty rate got worse under Reagan in part because those programs were cut. (There are reasons why most African-Americans despised conservatism in general and Reagan in particular.)

The poor have the freedom to step up and improve their circumstance without the meddling of the government. Anybody with an ounce of pride ought to recognize that this is what its all about.

That's what you think. Truth be told, however, many of the poor don't have the means to improve their lives because many of the people with means and contacts lit out long ago for the 'burbs, many of which you can't get to without a vehicle. My church ministers extensively to the poor in the neighborhood where it's located, and the staff will tell you from personal experience just how uninformed your analysis is. It's why, even though it's a socially and theologically conservative evangelical church, the "religious right" would no longer feel comfortable there.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 3:04 PM

Dan -- I did not submit that response and don't know how it got posted under my name.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 3:12 PM

I am evangelical and a Republican and conservative. I, like many of my like-minded friends, do believe that quotes like "As you have done to the least of these you have done to me" are at the heart of oour faith. We are going on mission trips, working for the poor, etc. I do not recognize the evangelicals I know when I read what Jim Wallis states what we believe and what we think is important. It is all mush, invented by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Posted by: Chris | March 6, 2008 3:15 PM

Chris -- As someone who's been in media for almost all of his adult life, I do recognize them, who have always purported to speak for you whether they actually do or not.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 3:23 PM

--When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money on poor people - behavior which is offensive to the economically conservative wing of the Republican Party. --

Lie.

What is 'offensive' to economic conservatives is rewarding sloth and laziness with handouts. What is 'offensive' is rewarding those who entering our country illegally while making it difficult for those who try to do it the right way. What is 'offensive' is liberal politicians promising to punish the successful so they can 'give' money to those whom they think will vote for them.

--Is it because many on the Religious Right are really more committed to economic conservatism that social conservatism?--

As opposed to...economic liberals being commmitted to social liberalism?

--Have religious conservatives gotten so used to their access to power that they are afraid to risk standing for principle over pragmatism? --

So not supporting class warfare is going against principles? Please (rolls eyes).

Posted by: jazzact13 | March 6, 2008 3:28 PM

I can't speak for James Dobson, whose antics this campaign season have been beyond absurd. But I just didn't feel like Huckabee would make a very good president. I didn't get any sort of feel for how he would conduct domestic policy, and his war rhetoric resembled a thoughtful high school freshman.

I found him to be more of an inconsistent populist than a conservative. He's a good guy and all, but I think that was the conclusion many conservatives, including Christians, came to.

N.T. Wright is a conservative? How so?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM

I'm glad and REJOICE IN THE LORD for Jim Wallis' article of Hope for Mike Huckabee; I believe Huckabee has a great future and pray that he remains true to the Lord. I may not agree with all Huckabee or Wallis says. But I see HOPE for the future in the party they support.
We really need a REVIVAL - AN AWAKENING in the Church and in America. JESUS CAN GIVE THAT AWAKENING BY FAITH, LOVE, HOPE !! In prayer and praise, Wayne one

Posted by: wayne kratzer | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM

Other than simply stating it is so, can someone please help me understand how economic inequality between the west and the developing world is a greater moral problem than the ending of 43 million pregnancies worldwide per year...especially with the vast majority of abortions (about 93%) being done as a means of birth control?

I hear this more and more and it simply doesn't make sense to me. I think that is because it doesn't make sense. But I'm open to hearing the argument.

Posted by: Brian | March 6, 2008 3:41 PM

i think we have heard the last of mike h. he will fade into the mainstream of american life soon. he has had his time in the limelight of the public stage. after all what really solid thing has he got going now/ not much.he gave a good stubborn shot until the near end. is it book worthy? no. is it speech worthy? no. he may as well retire and take it easy. he just didn't have the advantages the others had/money or enough of the same.happy retirement mike.

Posted by: harvey l melton | March 6, 2008 3:46 PM

Jim Wallis said:
Is it because many on the Religious Right are really more committed to economic conservatism that social conservatism? Have religious conservatives gotten so used to their access to power that they are afraid to risk standing for principle over pragmatism?

This was an unfair attack on the Religious right. That Wallis disagrees with the Religious Right on many points is well known. In the midst of commending Huckabee, it was not necessary to launch an ad hominem attack on the motives of certain people simply because he disagrees with them.

Is it not equally possible that "the Religious Right" is pragmatic and could tell that Huckabee was not "electable"? Is it possible that many on the Religious Right have broader political committments and saw some characteristics in other candidates that they liked? Isn't it possible that "the Religious Right" is not "just a buch of unthinking sheep" (another popular ad hominem against them), and that their ultimate rejection of Huckabee was thoughtful and principled? For Wallis to raise questions about the motives of "the Religious Right" (they are not a monolith much as their detractors want to see them that way), was unneccessary, and cast a negative pall over an otherwise positive article.

Okay, Jim. You don't like "the Religious Right." We all know that. Give it a rest. And try to be fair to everyone in what you write, not merely to people you agree with.

Posted by: Fred Smith | March 6, 2008 3:49 PM

Mike Huckabee made plenty of statements I disagreed with. One that comes to mind is the need for the 10 commandments to supersede the Constitution. What would that do to religious liberties, a woman's right to make medical decisions regarding her body, etc.?
But what he said, "What you do to the least of these, you do to me", resonates deeply with me. When the wealthy take from the poor, this is a shameful statement on what America stands for.
I too understand the need to protect America's borders around the entire country-not just the south. I do also see how America's corporatist policies (e.g. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.), have contributed to poverty in many countries, whose people come here in a desperate effort to survive. If they could make a living in their own country, they would not have to risk their lives and break the law to come here.
But what Mike Huckabee says about educating all the children here, including children of undocumented workers and not punish them for the sins of their parents, I agree. All children should be educated and have a good chance to gain citizenship. America is the only country many of them know. English is sometimes the only language they speak. Emma Lazarus said it best--"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." Many of us "red blooded Amercans" are the sons and daughters of immigrants, some of them "illegal". I'd like to believe America is about mercy and kindness.
So Mike Huckabee and I do have some common ground, and that's important.

Posted by: Deborah Stucklen | March 6, 2008 3:57 PM

I truly believe that it was Huckabee many of my evangelical friends thought and hoped they were getting when they voted for George W. Bush. He's still war, and anti-immigrant, and pro-free trade, but he's nice about it, plus all those things Jim mentioned make him truly an easier pill to swallow for most southern evangelicals. I just believe that while they got behind George Bush, it became increasing nerve-racking. Huck offers the whole package they are looking for in my opinion.

Posted by: Keith Blake | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Well, I've learned alot about Huckabee here. Had my suspicions -- they've been confirmed. I'm just about in tears with gladness to think that "the monologue of the Religious Right has ended". It was like water torture and sometimes downright mean. Has Huckabee become "the leader of a new generation of Christian conservative voters"? Well, I for one would love to test that theory; so let's have one of the democrats in the oval office (preferably Barack) and see who the new generation votes for in 2012!

Posted by: Denise | March 6, 2008 4:12 PM

"N.T. Wright is a conservative? How so?"

Theologically conservative, not politically so.

Posted by: carl copas | March 6, 2008 4:16 PM

This is an interesting perspective on Mike Huckabee and it actually makes me dislike him a little less. As far as his stance on gay rights and abortion, no Baptist minister is going to would stand up and say that he thought these things were OK.

Posted by: G.B. | March 6, 2008 4:18 PM

I am just upset that I did not get a chance to vote for Mike living in New Mexico. He stood for principle and that is something we do not hear very often today. Thank you

Posted by: Sharon Proctor | March 6, 2008 4:32 PM

I've had enough. I'm finished with Sojourners.

This article on the Huckster tells me we are so far away from common understanding about political issues that I don't want to spend time with you any more.

Just one example so it can hopefully appear to you and the readers that I'm responding not with propaganda but with reason.

The Huckster while Govenor wrote to Homeland Security assuring his full support of the Real ID proposal. It might seem like a small thing to some but it tells me where he stands, and it is with the godless one-world crowd and not with the people.

That the author completly ignors Ron Paul in his comments also tells me all I need to know about him. I encourage anyone who may read this to look into Rep. Paul's record, both political and personal, and consider the possibility that he is a true Christian leader.

Posted by: Edmund | March 6, 2008 5:01 PM

I encourage anyone who may read this to look into Rep. Paul's record, both political and personal, and consider the possibility that he is a true Christian leader.

My roommate is a Paul supporter, so I know what he believes.

1) Paul, to my knowledge, is not a professing Christian.

2) As a libertarian, he disregards the very concept of social justice.

3) He holds an outdated idea about the presidency, not understanding that today it is a position of global leadership.

There's a reason he gets only single digits in polls among Republicans, and much of that is due to his immediate opposition to the war in Iraq -- which was based not on moral considerations.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM

Whoever is posting stuff here under Rick Nowlin's name needs either to grow up and begin using his/her real name, or else to quit posting.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2008 5:29 PM

Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
Jesse Jackson
Al Gore
Dan Quayle
G.W. Bush
Mike Huckabee

All fall in a line of Evangelicalism that does not center around abortion or opposing homosexual marriage (and, by the way, it was not Evangelicals that pushed abortion-rights and homosexual marriage onto the national political stage).

