'...beyond the religious right's hot-button issues of abortion and gay...' - 'Just some more signs of how the religious and political winds are changing.'

I don't think that the winds are changing. The wind blows and we don't know where it came from or where it goes. But we adjust our sails. Many of us 'conservatives' have care and worked on several issues over the years. We are not the two demensional bastards that some paint us to be. So I am Wallis' Jew and I don't want to be here anymore. I loved the discussion and verbal (written) volleyball. I have had several issues 'softened' by what I have read but Wallis' labeling is too much.

Yes I am conservative but I do care about several social issues and have worked to improve the blight of many.

Mr. Wallis - may you have a long life and much success. May God bless you and your family now and in the years to come. But this is one conservative that has tried to find middle ground and finds the intollerance of your writing something that I do not want to deal with.

Blessings to all of you - Bye and no I do not plan on coming back.

Kevin S. - Still have your phone number and will call you for a beer in the next few weeks.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 25, 2008 4:33 PM

God be with you till we meet again;
By His counsel's guide, uphold you,
With His sheep securely fold you;
God be with you till we meet again.

Till we meet, till we meet,
Till we meet at Jesus’ feet;
Till we meet, till we meet,
God be with you till we meet again.

Posted by: Moderatevlad | April 25, 2008 6:47 PM

Jim---

Thanks for mentioning my blog post!

I was blown away by the music and your speech.

What can I say? I'm a former conservative evangelical (I went to Hillsdale College for goodness sake!) turned moderate Episcopalian. Thanks for all that you're doing. I believe the political winds are changing, indeed---and not a moment too soon. I'll spread the good word.

Peace,

Cameron Conant

Posted by: Cameron Conant | April 26, 2008 2:30 AM

And when gay marriage and abortion are championed once again by progressives that have deluded enough "young" Christians, things will swing back again to Christians being Christians and respect the whole council of God. They won't be fooled by progressive theology once it rears its ugly head again. Repentance and forgiveness are immutable truths in Christian life. The veneer of helping the poor which is causing authentic Christians to come on board the politics train of Sojo, will jump off once they see the train wreck a comin'.

Posted by: Test all things | April 26, 2008 8:32 AM

Episcopalian equals "fallen away"?
AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!

The press is always in Wallis' corner?
I can only guess you haven't watched much news lately.
Ever hear of a guy named Rupert?
2+2='s 4

debarrio, you are creating things to fear.

Mod lad I for one wish you would reconsider.

Blessings

Posted by: wayne | April 26, 2008 10:44 AM

The political winds are changing, but I am surprised that more liberals (or whatever I have to call them to avoid an inane discussion about labeling) aren't worried about where they're blowing.

In the short term, things look good. Obama is charismatic enough to make people feel good about voting for him. People are highly aware of climate change. Voters are sick of the Iraq War. The Republican's in the Senate are very vulnerable for a host of reasons.

But let's look to 2010. The environmentalists did a lot of work convincing Americans to care about the environment, then put all their bets on ethanol, which will be blamed for impending food shortages.

If Iran gets ahold of a nuclear bomb, the peaceniks are going to be blamed (fairly or no). People will demand a war, and hold Obama in contempt for as long as he refuses to engage in one, which he will eventually.

For the same reasons that Senate Republicans are vulnerable in 2008, Democrats will be similarly vulnerable in subsequent elections.

Wallis and Co. won't have George W. Bush to beat up on anymore. Bush has been the rallying cry that has made this movement more mainstream. Nobody cared about Sojourners when they were offering muted praise of the Clinton administration.

As such, why not lay the groundwork for new ideas, and a new platform against which a president Obama can be judged? Instead of talking about changing the wind, and finding some sort of third way, why not articulate it in concrete terms? Does anyone at Sojo have the guts to do it?

If not, the Sojourners has a very definite expiration date. Maybe that's the point. After the 2008 elections, Sojourners can declare "mission accomplished" and Wallis can find work at a think tank or lobbying firm.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 26, 2008 12:54 PM

"Wallis and Co. won't have George W. Bush to beat up on anymore. Bush has been the rallying cry that has made this movement more mainstream."

No one has been "beating up" on George Bush. This is not about unspiritual political partisanship in pursuit of wielding power for power's sake.

It is all about being a prophetic voice to call government, regardless of party affiliation, to account.

Partisan ideologues simply denounce those of the opposing "party" regardlessof whether they do right in God's eyes or not, for they are competing for worldly power, to see who can claim those kingdoms offered to Jesus if only He would "bow down."

When the President and his assistants do good, they are worthy of praise - and I have seen Jim Wallis offer such praise here to George Bush.

