" . . . politics is broken in America . . ."

What in the world does this mean?

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 11:20 AM

Wilberforce - King -

I agree and many on the Pro-life side of the issue believe the same. But Wilberforce's main focus was 'slavery' and that remained the main issue for him. Not that he did not care about other issues but from what I have read - he kept them seperate so that he and others could deal with the issue. I believe that when you and others will cloud the issue of abortion with health care - elder care - national healthcare etc. You make all of these issues less important and harder to deal with.

It is much easier to chnage / correct what is wrong with a family - church - community - corperation if you start with one main issue and then work your way down the list.

I believe that if we deal with poverty much of tthe worlds ills would be eliminated. But poverty is a broad brush - deal with the issues that cause or contribute to poverty - you will over time solve the issue. (how do you eat an elephant - one bite at a time.)

So - we need to determine what is the main issue with poverty and start there and work our way through the problem.

I believe one of the major contributers to poverty is lack of education - what's yours?

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 26, 2008 11:40 AM

...While at the same time keeping tabs on each other and offering voter meaningful alternatives.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 26, 2008 12:22 PM

Rick,

"It's become fractured into factions, often vying with each other only for the sake of power at the expense of the common good."

That's a pretty good definition of politics. If you accept that definition and also believe that politics is "broken", then it is hard to imagine a politics that isn't broken.

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 12:32 PM

If nobody else will side with you Jimbo, I guess I will.

I don't feel like your statement about our political system being broken is too difficult to grasp. As someone who has actively taken part in the political process since becoming of age, I find it quite obvious as to the current state of our political system.

What I wish people of faith would hear the most is when you or anyone else speak of social movement that consist of "clear spiritual values".

All to often causes taken up by groups of faith are anything but clear. When we talk about the sanctity of human life at conception, yet turn away from those who are fully born and dying of hunger, we lack clarity. It's so often the case that we take a vigorous stand for an issue only to ignore that very issue when it has a slightly different look, or requires a different type of solution that may require a bit more of our time or energy.

The time has come for communities of faith to stand together upon a solid framework that is "clear" in it's mission to carry Christ's light to a world that so desperately seeks a message that is as solid as the message we have to offer the world.

Posted by: Steve | August 26, 2008 12:41 PM

If you mean that politics is broken because it's the best we can do to make decisions in a broken world, I will agree, but that is a trivial result.

If you mean that politics is broken because it always fails to come to the right conclusion, I would suggest that the triumph of the civil rights movement proves you wrong.

If you mean that politics is broken because it is more mean-spirited and divisive than it has ever been, I would suggest that history proves you wrong.

If you mean that politics is broken because we don't all agree on a single set of (Christian or secular) poliitical principles, I would ask this question: how else are we to come to an agreement, given the vast diversity of our nation?

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 1:32 PM

politics have always been a broken system. humans are broken, therefore human institutions follow suit. i'm not sure that this is a much disputed point in the christian community.

i also don't think the goal of politics is to bring every single citizen into agreement on every issue. this does not necessarily make it broken. we can't even get christian to agree, how can we expect a massively diverse nation to agree politically?

that, however, is not the point. the point is that there is no eternal hope in any political process. plain and simple. as long as we can participate in the process with that understanding, it can serve it's purpose, but when we place our hope for change and a secure future in government and politics, we will find that our hope is misguided.

Posted by: dave | August 26, 2008 1:46 PM

"factions are to liberty what air is to fire" the words of james madison. roger

And from George Washington's Farewell Address: Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Posted by: carl copas | August 26, 2008 1:52 PM