Posted by: letjusticeolldown | March 6, 2008 5:37 PM

Yes, this post is legitimate.

I quickly looked at the AAPS website and saw what you're talking about.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 5:45 PM

I think more work should be done by Christians within the Democratic party to diminish the influence of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and NARAL Pro Choice America.

That can happen when, and only when, GOP conservatives also stop exploiting the abortion issue for votes. Besides, I don't think enough evangelical Christians are even in the Democratic Party, or at least in its leadership, to make that kind of change.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 5:53 PM

There is a presidential candidate who has "proudly" embraced the endorsement of a vicious and repellent extremist bigot who calls the Catholic church "The Great Whore" and a "cult"; who accuses Catholics of conspiring in the Nazi mass murder of Jews; who says that Jews deserve anti-Semitic persecution because they "rebelled" against God; who says that God deliberately destroyed the city of New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina to punish the city for its tolerance of homosexuality; who says that God will send terrorists to unleash a "bloodbath" of destruction in America to punish the US for supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and who has called for the US and Israel to attack Iran in order to precipitate a regional war in which all Jews who fail to convert to Christianity will be killed.

That candidate has refused to denounce or reject these views -- he only vaguely says that he doesn't agree with "all" of them.

That candidate is not Mike Huckabee. It is John McCain.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 6, 2008 6:00 PM

These facts send up red flags for me:

Governor Mike Huckabee
During Huckabee's administration:
Arkansas lawmakers tried to pass legislation upgrading the state's anti-cruelty law from misdemeanor to felony... They received no help from the governor, and were unsuccessful every time. Stymied by the legislative process, animal advocates collected signatures to place an anti-cruelty and anti-cockfighting measure on the statewide ballot in 2002.

All that came from Huckabee during the ballot campaign was a deafening silence. The measure went down in flames, largely because of a campaign run by the Arkansas Farm Bureau, Arkansas Cattlemen's Association, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and Ducks Unlimited- - groups with which Huckabee associates himself- - falsely claiming this modest proposal to upgrade penalties for animal cruelty would have adversely impacted hunting, fishing, farming, and other Arkansas traditions...

Huckabee's pandering to the sport hunting lobby:
November television ad in Iowa featured action star Chuck Norris, who stated, "Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter…" During a speech to the NRA in September, Huckabee...talked about shooting a bullet that was guided by angels to pierce an antelope, and exclaimed, "I'm pretty sure there will be duck hunting in heaven, and I can't wait." [Huckabee spent Christmas Day killing tame pheasants].

1998- - Huckabee's son David, 17, kills stray dog:
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported former Governor Mike Huckabee's son, David, fired from job as a Boy Scout camp counselor because he and another teen allegedly killed a stray dog... The boys hanged the dog, slit his throat, and stoned him to death- - but were never charged with any crime.

At the time of the camp incident, a local prosecutor asked the Arkansas State Police to investigate whether David Huckabee violated state anti-cruelty laws. Newsweek broke the story that the former director of the state police, John Bailey, says Huckabee's chief of staff and personal attorney leaned on him to drop the investigation... Bailey refused to play ball and was fired seven months later. It seems Huckabee tried to stop the state police from investigating the cruelty charges against his son, and Bailey's story is corroborated by the former FBI chief in Little Rock.

SOURCE:
http://hslf.typepad.com/---/the-presidentia.html

INFORMATION:
http://hslf.typepad.com/---/the-presidentia.html

Posted by: jianji | March 6, 2008 6:03 PM

Don,

I think all movements and organizations need to have a foundation. I have yet to figure out what is the consistent foundation of moderate Republicans.

Why don't all the moderate "Republicans" start trying to reform the Democratic Party? Why be a Republican if one does not adhere to lower taxes, stronger national defense and social conservative principles? This foundation seems to make sense.

Are Republicans too small simply because they adhere to principles (i.e. a consistent foundation)? I see them as sticking to principles rather than selling out to moderate "Republicans."

Why does the Republican Party need to expand? Why shouldn't the Democratic Party expand to include you?

Posted by: Christine | March 6, 2008 6:16 PM

Chris,
Your point is well taken and has been made many times on this blog. Jim Wallis often makes these strawman arguments concerning conservatives. (Jim, so much for civility on this site).

The next step is someone mentions that conservatives give more and do more for the poor. This is then countered with an attack on their motivation, which Rick has done. It is a dance we do on this sight.
So to review:
*Jim makes a false accusation
*A conservative refutes false accusation
*Rick says the conservative has wrong motives
when giving or serving
*Conservatives who have seen the dance before
collectively roll eyes.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 6, 2008 6:38 PM

Excuse me for these simplistic questions, but what issues does a moderate Democrat emphasize in general? In 2008?

What issues does a moderate Republican emphasize in general? In 2008?

And please, only answer if you consider yourself to be moderate in either party.

Posted by: Denise | March 6, 2008 6:52 PM

What issues does a moderate Republican emphasize in general? In 2008?

I can only tell what issues I would like to see emphasized, but that aren't:
1. Energy conservation--dependence on petroleum, not Al-Qaida, is by far our biggest threat to US national security. We need an Apollo-like crash program to end our dependence on imported petroleum. That means conservation must be emphasized--higher fuel economy standards, renewed public transit, and redesigning our communities to be less auto-dependent.

2. Restoration to the constitutional principles our nation was founded upon. That means a restoration of the separation of powers, not letting the Executive Branch have increased power. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. The Patriot Act should be repealed or severely reformed. No more unauthorized wiretaps. No more torture; we adhere to the treaties we've signed (e.g., the Geneva Accords) or else we renegotiate them. No more fast track for free trade agreements, either; they must be individually negotiated and then ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, like any treaty. This is only a beginning.

3. Tax cuts are great, but deficit spending negates their value. We must pay for things as we go, not make our grandchildren pay for them. That includes the Iraq war--we should eliminate deficit spending for the war and either raise taxes to pay for it or else bring the troops home.

4. Caring for the least among us. That means refusing to marginalize anyone, including the poor, immigrants (legal or undocumented) and refusing to scapegoat anyone. No more demonizing of undocumented immigrants. Let's reform the immigration laws to respect people and families, provide for our employment needs, and deal humanely and without sloganizing those who are currently living here.

How's that for a start?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2008 7:10 PM

Does anyone remember that as a Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee was paid by Big Tobacco to make speeches around the country, attacking national health care? And, failing to complete financial disclosure forms about this Big Tobaco income, and failing to report the income to the IRS, all required by law? And when asked about it in subsequent years, not remembering very much about any of this? Or how about his support for a regressive national sales tax, and abolishing the IRS, thereby shifting the tax burden from the well off to the middle class? Not so sure Mike Huckabee deserves support from the Christian community in America, and maybe a lot of folks need to closer look at this guy.

Posted by: Jim Bibber | March 6, 2008 7:33 PM

Hey, Ashpenaz, where did you go? I'm still waiting for your response to some very reasonable questions raised by Andrew and others.

Posted by: Josh | March 6, 2008 7:46 PM

Amen and amen. Any "Christian" who despises the poor and the stranger, is nothing but a pharisee. Those are the BAD weeds in the field. Those are the type of people Jesus criticized sharply and rebuked. Notice in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus judged believers according to how they treated the underprivilaged. I'm very glad that final some Republicans are starting to correct the situation and follow Jesus teaching rather than use Him as a way to abuse the less fortunate.

Posted by: Allen | March 6, 2008 7:57 PM

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to bless lifelong, monogamous gay relationships, but another man, whose faith is weak, only blesses heterosexuals. 3The man who blesses gays must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not bless gays must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one type of sexual orientation more sacred than another; another man considers every orientation alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind about things like homosexuality. He who regards heterosexuality as special, does so to the Lord. He who accepts lifelong, monogamous gay relationships does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who disapproves, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' " So then, each of us, whether we bless lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships or not, will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no type of lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you bless, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your blessing destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, or heterosexual relationships or gay relationships, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food or sexual orientation. All food and all sexual orientation is clean, but it is wrong for a man to indiscriminately bless anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine, or promote heterosexuality or condemn gays, or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he blesses a gay relationship, because his blessing is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 6, 2008 8:04 PM

The next step is someone mentions that conservatives give more and do more for the poor. This is then countered with an attack on their motivation, which Rick has done. It is a dance we do on this sight.

I'm sorry if my consistent harping on this irritates some people, but (and I will keep saying this) it's not simply about giving things to the poor -- it's about giving the poor authority to make their own way, and sometimes, but not always, political means must be used. But that's the last thing conservatives, especially secular conservatives want because they want to be seen as always right, and that's why they get defensive whenever anyone challenges them.

If this is false, then why do conservatives never talk about voting, community activism or running for office?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 6, 2008 8:31 PM

Thanks Don! Doesn't seem like the R party has served your interests lately.