Additionally, Jim and the Sojourners staff have exhorted us to pray for Republican leaders, too.

From a Christian standpoint, the argument isn't over manmade ideologies - it's about how individuals of conscience pursue goals for good with the tools they believe will work, instead of using them for ill, in pursuit of selfishness, greed and cruelty, as has so often become the case of late.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 26, 2008 2:45 PM

Moderatelad, et. al.: You may want to reread the post. You are taking offense to words the "drive-bys" via AP put in Jim Wallis' mouth. I wouldn't want you guys to be a victim of the sound bite media. How ironic would that be?

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 26, 2008 2:59 PM

Great post, Jim Wallis. I can only hope that what you are saying is coming true and that the political winds are changing. Thank you for being there for us!

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 26, 2008 3:22 PM

"Your politics, you find much agreement only there with me, but examples such as you just shared about giving up your home to immigrints in need."

That is good, of course. But note how the choice of which immigrants are helped often coincides with a particular political and racial orientation. Immigration, including from which countries. remains highly politicized.

Many on the right have favored ethnic European immigration from Russia while opposing indigenous peoples' immigration from within the Americas, because they favor refugees from communism. That is why refugees from Cuba get immediate legal residence while even more desperate ones from Haiti are shackled in cages and returned, in addition to the appearance that there is an element of racism due to Cubans largely being European while HAitians are of African heritage.

Why this should be a left/right issue when it ought to be a simple issue of human rights, freedom and fairness is a tragedy.

BTW, it's falsely taking offense to say this: "Had one guy here damn my Son In Law for being involved in the biggest Maritime Drug bust in our American History ."

First of all, neither Sojourners nor Jim Wallis, in particular, is responsible for waht I post any more than they are for what you do.

Moreover, pointing out the deficiencies of policies that put an overemphasis on militarism in a futile and unending "war on drugs" is not the same thing at all as "damning" and particular Coast Guard member.

One wonders what it is about our society, supposedly the "greatest" according to some that the earth has ever seen, that has drawn our people to be so hungry for the escape of drugs that we now incarcerate fully 25% of the world's prison population? Have we become Stalinist, to the extent that when our latest efforts at a "Five Year Plan" for drug interdiction fail, that we redouble our mistakem efforts?

One definition of insanity, is doing the same failed things over and over and expecting different results.

I don't belive our failed policies of drug prohibition are succeeding any more than our failed attempts at alcohol Prohibition, except to perversely increase lawlessness and imprisonment.

And I say this as someone who believes both alcohol and drug consumption are enormously destructive.

We need to get to the roots of our problems. Our society has become sicker as it has become greedier - often even perversely merging greed and religion, as if somehow that were a genuine defense of free enterprise - and we are paying the enormous price.

It is profoundly unAmerican to pretend otherwise and there are those who truly love their fellow Americans who see it that way and are therefore motivated equally by patriotism.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | April 26, 2008 3:33 PM

Once just for old times -

It does not matter to many of the Wallisites here what I do for the poor - sick - immigrant etc. Because I am conservative and white male - I am wrong.

Chirstian Love - when Wallis and Co. broad brushes conservatives as only worried about two issues. Where is the love there?

Drive by - sound bites. What do you think ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN have done for years with conservatives. Even today they are trying to frame McCain with Haggie but we are to look the other way with Obama and Wright.

I was never looking to convert - I was more interested in understanding than agreement. I know my convictions and wanted to understand more why the other side thought / believed the way they did.

I and most of the conservatives at multi-demensional people but Wallis will never admit that because then he will not be able to get his pound of flesh. (we are thinking about doing the Merchant of Venus this fall because it is in public domain and long with my job the district has cut the 3 Act plays at the high school)

There is middle groung just not here and I am tired of the labeling.

Do I care about what is happening in the world - YES. Do I care about what Wallis and Co have to say - not any more.

For the record - I am a conservative that now believes that we can somehow make Healthcare affordable. I will never agree with a Gov't Run System like Wallis is promoting. But I will work with member of congress to put together a paradyme that would be best for all. I changed my attitude because of some on this site and because of what Ben Stein has said. Yup - the same Ben that so many villified him on this site for EXPELLED - whatever.

So - that is why I feel that my time here is not worth it. I am not intollereant just can't tollerate the way some including Wallis treat others.

So - you now can have your own liberal love fest with no interference from this CHRISTIAN conservative. You can say anything you want on any topic and never be challenged by the likes of me. I take no pleasure in saying this but again - there is no pleasure in staying with Sojo when they have no respect for people like me.

Blessings to all and malice towards none.