Maybe not, Denise, but I don't think that fact makes me a de facto Democrat. There are some, though, as you have read right here, who wouldn't allow a place for people with these kinds of views within the Republican Party. And that's not only unconscionable, it's suicidal as well.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2008 8:50 PM

What's going on here. My comment was refused because it said I have entered too many. The only other one I wrote was month's ago! Dave Wolf

Posted by: Milton Wolf | March 6, 2008 9:59 PM

Huckabee a conservative? What a joke. Huckabee does not have enough of a base to make any difference in the Republican party.

The only conservative that ran was Fred Thompson. No one else was even close.

At this point, we have a choice between 3 liberals. Republicans might as well stay home, or write in a real conservative, not some democrat in republican's clothing.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | March 6, 2008 10:16 PM

What a joke. Huckabee a conservative? It is quite evedent that Jim Wallis is clueless about what conservatism is.

Fred Thompson was the only conservative that ran. After that, the rest of them were all one version of Democrat or another.

Every conservative should either not vote, or write in a real conservative in November, and grab hold of your wallets, and get ready for a Clinton or Obama presidency.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | March 6, 2008 10:31 PM

Huckabee's tax plan included a rebate program for all the basic expenses. Therefore the poor wouldn't be taxed unless they overspend (which is why many people are poor). He was a good candidate. He made everyone laugh and you could feel at ease with him. Just my two cents.

Posted by: Casey | March 6, 2008 11:18 PM

How do you capture global poverty in a single, spectacular image?

Posted by: carl copas

I don't know carl , I disagree with this view of yours .You can show poverty , hunger , in such ways that it is gut wrenching . I have supported two children the past twenty years through Compassion and the Christian Children'fund . Because of seeing those brochures and hearing descriptive accounts of poor children in need .

I know the pro choice crowd , and the pro abortion industry is quite powerfull , they use to circulate this famous picture that was of a women who had a botched abortion in a state where it was at the time illegal . The picture of a young woman on the floor spured emotions that brought many donations to keep abortion safe and rare . Some organizations now teach it as just another concreptive . Interestingly people originally use to say allowing abortions would lead to euthasia . We are in the process of passing the law here in our state , but even to my understanding , it sounds quite compassionate . 40 years ago our cultural beliefs would have seen it as the state killing aperson . Whcih it is . But we now see it as compassion , and I and you are not exempt from our culture , Thank Jesus we have a place to go to refresh ourselves though from it .

I think many with a pro life view points totally understand the correlation between social situations that could promote a person in the depth of despair , feeling alone , pregnant in a home where there are aleady children in need , etc . Soujourners is really off the map in regards from my experience of Evangelical Christians . Perhaps organizational wise yes , but not the man , women and family units .

I totally understand the view that we need to help the reasons for abortion fewer . Abortion after all is a family issue, not a really a government one .

But in my conscience , the one God helps me with , I can not ever support a view that puts needs above a life that God created . Those needs may cause my heart to suffer with that persons pain they are facing . I might even understand why and not personally an abortion was chosen .

But somethings , especially dealing with life we are not to lean on our own understanding . God alone has the right to take a life and the Only one that is totally responisble for giving life .
We are not really that important in the baby making process as we think , its a miracle , and we have made it less of . That I believe also carries through to the problems of poverty , that mind set .

I guess its the right left brain disconnect , I see why sometimes it is important to take a life in order to save others , and would support capital punishment if it was proven a deterent , but I can not undertsand A Christian view that never is supporting a military or police force to physically stop murder , and allowing murderers of the worst kind to excape capital punishemnt and is supporting politics that support abortions for whatever reason .

But as Wayne said way back , perhaps just more Evangelicals such as myself supporting liberal Churches that do help the poor , and perhaps more liberal Christians willing to donate to some conservative causes that include say Crisis Pregnacy centers that reach out to young pregnant women in need and conservative churches that help with the homeless and poor .

Posted by: Mick | March 6, 2008 11:24 PM

Mike Huckabee is the future of the country and we will see to it that we don't make the same mistake in 2012. Mike WILL be elected president in 2012!!! He had the message, the strength, stamina, oratorial skills anc compassion to make the best president we have ever had. The people's president!!! Mike Huckabee McCain would be wise to add Huckabe to his ticket. The two are much alike in their convictions and never quit attitudes. They had alot of campaign "chenistry" during debates. Even the press noticed. Huck could add much to the McCain ticket, not the least of which would be the thousands of Huckabee Rangers who worked tirelessley for our man and would join the McCain team only if Huckabee is on the ticket..

Posted by: Linda Rayborn | March 7, 2008 12:03 AM

"Don't get me started on the effectiveness of that particular organization, though." Kevin S.

I really don't know much about it. I just don't like being put in a box by other people - especially since I can't think of any box that I would fit inside.

We hear it all of the time here - "you're conservative so you must believe this," or "you're a Democrat so you can't possibly believe that."

I'll be who I am, thank you very much, and don't really need an organization to make me feel good about who I am. My party affiliation does not define who I am.

All of us should vote for what we perceive as the lesser of two evils. If you think you're voting for the perfect candidate who perfectly represents your values, you have been severely deceived!

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 7, 2008 12:11 AM

Rick,

Just curious: you mentioned earlier that away from this board you have conservative friends with whom you get along fairly well. Do you talk this way with your non-cyberspace conservative friends? Do you really believe that their sole motivation is to maintain power for themselves? Or are you fortunate enough to have met the only non-hideous conservatives in the country?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 7, 2008 12:21 AM

"Among the latter are Jim Wallis, who desperately hopes that Huckabee will do what Wallis does not have the energy to do: break up the alliance between evangelicals and political conservatives by presenting an alternative approach to government that will appeal to evangelical values. There's only one problem: that's not Huckabee's real agenda." Wolverine

Your ad hominems against Jim Wallis don't really add anything to the discussion. Maybe that is why you received an unwelcome email in the past.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 7, 2008 6:42 AM

Do you talk this way with your non-cyberspace conservative friends? Do you really believe that their sole motivation is to maintain power for themselves?

The answer has always been yes on both counts -- in fact, I mentioned earlier that I had a regular slot on a Christian talk-radio show, back in the mid-1990s, and I deliberately selected the juiciest topics. And many of my conservative friends actually have become less conservative after talking to me because they learned a different viewpoint they had never considered -- just recently I had a long discussion about the media with someone who believed some of the myths that conservatives have perpetrated about us and he allowed me to educate him.

Abortion and homosexuality will always be "front bunner" issues, no matter how hard the humanist/progressive agenda tries to distract Christians about them. Both are attacks on the Church.

I don't see how. Abortion isn't at all directly mentioned in the Scripture; homosexuality is mentioned only about half-a-dozen times and only in the context that "it's something that God's people are to avoid." Money, on the other hand, is mentioned a couple thousand times.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 7, 2008 8:47 AM

Mr. Martin,

I have mentioned before that abortion and gay marriage are two big stumbling blocks that prevent evangelicals from moving left. I see nothing to indicate that has changed; much of Huckabee's appeal came from the fact that he was the most consistent and passionate candidate on these problems.

For as long as I can remember, Jim Wallis' response to the social issues has been to argue that there are other issues that matter too and then try to change the subject. However Evangelicals are entitled not only to their own opinion on these issues, but their own sense of priorities. Before evangelicals move left, it would help if the left would offer some compromises on one or the other or both.

Now Jim Wallis is in an excellent position to explore and propose compromises -- there are splittable differences on both -- but he has yet to do so. It is a remarkable oversight on his part.

You can call this an ad hominem if you like, but here's the important question: can you show that I'm wrong?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 7, 2008 9:12 AM

I noticed a brief comment in Mr. Wallis's article that he would support Mr. Huckabee's belief that "our borders need to protected and enforced." I was curious as to how Mr. Wallis would go about doing so without stepping outside Jesus' advocacy for loving our neighbor as ourselves?
I also have a concern about the fence our government wants to put up at the border to Mexico. Having lived through the Cold War, and after the amazing miracle of seeing the Iron Curtain come down, the idea of putting up one of our own puts up all kinds of warning signals in my mind and heart. We can't afford to just react to a situation without learning from former mistakes that people have made, and looking to the words of Jesus to figure out what He would do. We need to be more careful in making our decisions, both personally and as a nation. What we do can shine a light for the world to see, but it can also take the world further into darkness if we just react with our "human" judgement. I put the word human in quotes, because, if you think about it, what does not come from God does not really come from us, either. Satan is very quick to step in when we forget to consult the Source.

Posted by: Elaine R B | March 7, 2008 9:48 AM

No Christian is going to promote two of the greatest evils in the history of mankind. Abortion and homosexuality will always be "front bunner" issues, no matter how hard the humanist/progressive agenda tries to distract Christians about them ... Wallis is a self-annonted religious leader of radical and alien leftist ideology. That's just the truth. It's not a slur. Posted by: Wake up!

Welcome back, Donny! We haven't heard from you for a while.

Still playing that one-stringed banjo, aren't you? Don't you think it's possible that there are other Christians who don't buy into progressive humanism, but nevertheless who find biblical support for some elements of progressivism?

Your characteristic of Rev. Wallis is indeed a slur.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 7, 2008 10:11 AM

Let's not give Huckabee too much credit. While he used admirable rhetoric about poverty, he peddled a crackpot tax plan that was extremely regressive, and after his moving and honorable remarks about undocumented immigrants at the youtube debate he changed to a more get-tough approach and garnered the endorsement of the founder of the minutemen.

In our eagerness to commend conservatives for broadening their agenda, let's not gloss over it when they don't live up to their improving rhetoric.

Posted by: Dan | March 7, 2008 10:23 AM

"Huckabee in charge of Health and Human Services in a McCain administration?"

There's a frightening thought!

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 7, 2008 10:52 AM

Rick,
Education is a good point. Yet another area liberals and conservatives disagree. Unfortunately libs label us as against education. But the lib template for education has been to spend money on more administration and expanding the Dept. of Education and lowering test expectations. Illinois is a typical example, the answer to low test scores was to add another layer of administration, so now they have regional superintendents with full staffs and new buildings. As a conservative I'm in favor of that money being spent on better school buildings and classroom needs. Who is protecting power? the conservatives who say get rid of the the Dept. of Ed. and spend the money on kids or the libs who want to hirer more friends and contributors?

And the price of education. Libs. have run higher education in this country for decades. Maybe we should investigate the high cost of university education.

Access? The best access is freedom from poverty and education is the best ladder out of poverty. Where your heart is, your treasure will be also. Libs want to spend someone elses money to hire cronies, conservatives spend their own money to educate kids. That's access.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 7, 2008 11:11 AM

Huckabee espoused "traditional values." That's just another Repug line for anti-American values.

What about liberty and justice for all? Our Pilgrim forbearers gave us the inscription on the Liberty Bell: "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof;" (Lev 25:10)

Our Puritan forbearers gave us another liberty message: Gal 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Evangelicals have let themselves become so "Catholicized" that they no longer stand for Protestant principles.

On the abortion issue, Mark 14:21b, it is written: "It would have been better for that one not to have been born."

Ecclesiastes 6:3 says, "a stillborn child is better off than he [a man who beget a 100 children and lives many years]."

On the gay issues, in Mt 19:12 it says: "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth…"

There was no word for "homosexual" in the Hebrew or Greek. The word "homosexual" is a Greek prefix affixed to a Latin suffix to come up with the English word "homosexual." The word homosexual doesn't appear in English Bibles until 1946.

The words "justice" and "righteousness" occur in the Bible about 357 times in an economic context. Why are there no evangelicals clamoring for economic justice? "Righteousness" just means "right and just."

The Preamble of the Constitution says to "establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

Evangelicals should start reading the Federalist Papers. There are more spiritual truths in them than in all the scriptures of all the world's religions.

Posted by: David Dunn | March 7, 2008 11:36 AM

Rick,
I have no idea what your first year of school has to do with this, but to say libs don't control the state schools in this country is laughable. As far as fighting tax increases let be honest. I am not in favor of raising taxes for education as long as the money goes to more admin. and not actually educating kids. This has been the most shameful thing about the Dem. Party locally and nationally. Here is how it works:
-Cry about lack of funds for education
-Raise taxes
-Spend the money on anything but educating
kids
-Cry about lack of funds . . .

This is why your "protecting power" argument is flawed. Libs. protect their power by using money for education to add more layers of government. Actually spending money to improve educating kids reduces their power. Historically they have protected their power.

Again, where your treasure is, so is your heart.
We conservative not only pay taxes on our expensive homes. But we are the ones donating to the local schools private and public. Okay, we go back to the "your heart isn't right" claim.
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 7, 2008 12:20 PM

To: Neo-Nurse

How hard did you look?
________________________

Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
______________________________

Source: http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=2

Day (Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America) said that when Democratic politicians come to the U.S. Congress, all the pressure on them comes from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. The politicians are told they must vote against any pro-life measure or the party will pull funding away from them.

“I think it’s definitely the money” that keeps Democrats voting pro-abortion, said Day, the mother of a three-and-a-half-year-old and a one-and-a-half-year-old.

Posted by: An Independent Dan | March 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Before progressive evangelicals get too excited about Mike Huckabee, consider that since dropping out of the race he has indicated that he would like to be John McCain's running mate in November.

Should McCain select Huckabee as his VP candidate, then Huckabee will quickly embrace McCain's agenda, which is the agenda of the right-wing extremist, corporate-feudalist, crony-capitalist wing of the Republican Party: government of, by and for America's Ultra Rich Ruling Class, Inc. (a.k.a. the military-industrial-petroleum complex).

Vice President Huckabee's "compassion for the poor" talk will have no more significance than the fake, phony "compassionate conservatism" fraud of Cheney & Bush. It will just be a fig leaf to cover the continuing use of the Federal government to redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the politically-connected ultra-rich corporate elites.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 7, 2008 1:36 PM

As a Christian, I am very conflicted over abortion: when does a fetus gain a soul? when does an embryo become a human, right at the moment of conception

posted by carl

I have thought on that Carl , and have no idea . I guess I have always taken your perspective in the most good would would be to help the poor ,even though abortion sometimes is just convenience , but I do not know how you divide one from the other . I know it may sound shallow , but to me maybe its more like stealing and lying , it may be worse to steal ? But that does not mean I can ly my way out of situations .
I can't divide abortion and helping the poor , I give them both concern , for they both represent people who have little help but what we give to them , for the unborn or those already here .

And Neuro , I found this concerning a pro life Catholic organization which went to battle with the DNC honchos over providing a pro life link to te DN web site . The link is below , I am glad you are concerned about the D's being linked with a pro abortion view .
To me their is a difference in the mentality that promotes abortions and what many here are sharing . But you really need to understand , their is an element in the democratic party that advocates , breathes , abortion rights . Just as in the right their is that element that breathes against the homosexual agenda .

Perhaps its the extremism that gets the attention , but I am glad their are democrats who are more sensitive to the issue ,

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=255

Posted by: Mick | March 7, 2008 1:42 PM

Thanks for the link Mick, (for the most part, the following comments are not specifically directed at you in particular)

Yes, I know that there is an element of the Democratic Party that advocates abortion. It's unfortunate for everyone that both Democrats and Republicans have politicized abortion because in reality it hasn’t contributed to the reduction of abortions in the U.S. It’s a divisive issue that has turned into a smokescreen for other issues. (I wrote at length about this in response to a post by Brian on the “Defending the Facts on Obama’s Faith” thread)

As I wrote above, we vote for the lesser of two evils. Many people will argue that abortion is the greatest evil we face today but for me, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has damaged our relationship with the rest of the world, made us less safe by creating a new generation of people who hate the U.S. intensely, and discredited the diplomatic integrity of this country and is therefore a greater evil with more long-term consequences than anything else (you don’t have to agree with me, but you’re not going to convince me otherwise and you certainly aren’t going to change the way I vote).

I’m not sure of the source for Sara’s estimates above on child mortality (good point – thanks), but I have similar numbers from reliable sources literally at my finger tips. I am finishing my Masters in Public Health with the intention of returning to work in Africa to help reduce the disease burden and subsequent child mortality.

So it always comes down to this for me: what am I going to do about it?

I strongly suspect that my work in developing countries will be severely hampered and perhaps even more dangerous as a result of U.S. misadventure in Iraq. Four more years of “staying the course” is my worst nightmare – personally, and for the safety and comfort of my wife. The number of attacks against Americans outside the U.S. has dramatically increased since the invasion of Iraq, but that’s not going to stop me from doing the work that God has called me to do.

As for abortion, I ask the question to all those who think that we must vote for pro-life candidates: what have YOU personally done to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., other than vote? I’ve told you what I plan to do about global child mortality and, having spent a year volunteering in Ethiopia, I can assure you, it’s not as easy as voting for any particular candidate on any particular issue. Voting is easy. Politicians’ hot air and token gestures really haven’t changed the number of abortions in the U.S. Talk is cheap, but unfortunately, it seems to be talk and not action that wins votes (take a look at the “Facts regarding the Bush position on abortion” section of the Catholic Democrats abortion webpage http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/issues/abortion – take a look at it BEFORE you respond to this post).

Yes, there has been a significant decrease in the number of abortions in the U.S. over the last two decades, but before Republicans start patting themselves on the back you should take a look at the abortion surveillance reports in the MMWR (www.cdc.gov) and realize that the most dramatic decrease occurred during the Clinton administration.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 7, 2008 3:39 PM

Neuro--

Have you heard this apropo thought exercise?

A man and his son were in a horrible car accident. The man died. The son was critically injured. The surgeon walked in and said "I can't operate on this boy! He's my son!"

I may not have written that correctly...but I think you probalby get the gist...

On another uncompletely related thought exercise (the most twisted I have heard): A man walks into a restaurant and orders albatross. He takes one bite and shoots himself. Why?

but, I better stop with this so I can go home and pack for my trip to MN tomorrow! Spring break! I'm a bit nervous to go home, actually, because there is a woman with a mask waiting for me...

Posted by: squeaky | March 7, 2008 3:57 PM

Neuro_nurse is a dude?