Moderatelad of MN

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 26, 2008 4:28 PM

"Chirstian Love - when Wallis and Co. broad brushes conservatives as only worried about two issues. Where is the love"

I have a whole editorial from Jim Dobson and Focus On the Family that explains their reasoning as to why only those two issues, and those alone, are important to their ministry focus, and why "Values Voters" ought to make those the only basis for voting.

But how can that be? From Franco to Pinochet, there are innumerable dictators who could have passed that test with flying colors, and yet ruled with cruelty and murderous dementia.

This is not some made-up false rumor - Joel Hunter, the theologically conservative new leader of the Christian Coalition lasted less than two months when he tried to add other related pro-life issues besides those two alone. The board determined those were, indeed the only two issues they wanted to focus on and they rejected anything else. They were concerned they had the best dynamic for fundraising, which was their main concern - and had determined their base considered any issues other than those "divisive."

Moreover, it's more than possible to remain committed to core Christian pro-life principles, while extending them consistently across what some very conservative theologians have also characterized as "a seamless garment" sacred approach to all human life - from beginning to end.

Who are the real conservatives - in terms of conserving the historic essentials of what Christ has taught us? Certainly not the nationalistic uber-patriots who think you love your enemy by killing him, and try to justify that by a veneer of religious wording, by making out our Savior to be some sort of War Jesus.

Real Christianity is not making out the Marine Corps to be some sort of religious brotherhood - "it's alright to give your heart to Jesus, as long as you remember your ass belongs to the Corps." That brotherhood, instead of being about laying down your life for your brother, is rather about giving the enemy the maximum opportunity to die for his cause, as Patton correctly observed.

Where is the love? is a good question.

Posted by: N. M. Rod | April 26, 2008 7:18 PM

"So - that is why I feel that my time here is not worth it. "

We understand. So long and blessings.

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 26, 2008 8:13 PM

moderatelad -- I'm sorry that you feel you need to leave this blog.

Having said that, however, I must say this: It is my observation that you and other conservatives came here simply to browbeat us "non-conservatives" into submission, always telling us where we are wrong and demanding that we see things your way. Well, there are deeply committed Christian folks who have a different view and who read the Scriptures with other emphases, and we believe with all our heart that, for the sake of the Gospel and the Body of Christ, they need to be brought to the evangelical table. Yet we have been turned away time and time again for not being "politically correct"; in many situations our very faith in Christ has been questioned because we dared question the conservative agenda. That's why this blog exists.

If you want to disagree with the articles published here that is your right, but to call it a "liberal love-fest" ignores the context in which it exists. It's not sufficient to say that Sojo be more "balanced"; the same should be also said to conservative media ministries as well, which are themselves hardly balanced -- last month I was on another Christian blog on which the founder called Barack Obama a "socialist," and I said in response that he owed Obama and the Body an apology for slander.

Furthermore, I think that criticism of the conservative agenda, including its hypocrisies, is not only healthy but necessary. Unfortunately, however, it has been my experience (and I'm sure also the experience of others here) that anyone who dares question it is personally attacked, which I believe says something about their critics' Christian character. That gets dangerously close to idolatry, defined as putting something ahead of God -- and at that point a relationship is no longer possible.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 26, 2008 10:24 PM

"Do you have any examples of a non-editorial content that have reflected any of the criticisms against Wallis?"
One of the problems with the news is the huge amount of editorial content. That is the proper forum for opinion, pro and con, right?
To focus only on non editorial content seems a little off don't you think?
Every national news has conservative members reporting and editorializing, every major city has local representatives of conservative thinking on the air waves. The conservative voice is loud and heard often. The days when conservatives could complain about the liberal press are long gone.
debarrio is living in the past, you do not.

Posted by: wayne | April 27, 2008 11:18 AM

"Maybe you should start a blog that contains these new ideas. "

I'm not the one claiming to have them, but I am open and forthright about the policies I endorse.

"Nowhere near Robertson's, however; whatever it is, he can't afford to spend it on TV and doesn't beg for funds."

The guy does press conferences all the time that make the air, and I get e-mails all the time from Sojo asking for money.

"It is my observation that you and other conservatives came here simply to browbeat us "non-conservatives" into submission, "

I don't think Moderatelad is trying to browbeat anyone. And if he is, certainly the browbeating label would apply to some of the more left-leaning individuals here. How else do you explaing this comment:

"Moderatelad needs the attention he gets from us.
If he had his own blog no one would show up."

"that anyone who dares question it is personally attacked, "

I have seen very few instances here where you have been personally attacked.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 27, 2008 1:19 PM

"One of the problems with the news is the huge amount of editorial content."

Why is this a problem?

"That is the proper forum for opinion, pro and con, right?"

Tell that to the New York Times but, yes.

"To focus only on non editorial content seems a little off don't you think?"

No. Being the recipient of fawning non-editorial press is much more valuable, and Wallis is such a recipient.

"The days when conservatives could complain about the liberal press are long gone."

I disagree, for the reason above, but that is a different discussion.

"This characterization of the Religious Right being a single-issue voting machine is not at all inaccurate, and many in that group would tell you that themselves."

There are members of both parties who vote exclusively on the abortion issue. But Wallis leverages these broad brush statements in a defense of a pro-choice stance.

Conservative Christians care about a large number of issues. Else, we would not have an advanced network of homeschooling associations, for example.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 27, 2008 1:34 PM

"What they care about, primarily, is establishing themselves as the authority in this culture and not to have their views held up to scrutiny in the process . . ."

That's a pretty broad generalization. Religious conservatives, like religious liberals and apolitical religious people, have a variety of motives and pursue a variety of objectives. Some perhaps pursue power for its own sake, some are obsessed with particular issues. But most of us are a bit more complex than that.

Posted by: Gordon | April 27, 2008 3:20 PM

What I discern is that because say I tend to be in support of God, family, and His word. I tend to side with the groups that espouse those things. So I will get the story by people I respect in their circels, from whats wrong with socilaiized medicine, to the prejudice involved with Affirmitive action.

That is why I said that conservatives' ambition ultimately is to become the cultural elite. Many of the conservative leaders I'm aware of have as their mantra "I got mine and to hell with you," which is categorically opposed to the Gospel, and I don't hear how they propose to make the opportunities and privileges they have available to all. I, personally, am against abortion and suspicious of gay rights, but I have problems with almost every other position identified with conservative ideology.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 27, 2008 3:45 PM

"Especially when it comes to the race issue."

You've been attacked for your race? I have not seen that.

"What they care about, primarily, is establishing themselves as the authority in this culture"

Who is they? The formulation of homeschooling associations was not about establishing authority, though there is strength in numbers, which is the whole idea behind associations.

"and not to have their views held up to scrutiny in the process"

Yeah, and the lefties here are THRILLED to receive scrutiny. Barack Obama loves scrutiny. Please.

"in other words, they want to be the elite."

Again, who is they? Homeschoolers? No.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 27, 2008 4:56 PM

If you refuse to drop the original topic, in desperation they might insinuate you're not Christian, you're a pinko commie/socialist, you're in league with the devil or you're a traitor, a 'surrender monkey' or whatever they deem appropriate.

Justintime, I was recently told (well, it was insinuated to me) that I was mentally disturbed. Or rather, that all "liberals" are actually afflicted with a mental disorder. And to back it up, this person copied an article from that bastion of "balanced" conservative reporting, the World Net Daily.

Neither the author of the article nor the psychiatrist quoted therein, of course, define what they mean by "liberal."

Here's the article, FYI: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

Enjoy!

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 27, 2008 7:46 PM

conservative I once a was, no effects but suffer lasting; believe disorder not it do I mental is a

Posted by: canucklehead | April 27, 2008 9:27 PM

Seen a few hard knocks, eh?

Posted by: justintime | April 27, 2008 9:38 PM

Hi Jesse,

I'm remembering past discussions we've had --

Does raising minimum wage help or hurt the poor?

Does eliminating trade barriers to markets in poor nations help or hurt their economies?

Was torture ever condoned by leaders of the Christian right?

Did we ever settle on a number for dead Iraqis resulting from the occupation of Iraq?

I hope you will stick around, Jesse.
You're a stickler for the facts.
And we need facts, now more than ever.

Posted by: justintime | April 27, 2008 10:04 PM

I'm not sure how home schooling is managed in Washington, Justin, but here in Kentucky they are not subsidized by the state, and they pay the same property and income taxes everyone else does that support the public school establishment. Perhaps you have some different mechanism up there?

Posted by: Gordon | April 27, 2008 10:47 PM

I know a lot of home schoolers, and I know a lot about home schooling. I can't think of anyone I know in the movement who could be remotely described as an elitist. Although some of them (like the Gothardites) sometimes have oddball motives and sometimes use deficient curricula, most are genuinely concerned about the quality of their children's education and the social effects of participation in the public schools.

Posted by: Gordon | April 27, 2008 11:58 PM

By Mod,

I wish you the best.

p

Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 2:51 AM

Rick, do you think homeschoolers are exempt from the property taxes that fund public schools? It makes no sense that they pay for public schools that they don't use. Homeschoolers "elitist"? Dude, get a grip.

In some cases local to me they're trying to get such an exemption.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 8:41 AM

Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 2:51 AM

I wish you the best.