You just figured that out, huh?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 7, 2008 4:14 PM

>>>> But he's a Republican and whenever you elect a Republican sooner or later he starts acting like a Republican, the party of money, really really really big big big money.
>>>>
Don't tell that to George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney, Leo DeCaprio, Jon Stewart, Katie Couric, and the rest of the ridiculously wealthy liberals out there.
What a tired, lazy statement. There are plenty of intellig... I mean conservative people that don't reach the "upper echelons" of society.

Posted by: Steve S | March 7, 2008 4:24 PM

Don't tell that to George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney, Leo DeCaprio, Jon Stewart, Katie Couric, and the rest of the ridiculously wealthy liberals out there.

The reality, however, is that they're a minority and most are entertainers who already hear the proverbial different drummer.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 7, 2008 4:49 PM

"I think BeliefNet will let me get away with this one: Raca! Okay, I’m ready to face the Sanhedrin now." Neuro-nurse

Neuro goes radical! LOL

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 7, 2008 6:06 PM

Rick,
You are right most suburban schools are heavily influenced by conservatives. The flip side is most large city schools are heavily influenced by libs. Let's compare test scores.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 7, 2008 6:25 PM

I disagree with "Secularanimist" that if Mike Huckabee were to accept a Vice Presidential spot, it would be and abandonment of his principles and proof of his insincerity while campaigning. When you want to work for good, you have to put yourself into a position where you can make a difference. I can assure you that Huckabee's concerns for the less fortunate are as real today as they were a year ago. If he ever became the Vice President, he would have to hold his nose while he circulated in Washington DC, but you can be sure he would be looking for opportunities to follow the same agenda that you can find on his website, MikeHuckabee.com, which, by the way, is staying up.

Posted by: David Anderson | March 7, 2008 6:27 PM

You are right most suburban schools are heavily influenced by conservatives. The flip side is most large city schools are heavily influenced by libs.

Not a fair comparison. Suburban households are more stable as a rule than those in the city, plus there's far, far more money for extra-curriculars. Urban schools thus have to scramble a lot more just to stay afloat.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 7, 2008 6:47 PM

Mike Huckabee? Nice guy. Disturbingly literalist. Thank GOODNESS we do not (and will never, hopefully) have to hear him rationalizing his pro-militarist, idolatrous love affair with mother-America with his use of the scripture he adores so much, from the Oval Office. If we do, it means the US is still gravely on the wrong track. But, if the Republican party finds itself increasingly out of power, I'm sure it will happily find a place for Mike Huckabee. Conservative Christian, knowing at a gut-level that their archaic, irrational system is quickly fading, hunger for validation by political victories; those who love political power and the economic supremacy it ensures, don't mind for a minute allowing Christians to feel like they're in control of history. In my opinion, though, the impure motives either predict their own suffering and demise ... the problem is, how long must we wait?

Posted by: Evrytingizalright | March 7, 2008 8:18 PM

I also commend EG for his Mar 6th comment about who are the real illegal immigrants in this country. I'm sometimes shocked that God should bless us with our all too recent sinful tyranny. I wish his/her points were brought into the national spotlight of the immigration debate. What have we done as a nation to atone for our treatment of the native peoples of this land, the African, and so many generations of "foreigners" since.

Posted by: Amy | March 7, 2008 10:22 PM

A while back the astute comment was made that it was the left not the right that made abortion and gay marriage issues. If these were indeed privacy issues, they wouldn't be used by either side the way they are. Sadly, we have a winner take all system that is fueled by sound bites and stereotypes of The Other as evil. People like Jim Wallis could do a lot to change this, but mostly he just rephrases liberal arguments in religious terms. It's sad, and it nearly obliterates the helpful truth that there are liberals who oppose abortion and gay marriage, and conservatives who care deeply about the poor. Scripture commands us to care for the weak and powerless; otherwise a consistent secular mindset would recognize that they are a drag on our evolutionary progress.
As for homosexuals, God loves them so deeply that they are protected by the same good laws as everyone else. The only way to say otherwise is to twist Scripture abominably, as Ashpenz and Aaron have done above.
11 “Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. 12 Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
As Matt. 19 shows, "eunuch" is about renouncing marriage and genital sexual relations altogether, not some code word to be updated at will. God speaks today through Scripture to guide us, for our good, not to provide templates that we update to accomodate current trends.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 7, 2008 10:46 PM

Rick,
Don't avoid the point, there is a lot of money being poured down the rat hole of the Dept. of Education. All I'm saying is that that money would be better spent on rebuilding crumbling intercity schools. As a conservative my philosophy is to spend education dollars on kids, this is 180 degrees from the Dem philosophy.

The town in Illinois I lived in had one of the lowest per student spending in the state (bottom 25%). But had the highest test scores (top 25%) in the state. Many of the urban schools were getting much more money per student but with lower scores. The catch was our money was actually going towards educating our kids. Again a novel approach for libs.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 7, 2008 11:40 PM

Sorry, Aaron. It was David Dunn I was arguing with. I misunderstood your "is not equal to"
symbol =/=

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 7, 2008 11:46 PM

This is an excellent article. I'm a left-winger - economically, about as left as you can go outside of Cuba - and I like Mike Huckabee. Not because I agree with him on all his policies (I'm skeptical about the consumption tax although the anti-materialist bent of it appeals to me, and I'm dead against the war in Iraq), but because he has shown himself to be a sincere and genuine person who realizes that true Christianity extends beyond the bounds of the typical "social issues" of abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I am anti-abortion, and believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I still vote left, both because I am just as anti-war, and believe just as strongly that the economic injustice that keeps keep in poverty is immoral, and because I live in Canada where the chance of changing policy on either gay marriage or abortion is nil - it would be against the will of the vast majority of the population.

A Huckabee-Obama race would have been my dream: two candidates who genuinely care about and listen to individuals and aim to govern America in their interests (or as the establisment would call them, "populists".) Huckabee is - and I realize this is likely to be a minus for most people, especially Republicans - essentially a Republican Carter: a man of true morals who would apply his faith to every area of his administration.

Posted by: Katherine Wall | March 8, 2008 12:59 AM

When liberals start talking about money and economics as a reason to vote against Republicans and compassion for the poor, etc. there is a few things to consider.

1) Government and liberal policies does not equate to helping the poor. Just because you oppose government helping the poor doesn't mean you are opposed to helping the poor. Government policies may also have the opposite of their intended effect.
2) Envy. If someone is rich, what is that to you. Mind your own business. He or she has been blessed with wealth. Others, for whatever reason, have not. That's ok.
3) Covetousness and stealing. Using the coercive power of government because to take from some people and give to others/yourself is stealing. Even if you use the government.

Liberals make the same mistake that some on the Religious Right do. The government is not the kingdom of God. If you are going to complain about using the government for those ends, do so consistently.

Posted by: Geoff | March 8, 2008 9:12 AM

Geoff -- That's the same tripe that conservatives have been using for the past 30 years. As I've been saying all along, the poor need access and authority, not always, or primarily, money. After all, that was the impetus for the civil-rights movement, especially since many blacks in the South were actually quite wealthy but couldn't vote or go to better schools just because of race. The issues are slightly different today, but I see nothing wrong with government "changing the rules" to benefit the poor.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 8, 2008 9:26 AM

I think that, while Jim Wallis might be right about Evangelical Christian leaders today, he is just wrong about Huckabee:

"Wallis suggests that Huckabee's failure to win the support of evangelical Christian leaders shows that they are more committed to economic conservatism (i.e., s@$%w everybody who doesn't live in an upper income bracket) than they are to social conservatism (i.e., s@$%w everybody who doesn't fit in our traditional boxes). I actually think this is a pretty compelling critique of evangelical Christian leaders. Thanks for pointing out their hypocrisy, Jim. You're spot on.

What Wallis is wrong about is suggesting that Huckabee is some kind of economic progressive. He's not. Mike Huckabee is a social conservative (i.e., s@$%w everybody who doesn't fit in our traditional boxes) and a right wing populist (i.e., s@$%w the rich and anybody else who gets in the way of me doing what I want with my stuff, my women, and my guns)."

Furthermore, as populists typically do, Huckabee doesn't mind scapegoating whatever UNpopular group proves the best target (i.e., gays and lesbians, mormons, etc.) in order to get his people frothing at the mouth.

This guy is a danger. I'm going to assume that Jim Wallis is just guilty of wishful thinking here...and doesn't actually AGREE with Huckabee. But I am wondering...

What is Jim Wallis thinking?!?

For more about What Is Jim Wallis Thinking?!? see http://reclaimingthefword.typepad.com/reclaiming_the_f_word/2008/03/what-is-jim-wal.html

Posted by: Kelly Fryer | March 8, 2008 11:02 AM

If the Family Cohesion isn't addressed, more money won't solve the problem. It might make it worse, as the money spenders gain more power and less ability to admit their own failures. (And of course I intend this as a critique of the system, not individual, dedicated teachers within it.)