Right back at you - finding out that I am enjoying reading more than posting.

Blessings to you!
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 28, 2008 11:07 AM

As long as we're engaging the devolution.

Inconvenient truths that might be embarrassing to a Democrat - chapter 3

1. When confronted with facts or new information in conflict with officially approved DFL mythology, liberal true believers will argue that it is more important to DO SOMETHING.

2. When facts are backed up with impossible-to-refute hard data, they will quibble about the vast right wing conspiracy, which somehow renders your facts irrelevant.

3. When forced to acknowledge embarrassing realities they will grudgingly concede but claim that their point still stands, without adding any further commentary.

4. Or they will claim that the problem was the fault of conservatives in the first place.

5. If you posit that government might not always be able to solve problems of poverty and injustice, they will tell you that you don't care about poverty and injustice.

6. If you refuse to accept their negative conclusions, they will attempt to end the discussion with a distraction. They might play the Jerry Falwell card or the Pat Robertson card or the Worldnetdaily card.

7. If you refuse to drop the original topic, in desperation they might insinuate you're not Christian, you're a pharisee, you're in league with "big business", or you're an oppressor, that you believe 2+2=5, or whatever they deem appropriate.

8. If you still hold your ground they will cite the fact that other conservatives have insulted them in the past, or that your view is not shared by any of the conservatives they know, or that they used to be conservative and know everything about how conservatives think.

9. If you expose their delusion of victim hood, they will copy and paste a long treatise about how awful conservatives are.

10. Don't worry, someone with a similarly alarmist handle (romeisburning, winstonsmithlives, itsreallyhappenning) will be there to replace them when they get bored, and you'll get to hear all the same arguments repeated almost verbatim.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 11:34 AM

Objectivity in comparing performance of homeschooled children with publicly schooled children:

Although there are studies that conclude that homeschooled students on average do well on standardized tests, these studies generally compare voluntary homeschool testing with mandatory public-school testing. The study organizers cannot require testing. Homeschooled students are not subject to the testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Some states require testing for homeschooled students and some do not; many that do require testing let homeschooling parents choose from more than one evaluation method. Since testing is not required, homeschoolers taking the tests are self-selected, which biases the statistical results. Therefore, the progress of homeschooled students cannot be compared with that of students in public schools.

The demographics of homeschooling are difficult to compare to traditional schools, or even to define. Agencies, parents, and studies may disagree as to which students "count" as homeschooled. Some people have argued that homeschooled students, especially those who are likely to be tested, are an atypical group whose parents care strongly about their education and would also do well in a conventional school.

What options for higher education and career development are available to students homeschooled in 'creationism'?

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 11:59 AM

Now that was just plain silly, Eric.

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 12:17 PM

The Left also has an entire group of their own people dedicated to proving that conservatism is a mental disorder and not just an alternative philosophy worthy of consideration.

justintime is correct -- this is somewhat silly, considering that back in the 1950s the right began building an entire infrastructure that most folks didn't even know about until about 10 years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 12:32 PM

Kevin S and Justintime,
So what you have done is clearly establish that people on the left and right are mirror images of each other both in attitudes and misconceptions about the other side.
Would that we could all get beyond that and have some true dialogue here...

Posted by: squeaky | April 28, 2008 12:52 PM

Thank you squeaky; that was the larger point I was trying to make. We shouldn't be encouraging this type of behavior on this blog.

Posted by: Eric | April 28, 2008 12:57 PM

Squeaky, Eric,

If you don't recognize these attitudes and misconceptions for what they are, you can't really have a true dialogue, now can you?

Attitudes and misconceptions held by the right are not mirror images of those held by the left, no matter how hard Kevin tries to convince us that they are.
They're really asymmetrical and as Rick points out, the left lags far behind the right in fabricating attitudes and misconceptions.
The think tank infrastructure on the right fabricates misconceptions faster than the left can deconstruct and debunk them.

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 1:18 PM

OK, then, Justin - please clarify for me - what exactly is your theory?

Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 1:27 PM

This is not a theory, Gordon.

It costs real tax money to provide services for homeschoolers, as I've tried to point out.
But we taxpayers aren't whining about it.
We just expect to be given credit where credit is due.
And we don't appreciate homeschoolers bad mouthing public schools and frustrating our attempts to improve the public school system.

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 1:34 PM

Why is it silly to point out that some people on the Left have made a point of insisting that conservatism is a mental problem just like some on the Right have done the same with Liberalism?