Actually, I did no such thing as prove Jeff's point. Family cohesion begins (but doesn't end) with a father having both a stable, generally professional, job and the respect of his wife, kids and community, often in that order. No one is talking about getting urban males those kind of jobs, as they can't get the credentials and don't have the social standing to "cut corners" the way others can and often do.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Rick Nowlin wrote:

That should not surprise you. I've been criticized for saying this, but the conservatives who run the GOP have always been interested only in power for its own sake, often at the expense of actual governance -- a candidate has to fall in line with all its issues for them to support him/her.

Rick, ever heard of Arlen Specter? He's from your neck-of-the-woods...

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Rick, ever heard of Arlen Specter? He's from your neck-of-the-woods...

He's from the other side of the state, BTW. Anyway, the conservatives in my state consistently ran candidate after candidate against him in primary elections but lost, and at key moments he has bent toward the right. He endorsed Rick Santorum for re-election two years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 8, 2008 4:32 PM

How thoughtless of me--I left out something for you to argue about. Job creation through tax cuts isn't necessarily a bunch of hooey. It seems to have worked for John Kennedy, among others.
Peace,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 8, 2008 5:13 PM

Rick the Musician-cool. Seems like it's just us here-no Saturday night gig?
One thing I liked about Huckabee was openness to new ideas. (Even if some were really weird, like a regressive national sales tax.) Bill Clinton succeeded in reforming welfare by doing something unexpected for his party. But Obama doesn't seem to have anything newer than the New Deal--throwing lots of other people's money at a problem. Presumably he and/or Hillary will blame their failures on someone else. (Reagan was still blaming Carter well into his 2nd term.)
So what I like about this blog is when people seem to listen to one another, and find common ground. But of course I don't expect much agreement on my criticism of Hillary and Obama....

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 8, 2008 7:11 PM

carl. your first comment on this thread is a mystery. economic inequality has no relationship to who is smarter or how big a persons country is. i wonder what Wright meant? who is the unequal one? is it based on income?
eg; sounds like the indians immigration policies were as bad as ours.
nice play with the race card again rick.
it's always nice to read jim's views on the people he does not agree with.(the economically conservative wing of the republican party). maybe he will get huckabee into his great awakening sales program.
i'm sure huckabee will do well in politics. he doesn't seem to need a job.

Posted by: jerry | March 8, 2008 7:59 PM

nice play with the race card again rick.

Ignoring or denying race as an issue won't make it go away.

Although most Democrats are reluctant to criticize a popular President like Reagan.

Most African-Americans openly hated him for reasons I won't get into right now.

What Dobson and Obama have in common is that it is difficult to impugn either's character.

No, they don't. I have heard, from a well-placed source, that Dobson is controlling, intolerant and impatient.

A wanted baby is a treasure. But if dad's had his fun and doesn't look forward to raising a child OR paying child support, the unborn child is as useless to him as a Sudanese refugee. And a LOT harder to ignore unless he pressures his pregnant girlfriend to "choose" an abortion. Sad.

From what I've seen, Dad abandoning his child in that way happens primarily in the upper classes. The "richer" guy felt entitled to his fun and was likely to pressure his girlfriend to have an abortion, but the "poorer" guy probably grew up without his father and was determined to make sure he's around or to provide for his kids. But sometimes the relationship between him and the mother is so bad she does not or may not want him around because he makes things worse. That's the case with my 21-year-old niece, who had a daughter out of wedlock last year and has a tumultous relationship with the child's father. (That's one reason you simply cannot isolate abortion from other issues, including the complicated relationships between men and women.) Also, I remember a local story about 15 years or so ago where one guy was robbing grocery stores to get supplies for his child; he did some time for that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 8, 2008 9:54 PM

Rick,
To answer your question, kids from this small city in Illinois generally come from great homes. But you still refuse to respond to the point of how we spend fed. ed. dollars.

So we come back to access and authority. Access and authority are gained by education. I say spend the money on kids, Dems say spend the money on DC administrators making six figure salaries. I believe I'm right, apparently you think the Dems are right. Back to the original point, Conservatives are the ones opening the checkbooks to support charities that give people a leg up to earn access and authority.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 9, 2008 12:11 AM

An error--the first sentence of my third paragraph above should read:

First of all, just categorizing people AS EITHER "liberal" OR "conservative"...

Posted by: Don | March 9, 2008 7:02 AM

More on "Small is beautiful" can be found here. He's talking about ethanol, but I think it's relevant to the discussions above about mandates from Washington that claim to be The One Best Way for small towns and the inner city.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/09/how_government_makes_things_worse/
Concluding quote from the above: "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe," warned Mark Twain, "while Congress is in session." Mark Twain was a humorist, but that was no joke.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 9, 2008 1:22 PM

"Mike is now free to be the prophetic conscience of the Republican Party"

Pardon my dyslexia but I read that to be " ... the pathetic conscience ..."

And until he changes his mind on quarantining people with AIDS or changing your Constitution to align it with his religion's priorities and the heck with the rest of America, he's gonna remain the pathetic voice.

Posted by: doubter | March 9, 2008 3:03 PM

One thing that displeases me is the notion that evangelical conservatives are opposed to combating poverty. This middle-class segment of population FAR out-gives any other.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=110

I believe, right or wrong, these people simply choose a different route to addressing this problem. Many of them hold to the belief that the church ought to be the most influential and active factor in addressing poverty - not government.

Posted by: Marc | March 9, 2008 3:29 PM

"Huckabee in charge of Health and Human Services in a McCain administration?"

Criminy, Kurt. I sure hope not. His ideas about human physiology and the inherent 'unfitnes' of gay Americans absolutely disqualifies him for such a job.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | March 9, 2008 3:59 PM

I came to this site hoping to be inspired & motivated. What I read was very disheartening. Perhaps people should study the bible just a bit before they quote what they have heard about it or taken sections out of context. I do think that extremes on all sides are alienating people. I found it interesting that one poster expressed his frustration with not knowing how to vote given his beliefs (pro-life, pro-social justice, concerned with the environment,anti-war, etc) and no one even responded. It is a conondrum, isn't it? I think there are many of us that may be caught in that dilemmna-trying to live out our faith on a daily basis and basically feeling like both politically parties have abandoned us. For the record, I am Catholic & I guess I can't say would align myself with either party for the stated reasons. I found myself supporting Huckabee even though I didn't agree with him on a lot of issue,because I felt that he at least was taking the long view of this life. As for the Jesus & devil being brothers comment...It's not so far off the biblical mark for any Christian faith. Lucifer-the light bearer (the devil) was originally God's highest angel before he rebelled against God. You look it up for yourself. A little theology could go a long way when it comes to religious prejudice against any faith. Are we all God's children or not?

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 9, 2008 5:42 PM

"You can question peoples heart or motivation, but I will question those who want to spend someone elses money before I question the ones who are willing to spend their own treasure."

Funny, from my reading of Scripture I would say that it's not my money. It IS God's money. The above statement has "American" written all over it.

Posted by: ando | March 9, 2008 8:05 PM

"Mr. Mike Huckabee has a army that everyone is joining and we are going to write his name in. Personal there are a lot that don't like what we have out there to vote for. If you feel like I do then visit:www.forum.hucksarmy.com. We have lawyers, judges, all types of people that is going to write his name in.Come ya'll."

Fantastic!! You folks can do to McCain in 2008 what Nader allegedly did to Gore in 2000. I am going to put www.forum.hucksarmy.com as the tagline on every email I send until election day.

Best,
an Obama supporter

Posted by: carl copas | March 9, 2008 11:14 PM

Jesus says that where YOUR treasure is, your heart lies also, so it is perfectly valid to respect one who spends his or her own money rather than one who spends someone else's. I agree that this is a uniquely American ideal.

Of course, you could say that it's all God's money, making the issue moot to a certain extent.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 10, 2008 12:08 AM

You make some good points. But remember I am refuting the broad brushing that goes on here by SOJO and by Rick and other posters to this site.

You can't refute their broad brushing by painting your own broad strokes.

Further, you don't think Chris' last line, in reference to the words of Rev. Wallis and others who post here, is also a broad stroke?--"It is all mush, invented by people who don't know what they are talking about."

D

Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 11:27 AM

Jeff, I honestly didn't sense either Rick or Rev. Wallis painting broadly, but I sure have noticed you doing it--which is why I directed my original comments to you, not to both of you. Rick backs up what he writes with evidence, at least most of the time. And it isn't very hard to find people who fit into Wallis' box pretty snugly--they have been the self-proclaimed spokespeople for so-called conservative Christians over the last quarter century or so. Actually, the box was created by them, not by Rev. Wallis.

So your complaint should be directed to those so-called spokespeople who claim to be speaking for you and all conservative Christians. They are the ones who are trying to box you, not Wallis, who is only pointing out what they are doing.

To be honest, I stay out of these government programs vs. private charity debates. I don't really have strong convictions on the topic and tend to think that we should concern ourselves with getting the work done and less with how it should be financed. To me, this debate seems like arguing about who should rearrange the Titanic's deck chairs.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 12:16 PM

kevin s,

Why is the shellfish as abomination reference a "fallacy"??? The words are just as 'clear' as they are about men lieing with men.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | March 10, 2008 12:29 PM

To clarify...do certain Christians believe that God only created or loves certain people? Or some are superior to others?