One, I've never seen that from the "left." Two, if that were happening it's only tit-for-tat because the conservatives have been doing exactly that to the other side for decades. Three, there really is a right-wing infrastructure that promotes such nonsense.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 1:40 PM

OK, Justin, I agree. Some amount of funds, however miniscule, are being spent by the State of Washington on home schoolers. So what? They pay taxes too, and since they mostly don't consume the big-budget items in the state school budget (facilities and teacher salaries), you ought to be grateful for this low-cost alternative that makes most of the education funding to available to those who partake of the public schools in their entirety.

Since your point on this subject was framed in terms of what taxes some home schoolers don't pay, it seemed you were arguing that not paying property taxes meant that the state is subsidizing home schools.

Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 1:57 PM

Gordon,

Many conservatives don't recognize that we ARE the state.
Here in Washington we subsidize home schooling to a much larger degree than you seem willing to admit.
We do this because we want to see home schooled children succeed in the real world.
Everyone loses when our children are poorly educated.

But not everyone is in a position to homeschool their children.
I've noticed many home schoolers gleefully point out the shortcomings of the public school system, which is understandable, but some actively oppose efforts to improve it.

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 2:23 PM

". . . some actively oppose efforts to improve it."

If you say so. I would have to hear the context. Here in Kentucky, opposition to pouring more money into the schools without substantive improvement in methods or governance meets with strong resistance. This is often taken as opposition to improvement of the schools, even though it really isn't.

Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 2:34 PM

Paying for education is an investment in our future.
Just like everything else, when it comes to education you get what you pay for.

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 2:47 PM

"So what you have done is clearly establish that people on the left and right are mirror images of each other both in attitudes and misconceptions about the other side."

That was kinda the point of my post, hence the "devolution" comment. If we're going to offer banal attacks of ideologies at large, then what is the point?

"One, I've never seen that from the "left.""

There was a study sponsored by the National Science Foundation that concluded precisely that conservatives suffered the same mental disorder as Hitler.

"You'll have to back this up with some objective sources, other than from the homeschool movement itself, Kevin."

No I don't. If I present evidence, then you have to present counterevidence. You believe Public Schools when they report their testing results, do you not?

Your case that homeschoolers cost money is untenable. A percentage of homeschoolers DO own property, and pay for an education system that they do not utilize. This obviously outweighs the costs associated with the occasional homeschooled linebacker.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 2:57 PM

Kevin, "Homeschooled students (victims of abuse as they are) perform better then their public school counterparts by any objective assessment. From what I understand, the failure is so pronounced that educators are divising multiple alternative assessments to help students pass."

You'll have to back this up with some objective sources, other than from the homeschool movement itself, Kevin.

Kevin, "No I don't. If I present evidence, then you have to present counterevidence."

But we haven't seen the 'evidence' for the claim you just made, Kevin.
Do you have any?

Posted by: justintime | April 28, 2008 3:36 PM

N.M. Rod, sounds like you and your wife did a great job with home schooling.

Mick, I am sorry that you being a Christian torpedoed your your run for school board.

Interestingly, in northern California where I live, home schooling is just as often the choice of parents who are quite far to the left politically as it is of conservative evangelicals. Some dislike the "factory model" of education offered by public education (a la N.M. Rod), others have children who for one reason or another simply do better with home schooling than in public school.

N.M. Rod: "Everyone ought to be enormously concerned with the welfare of others' children, even while being free to determine personally their own best interests.
Realistically, there are those - a majority - for whom there is no viable alternative other than communally financed public schools, so therefore we ought to make sure that we work as a community to make them the best that we can make them."

This is key. While we should welcome the various options that sincere, loving parents explore--charter schools, home schooling, private schools, open structure--most Americans have no choice other than to send their kids to public school. How can we facilitate choice while ensuring sound, safe, adequately financed public schools?

Posted by: carl copas | April 28, 2008 5:05 PM

"Thats why parents home school , the lack of a give and take , being treated with dignity instead as a problem , to be respected as a parent who knows best instead of a parent that needs to be circumvented .

"And obviously being indoctrinated in a culture where its ok with me , its ok with you , that getting along is more important then right and wrong ."

This is surely a legitimate reason that occurs - school officials need help and ask parents for it - but the policies are neither made by parent input nor is anything other than acceding to what's already been determined appreciated much. So it's good that parents assist, but only if parents are in line with existing policy.

A few words need to be said about the reality of a pluralistic society and the right of people other than Christians to have an equal say in how their children are served within pluralistic settings.

As a Christian with what most would term a conservative bent - belief that abortion's wrong and that homosexual marriage isn't, along with belief that in Jesus God has revealed Himself to humanity and offered Himself, as well as the consequent belief in His command for "loving your enemy," however hard that is to do, by being a servant - I can still see how Mick might have been regarded as a "stealth" religious right candidate.