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 10, 2008 12:32 PM

Sonia wrote:
"To clarify...do certain Christians believe that God only created or loves certain people? Or some are superior to others?"
Here's what I think:
Genesis tells us that
ALL of God's creation is good
and, speaking of himself, Jesus said
"For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only Son"
God doesn't change; He still loves like a Father waiting, longingly, even sadly, for each to return and accept forgiveness through Jesus. In spite of the simple eloquence of Jesus' story of the prodigal son, many people don't want forgiveness, but a weak, uncaring sort of "acceptance" that says: change is unnecessary; keep eating the waste those pigs are eating.
"Acceptance" of this sort is easy, and lazy(liberal Protestants), as is condemnation of those whose sins are different than yours(fundamentalists, as least as portrayed in the media). But God didn't make a mistake when he gave his good laws to protect everyone. Without claiming to be an expert, I nonetheless think it generally isn't that complicated to figure out how Old Testament applies, or not, today. If it involves religious ritual, Jesus fulfilled that on the cross. If it involves things like eating shellfish or pork, those are sanitary regulations for a long-gone theocratic community in the Middle East. But the Ten Commandments, including laws concerning incest and homosexuality, still protect us today.
Other laws had to do with caring for the poor; those seem awfully relevant as well!
Blessings. Peace.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 10, 2008 3:32 PM

Well put, Sonia!

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 10, 2008 3:44 PM

But the Ten Commandments, including laws concerning incest and homosexuality, still protect us today. Other laws had to do with caring for the poor; those seem awfully relevant as well!

I actually no longer subscribe to the Ten Commandments -- for me the two ("Love the LORD your God will all your heart, strength, soul and mind; and your neighbor as yourself") will do nicely. Do that and you have the general purpose; the rest represent details.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 10, 2008 3:55 PM

Ha Ha! I get it! So-it's just like one of my famiy reunions without the drunk uncle & somebody locked in the bathroom crying? All appologies to my family of course.
Seriously, I am often struck by the something St. Francis of Assissi said, "Preach the gospel at all times, and use words if necessary." Or something to that effect.
That was what I liked about Huckabee-at least he is doing something & not just talking about doing something. Again, I definitely don't agree with him on every issue, but I hold every life to be sacred whether that life is in poverty or 100 years old in a nursing home. We need to do better by our fellow man if we are to call ourselves Christians. And it's not going to happen by bickering amongst ourselves:) We our so blessed in this country with more than enough to meet our needs many times over.
Now I am rambling Witness for Peace! Sorry!

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Another question, why is it an anomaly to be prolife,anti-death penalty, pro-social justice, and anti-war? Doesn't it make sense to want life for everyone? I feel like some kind of Catholic or something;)

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 10, 2008 4:34 PM

It's not an anomaly at all, Sonia! That perspective is why I subscribed to Sojourners for years. They seem to have gradually shifted in recent years to a more partisan stance. Even in the generally postive Huckabee article, Jim Wallis spends a lot of time blasting the Religious Right, "And that is why I say [again and again and again....]the monologue of the Religious Right has ended and the evangelical agenda has broadened"
His own monologue now soft peddles or ignores issues like homosexuality and abortion. Apparently this is because most of his support comes from liberal democrats--rather than the "consistent pro-life" crowd, which cuts right across partisan lines.
But he and Ron Sider are the best we've got, so God bless 'em both!

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 10, 2008 4:48 PM

If there is even ONE person out there who is not yet tired of reading what I write, there is a little playlet on my blog. And of course many other posts. A few of them are even brief, and perhaps fun to read?
www.joyfulreality.blogspot.com

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 10, 2008 5:20 PM

"I feel like some kind of Catholic or something" Sonia S.

It feels good, doesn't it?

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 10, 2008 6:06 PM

Neuro and Sonia:
I'll bet it feels good!
Thank God for Catholic schools.
And Catholic Charities. In my state, they were particularly good at placing special needs children, but were forced by the gay lobby to stop all placements because they wouldn't defy Catholic teaching and place children in gay households. And the cries of the children go up to God.....

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 10, 2008 7:31 PM

Rick,
I would say vouchers could help everyone or no one depending on how the system is used. Is the inner city school system generally working well? We know what we are getting with the current system. If I didn't care, I would say keep going with what we are doing. My taxes will be the same, my kids will still get a great education in the suburb I live in. But we need to do something to give inner city kids a chance. Education is the path to access to authority and opportunity. My point is Dem. philosophy has not help open that door. Can we agree that we need to do better?

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 10, 2008 9:35 PM

okay, I am biased about vouchers because my kindergartner & 3rd grader both go to Catholic school. Their public school is excellent & my daughter attended for kindergarten (now in 3rd grade). I also was a special education teacher for this same public school district for 7 years. In many ways, it is superior to their Catholic school when it comes to resources, facilities & teacher training. Still, I made the decision to transfer my daughter. She would have gotten a great education, bt something was missing. I continue to pay taxes, too & now must provide transportation both ways because there is no bus service that stops at their school from our attendance area. I am not wealthy, nor am I in poverty. Nor am I the only parent that has found themselves in this situation. It is a financial hardship for us & both kids are receiving partial scholarships from the parish in return for much volunteer time from me. I don't have a problem with vouchers quite honestly if we look at why people are leaving, where they are going, and making sure all children are learning. Do you honestly think vouchers are going to benefit the ultra-rich? Shouldn't a faith-based (or at least a safe)education be accessible to any family that desires that for their child?

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 10, 2008 9:58 PM

Thanks for sharing that, Sonia. Both of my daughters have attended Catholic schools, one of them all the way through elementary school.
As for the lunchtime prayers, it's the intimidation factor than can be more decisive than the laws. Like a five year should be forced to know their rights and stand up to an adult!
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 10, 2008 10:17 PM

A typo in my last post. It should have read:

... the very attraction of a private or strong public education is precisely that not everyone can get one.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 10, 2008 11:07 PM

I guess I don't qualify as "every parent that knows" and neither do most parents in the Midwest or our schools. Most schools here whether they are public or private welcome children with open arms. It certainly doesn't increase the value of a school it is somehow "exclusive" for 5 year olds. I don't think I am alone in saying this. I think that attitude is part of the problem with these discussions. Are "the leaders" so out of touch with what the average person is experiencing?

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 11, 2008 12:42 AM

Rick, I missed something: who elected the ACLU or the conservative Christians with whom they are supposed to have cooperated? Laws are made by state and federal legislators, who answer to the citizens through elections. The ACLU answers to no one, even if they meet with Christians sometimes. Only by threat of a lawsuit were they even "invited to the table." If they don’t like the way the Constitution had been interpreted for the previous 200 years, let them propose amendments. Lawsuits and court rulings are an unconstitutional form of amendment. Liberal advocacy groups predicate their work on this undemocratic premise. Even if one occasionally agrees with their stated goals, their methods are an abomination in a democracy.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 11, 2008 6:16 AM

I guess I don't qualify as "every parent that knows" and neither do most parents in the Midwest or our schools. Most schools here whether they are public or private welcome children with open arms.

That's not the case a couple of hours east of you, I can guarantee you that, or in most major urban centers; the battle lines are drawn in those kind of places. Yes, I know it at one time had its own voucher program; however, the results proved negligible.

The Clintons sent their daughter to an exclusive private school when they were in Washington.

That was their choice, specifically because they didn't want her in the limelight all the time; however, they had the money to do so in their own right. What I find repulsive is people wanting to use public money, basically, to enhance their class status, which vouchers represent in practice.

Speaking of the ACLU, its primary focus is the use of institutional heft to squelch unpopular viewpoints. It went against Christian groups in the 1980s because that's just what they were doing, using their "authority" to shut others down; while I don't know the specifics I imagine that's what happened with the Catholic Charities situation.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Our differences are to be embraced, not feared or avoided. The only reason my kids go to catholic school is so that their faith can be part of their whole day & not compartmentalized & they can feel free to talk about all people's beliefs systems.

Catholics started their own schools because in those days the public schools were dominated by Protestant culture, which was then hostile to Catholicism. That changed only in 1962, after which the Christian school movement started.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 11, 2008 10:59 AM

"Lighten up folks!… feel free to talk about all people's beliefs systems."
Blessed are the peacemakers, Sonia!
OK, the ACLU is not the source of all the world’s ills. ( They are apparently a shade better than Americans United for Separation of Christianity and State, who come to court again & again to kick out elementary school Bible clubs.) Please read the link about Catholic Charities; that was a pure, unnecessary assault on religious beliefs.
http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/15/kids_take_back_seat_to_gay_agenda/
Catholicism was suppressed by the "Bluebloods" here in Massachusetts until demographics and population dispersion gave them more votes in the legislature. In some ways, the church is more united than ever under an assault that is arguably more relentless here than in other parts of the country. It is disturbing nonetheless.
As for "people's beliefs systems:" under the reign of the ACLU, we end up knowing hardly anything about any religion, since only a sanitized version is allowed in the classroom. My daughter was forced to study an incredibly biased play about the Scopes Monkey Trial, leading one to believe William Jennings Bryan was some ignorant buffoon, rather than a populist and a pacifist Christian nominated for President three times by the DEMOCRATS! His opponents were the money forces back East; i.e. the rich folk in his own party and among the Republicans. So while the ACLU is not automatically wrong, the balance has shifted so far from freedom that it is a serious problem. Things might be different where you folks live, so give me a break if your experience has been better.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 11, 2008 11:23 AM

“I have attended Protestant bible studies-where I have still heard misconceptions about Catholics (i.e. that Catholics are not Christians).”