If you serve with others on such boards, you can't seek to "capture" or exclude. You can't make your hidden agenda returning prayer to public schools or forcing people to learn creation science against their will.

Politics - the art of working together to accomplish things - requires respect and compromise. We can't make serving on a school board another front in the "culture wars." You have to listen, be willing to be practical, be teachable and earn the trust of the public as well as most of the other elected officials. You cannot force people to do things against their will. Making any public service a battleground for ideological warfare is contrary to good governance.

This does not mean you sacrifice your principles. It only means that you adjust them to conform to God's way, which does not involve coercion but consent - and that you truly seek to respect others' good will, regardless of what their ideas might be in differing from yours, while offering your own.

We have seen some spectacular failures by ideologues of both left, then right, of late. Let's move beyond moralistic and legalistic posturing, being respectful of others' legitimate rights to determine policy. We will make so much more headway and we will learn some surprising things ourselves from those "others" that God has given us as a gift, even when we don't immediately recognize that.

Posted by: N. M. Rod | April 28, 2008 7:50 PM

I want to acknowledge that i could be wrong because I don't get by here often, but i must say that i've stopped buying the whole "other issues besides gay marriage and abortion" line. To use the word "other" implies that you feel gay marriage and abortion are issues...just not the only ones. I'm on board with this. However, i can't recall anything that that has been done by the powers that be here at soujourners to work toward ending the injustice of abortion in our nation.

Again, i could be wrong, and if i am i would like to be directed to soujourners work to end abortion. If I'm right and people here really don't think that abortion is at the very least as much of an injustice as, say, polluting the earth, then please stop using that line.

Posted by: Gavin Duerson | April 28, 2008 10:14 PM

N. M. Rod -- Great post.

Gavin -- I just read a ChristianityToday.com story on Wallis, and he made no bones about his distaste for abortion. That said, part of the problem with the abortion issue is that people get all hot and bothered about it but don't consider the outlying issues, most notably bad family relationships and economic problems that contribute to women and girls getting pregnant in the first place. It's simply much easier to raise money against, say, Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 11:37 PM

"i can't recall anything that that has been done by the powers that be here at soujourners to work toward ending the injustice of abortion in our nation."

If you mean by work the legislative achievement of ending abortion in America, I can't recall anything effective that's been done by ANY "powers that be" - no matter who they are.

However, I do know that many Christians oppose abortion, and some have adopted the "seamless garment" approach to the sanctity of all human life from womb to tomb, in addition. Sojourners has been more consistently "pro-life" than single-issue anti-abortion protesters by weaving these other sacred life-affirming stances into that tapestry, rather than leaving them out.

I insist that leaving those out is a lot like having a Bill of Rights that somehow never included African-Americans or indigenous native Americans.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 28, 2008 11:48 PM

re: homeschooling. In Wash., the state, homeschoolers should pay school taxes--homeschooled students may take advantage of specialized classes (like physics, calculus, band, driver's ed., etc.), and the sports/activities programs sponsored by the schools, and paid for primarily by local property taxes.

like public (and private) school students, homeschoolers fall into a large range from brilliant to needing remediation. Not every type of education is appropriate for every kid, but some kids will thrive in any educational environment.

Posted by: Cat | April 29, 2008 1:52 AM

"Let me be perfectly clear , whenever you take a few million dollars of cocaine out of the route directed toward consumers , kids , adults , blacks , white , brown ,you are doing a good thing . The emphasis was not on the policies , and to say so is a blantant lie ."

I'm happy to see any amount from a miniscule amount to tons dumped into the sea.

No one's arguing that drug addiction is bad and harmful. Its existent is a blight on our society and an indictment of the supposed values we share.

However, it's the draconian, punishment-oriented legalistic approach that's fuelling lucrative, violent. organized criminality, without doing anything at all to change the consumption or supply numbers.

You want to dismiss seeing that reality by arguing instead that somehow such observations are "damning" a "patriotic" Coast Guard member, who for additional insult, happens to be a close family member you're "proud" of. Well, policies that don't work aren't the province of a particular Coast Guard member at all, so trying to take offense from that is a straw man argument. You *want* to take a disagreement about the ineffectiveness of failed drug policies as a personal insult, as well as painting anyone disagreeing with those failed policies as "unAmerican." That's an unworthy position.

You mentioned that before being saved, you too were involved with illegal drugs. It's true I don't have that personal perspective. But that tends to prove what I'm saying - all the law enforcement in the world wasn't effective in changing your life - only conversion was. In other words, the solution to these problems is not legal, but social, psychological and spiritual, and involves love and community.

It wouldn't matter how many illegal drugs were placed in front of me - I have no interest. Why? It's not because of their illegality. We need to get to a society where more people have that psychology - and that's not going to happen by draconian legalistic attempts that just waste as many lives and money as the drug problem itself does. It's going to happen when we start to care about each other as human beings instead of being focussed on hyper-individualism expressed in pursuit of unlimited materialism.

Right now, America is individualistic, selfish and focussed on individual achievment of financial status. Those who don't make it are seen as unworthy. Some see a Christianity that offers individual salvation and through that the opportunity to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps and then fulfill that individualistic material achievement.

No wonder so many are lost, in the most overtly "Christian" nation in the world. A nation I might add, that those who disagree with failed unChristian and unAmerican policies love just as much as you say you do.

Posted by: N. M. Rod | April 29, 2008 2:10 PM

Gosh, I just hope that poor soul who attended the Belmont Heights Baptist Church event doesn't fall into another state of skepticism by reading the vitriolic banter on here! I guess that's why only 6% of the population only reads blogs--comments quickly unravel into arguments and name calling. Is this what Christianity is all about? I'll be one of the other 94% and put my energies elsewhere. "Do not judge, so thay you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbors eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?" (Matt. 7:1-3)

Posted by: Jack | April 29, 2008 8:13 PM

Conservatives all, I know of a lesbian couple that lives in my neighborhood and I don't approve of their lifestyle at all. I do notice they take good care of their home and lawn, pay taxes, go to work, have friends and family over to visit(some appear heterosexual), and make no bother.

I have read about and witnessed (as a coach and father) the huge Amerian social problem of absentee fathers in which more than 20 million children, about one in three, have no loving father involved in their life. From those fatherlessness children spring vastly increased rates of poverty, school dropout, teenage pregnancy, depression, drug use, and suicide.

Ordinary and real moderates like me, and the progressives you like to denigrate on talk radio, believe the second paragraph above is more destructive to the family and America than what is going on in the first paragraph. You campaign and work to spend all your time on gay and abortion issues. You know what causes abortion- poverty, loneliness, and selfishness but all you seem to want to do is tell people no, stop, and don't instead of actually fixing the root causes of a problem. Plus you loathe government on one hand, then brag about flying your U.S. flag in the other hand.

You are just plain hard to figure!

Posted by: Steve | April 30, 2008 12:06 PM

I have read about and witnessed (as a coach and father) the huge Amerian social problem of absentee fathers in which more than 20 million children, about one in three, have no loving father involved in their life. From those fatherlessness children spring vastly increased rates of poverty, school dropout, teenage pregnancy, depression, drug use and suicide.

And do you know where much of that comes from? Economic and racial injustice from long ago -- because even today if Dad can't provide for the family properly Mom and the kids lose respect for his authority. Factor in racial discrimination and you have the situation you see today in many urban areas.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 30, 2008 12:40 PM

Mick wrote:

"ST appears the holy spirit has come and put on your mind the sins that you rationalized and blamed on your physical needs of your youth . Your attacking I take in joy . You are not alone my friend , God forgives us all ."

My mother and father were 15 year old unmarried teenagers.

It seems incomprehensible that you are saying I need forgiveness for that. Am I really supposed to despise that I was born, or condemn that I was conceived?

In Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life, he writes that God intended me to be born, that my life is not a mistake.

Are you saying otherwise - especially since you have said you don't consider me a Christian and despise my views - which you believe are hostile to what you believe is good for America? From your viewpoint, mired in sin as my conception and birth were, would it have been better for all had I never been born?

Does the end justify the means? Is good created from doing evil?

Personally, I believe the "church" and middle-class morality, have helped give impetus to the rationale for abortion, by their condemnation of the worth of those they call "illegitimate."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 30, 2008 3:33 PM

I don't mean to be mean to Wallis, whom I greatly admire and respect, but did anyone that the original article said NOTHING other than some people liked his speech? And a rehash of the point made over and over again that the monologue of the religious right is over?

I guess that is why hardly any of the comments respond directly to the article.

Sorry, Jim, I usually appreciate your posts but I just can't see the point of this one.

Posted by: I and I | May 1, 2008 5:22 PM

Mick, you're a good man--thanks for sharing your story. Hope you plan on sticking around here.

I do have to agree with Rick, though: it's one thing to disagree with gay marriage and ordination of gay bishops, and quite another to whip up fear over it to raise money or gain power. This is one of those issues, just like gun control, where a moderate, straight-down-the-middle approach just makes sense. I get tired of GLBT activists wanting me to champion their cause more than I am comfortable with, but when I hear some of the Religious-Right power folks start talking about it I become alienated from their position very quickly.

Posted by: I and I | May 1, 2008 5:35 PM