My father-in-law is a Baptist pastor. A large part courting my wife was having long conversations about theology with both my wife and her father. My wife and I respect each other’s beliefs and would not have married each other is we did not share the same commitment to Christ.

That being said, there are Protestants out there who believe that Catholics aren’t Christians. Once when my wife’s family and I went to lunch with some of the members of my father-in-law’s church I overheard one of the young men from that church ask his father if Catholics would go to heaven. His father’s response was, “Only God knows that.”

The argument, as I understand it, is that since Catholics do not accept Luther’s sola fide (by faith alone) interpretation, we can’t possibly be Christians. I have found that the basis for the belief that Catholics aren’t Christian is usually ignorance of Catholic doctrine.

That being said, I’ve never heard anyone on this blog express that belief.

Should you find yourself in that situation again, there are a number of books I can recommend:

“What Catholics Really Believe” by Karl Keating
“Where Is That in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid
“Truth and Tolerance” by Joseph Ratzinger (yeah, that Ratzinger)
“Not By Faith Alone” by Robert Sungenis
I also own a copy of “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating, but I’ve not read it yet.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 12:17 PM

OK, a few more rnadom but pertinent thoughts:

Sonia: I wasn't writng about the ACLU with you in mind. I think everyone here assumes you know what you're talking about and values your contributions, so no need for those defensive embellishments on your otherwise thoughtful posts.

Catholics: Yes, I was one of those who as a young child in the 60's was told that my Catholic neighbors "weren't really" Christians. Later I was told that most United Presbyterians (now PC-USA) and United Methodists "weren't really" Christians. As a parent I try to make sure that when I talk with my children I am fair to people who belong to denominations that believe different things from myself.

Inherit the wind: A worthwhile movie, as long as you keep in mind that it was not meant to be historically accurate and for that reason they changed the names. Problem is, most people's understanding of the Scopes trial has been for the most part based on that film's portrayals of Darrow and Bryan. I saw it as a thoughtful movie overall, but think it would have been better if it had a disclaimer at the beginning saying straight-out that it took liberties with the actual historical event. Simply changing the names was not sufficient.

Some corrections on the actual facts of Bryan at the trial can be found in Huston Smith's excellent book "Why Religion Matters." He may have come across as a buffoon, but according to Smith, was not anywhere near as silly as the movie portrayed him.

Posted by: I and I | March 11, 2008 12:52 PM

We have a most cordial Foursome plus going on here, and I hope it doesn’t die out. Am I projecting, or is this like a smaller "face to face group" (a brick and mortar group??) where people feel less need to impress everyone with their emphatic eloquence?

Someone said (Jim Wallis?) that many of the wounds of the Christian Right are self inflicted, and there is much truth in that. But William Jennings Bryan is not the religious right, and it’s disturbing that schools allow him to be caricatured and it’s OK with nearly everybody. There are so many points on which people are just not being well educated. My daughter gets mostly A’s, and aside from Latin, she doesn’t seem to be learning anything that I didn’t, in spite of going to a public school with strict admission requirements. (I attended both urban and rural schools, neither of them distinguished for getting kids into the supposed "Top" schools.) She’s learning plenty about the liberal view of the world, but few critical thinking skills. We get along well, so I think it’s OK to generalize. (I asked her if she thinks I'm a liberal or a conservative, and she answered "A little of both" so I know she's been listening to me. Not bad for a 15yo, says her proud father...)
Still, if a good school is this bad……

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 11, 2008 1:36 PM

Well, I think these postings are primarily about how people interact with one another. No one is going to prove much intellectually in a small space. So it's about who we each are, and why and how we believe. That's why I used my resume of the typical course of argument here shortly after Sonia joined. (who then compared it to a less than perfect family reunion!)
Education is as good a foil as any. But, closer to the point/topic:

Take Huckabee's statement(below): I think MH is just saying, or proving, that Dobson is out of touch. It doesn't mean he's wrong about families or the sanctity of life; I happen to agree with Huckabee and Dobson on these issues, although the way they present them is not always to my taste

"Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life. It just means that they also realize that we have real responsibility in areas like disease and hunger and poverty and that these are issues that people of faith have to address."

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 11, 2008 5:22 PM

Rick-
Sorry if my earlier post sounded defensive-it just seems like I wasn't getting myself across very well. I'm definitely not trying to stir up trouble.
Also, I wasn't the person that posted about William Jennings Bryan.
Anyway, back to Mike Huckabee...You've gotta admit he played a mean game of air hockey on The Colbert Report;)

Posted by: Sonia S. | March 11, 2008 10:08 PM

I never responded to your comment about Dobson being controlling. I have found that a characteristic of nearly all the leaders I know. It kinda goes with the territory, doesn't it?

I don't see it that way -- whenever I've found leadership controlling I challenge it because it's focused on maintaining its own authority rather than speaking for God. Over a decade ago I managed to avoid a cult because I don't put up with that.

Anyway, my point was that a lot of these "religious" right figures simply were not used to being challenged -- they wanted and expected the final word.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 11, 2008 11:44 PM

There is a lot of judgment involved. Since you disagree with many of Dobson's stands anyway, you are not in a good position to judge him as an individual.

That's not exactly true, and even if it were it still doesn't mean that you disrespect people who don't think exactly the way you do, which Dobson has always done, even with fellow Christians -- the problem is not so much his stances but his tone. However, that tone is what has made him a rich man because people in those days simply were looking for a scapegoat. One reason he's losing his authority today is that more and more people are getting beyond that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 12, 2008 8:42 AM

I think he lost a lot of endorsements because folks were sure he couldn't win. Were they being calculating and untrue to their principles? Or just exercising common sense and their right to choose whom to endorse, or not......

It goes back to what I've always said -- many of the conservatives demanded lock-step allegiance to their agenda and won't endorse (and, in some cases, will actively oppose) anyone who doesn't follow it. The trouble is that, in and outside religious circles, such an attitude is getting old. That's why Huckabee became so problematic for the "religious right" -- he wouldn't answer to it but maintained a following anyway.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 12, 2008 1:54 PM

Are there any Christian leaders you particularly admire?

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the reasons I became a Christian in the first place. Billy Graham was one of his supporters and in the past 30 years has stood up to the "religious right" because he knew personally what happened when you get too close to politicians. I consider John Perkins the closest thing to an evangelical King, and my favorite Christian writer is Philip Yancey.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 12, 2008 10:41 PM

What Jim Wallis has written about Mike Huckabee supports my own, inner awareness about the need to hold paradox and, therefore, the need to be aware of my own black-and-white-only polarizations about people. I do know that polarizing characterizations and gross projections are especially easy to foist onto public figures – witness the current election process (as well as some of the contributions being made to this blog)!

At the same time that I want to be aware of such tendencies in myself, I also want to be informed enough to exercise whatever discernment is possible, with regard to who have been (and still are) the presidential candidates. Given that, I must admit that, overall, I have had very profound misgivings about Mike Huckabee. I fear that he may be taking a mostly politically expedient stance about some of the issues Jim has described. Perhaps that is not the case, but from some of the research I have done on him, I am concerned that his “distancing” from certain far-right perspectives might be more image than substance.

For starters, check out “The Huckabee Factor” by Zev Chafets (published in the New York Times Magazine), in which he describes Huckabee as a “premillennialist evangelical.” His full article helped to fuel my concerns that Huckabee is concealing his more extremist beliefs, including aspects that Chafets sheds light on such as Huckabee’s endorsement by Tim Lahaye (and his endorsement of LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series), and quoted segments of Huckabee’s book, “Character Makes A Difference”[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/magazine/16huckabee.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=print]

Incidentally, the lead-in to this article read:

"How a former governor with no money, no organization and no real policy platform or international know-how - but with lots of religious faith, populist sentiment and folksy friendliness - has changed the dynamics of the Republican presidential race."

Some time ago, when my husband and I originally read this intro, we thought, oh, no, Bush redux. Please let this not be the presidential blueprint …

Finally my concern leads me also to invite readers to look up an article called “Holy Constitution!” by Joe Conason (posted January 18, 2008) [http://nevadathunder.com/?p=5046]. This is an article that traces, with more specificity, the ultra-conservative – and even Christian Dominionist – roots that have helped to form Mike Huckabee’s character.

I hope that people might be interested to do more of their own research on any of the concerns I have shared herein.

Posted by: Temenos | March 13, 2008 8:00 PM