I heard Mr. Wallis on CNN this morning with Ms. Soledad O'Brien. Mr. Wallis said he is "Pro Life", yet supports a platform that supports the continued slaughter of Millions of fellow human beings one soul every 23 seconds with our apathetic blunder to dare put any other issue before the most grave and evil systematic slaughter condoned and funded by unbelievers and now by those who profess to be servants of the Most High God, the Creator of Life. We as Evangelicals have thrown stones at our Catholic brothers and sisters for their doctrine, but on this one the greatest of all sins the murdering of God's precious saints and the ravaging and rape and theft of all their gifts of potential through dismembering their beings but their souls and their spirits are intact. The Catholics have got this one right my friends. Life is sacred. Let us not turn our backs also to the cries of the slaughtered as well as those on the way to be slaughtered. By focusing on other atrocities yet assisting in this the greatest moral failure of this and any generation before us. As they the innocent return to Him that ordained and sent them. Now rejected and marked return to sender unwanted. Thanks Jesus but No Thanks!! We had better remember He that said to us "I have set before you Life and Death, Choose Life". God help us to Trust Him and Him Alone. For we as men have conformed as the camelion with the ability to justify anything in our own eyes. Lord Help your mighty carnal christians those who feed on milk and money and choke on your meat. Help us as believers to unite for Life In Jesus Name Amen and Amen.

Posted by: Rod Willoughby | August 26, 2008 2:09 PM

Rick -

One can agree with the Roman Catholic position on abortion but disagree on its objection to capital punishment. The Catholics have never endorsed abortion, but at various times in the past were down with capital punishment.

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 2:28 PM

One can agree with the Roman Catholic position on abortion but disagree on its objection to capital punishment. The Catholics have never endorsed abortion, but at various times in the past were down with capital punishment.

I understand that, which is why I said what I did. I think even Pope Benedict won't rule it out entirely.

big guy -- Don't tempt me.

Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 2:40 PM

Rick -

What wouldn't Pope Benedict rule out?

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 2:58 PM

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 2:28 PM

well stated and I believe that you are correct.

The difference that I see with some arguments is that with capital punishment - the condemned had their day in court. For the innocent of abortion - they are still in court.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 26, 2008 3:03 PM

Big Guy -

Thanks. I do have some trouble with the administration of capital punishment - everyone gets their day in court, but some people escape the death penalty because they have money. That doesn't mean that I think people who commit heinous crimes should not be executed, just that some should be who otherwise escape.

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 3:09 PM

Posted by: canucklehead | August 26, 2008 3:03 PM

I will have to do some looking for an alpha list - whatever. In the past 17 years I have been in several countries around the world and made friends with people from many more countries when I worked at an event in 2000. I still get e-mails from a lot of these fellow believers. I have a great time talking with them about the flaws of our country and system. They will joke back with me about what they are experiencing and why they wish they had a 'flawed' system like ours.

If our is so bad - why all the immigration and the long list to come to our country?

out of 128 countries listed for unemployment - we are 93 - 1 being the worst. There are 59 countries that have no rating for what ever reason. Add that to the total of rated countries gives you 197. Six of the countries that are rated better than us have a 0.00 unemployment - not sure if that is true. I wonder of the countries that have a better rating than us - what is their immigration policy?

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 26, 2008 3:24 PM

Richard Rohr gives this thoughtful comment on the "use" of religion: "Much religion is using God to bolster our own self-image. True religion is not attached to self-image, but to God."

Posted by: judithod | August 26, 2008 4:03 PM

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008038.cfm

I got this link off a Christian blog . Its Tom Minnery's article attacking this organization for attendance at the convention.In my opinion the Religious Right concentration on abortion and marriage will loose its hold on republican politics , if not already or the other way around .
I got an e mail for voting instructions from here ,like the Christian Coalition in regards to politics designed to put issues in such a way that lead you to vote from their belief of importance of issues from a liberal perspective .

Perhaps I am wrong , but at least I see locally the followers of this movement are Uniterians and quite liberal Congregations that all roads lead to Heaven religious beliefs . Just as often I see religious organizations that follow republican issues demonize pro choice and pro gay right politicians . If you go to liberal religious blogs , the belief that Christ is a path to God is considered narrow minded . Just talking with Rick, Don , I and I , and many of the leftys here I would say that is not true in their belief . How do you get along with the fact so mmany followers of this movement believe your faith to be that which a narrow minded person takes . The very essence of refusing Christ in our Heart because of our own pride is supported by so many in this movement ?

That shows unity in a political movement , but not a religious movement centered on the Love and being of Christ . like the Unions and Abortion advocates supporting democrats , or the NRA and pro life groups supporting repubublicans . But it does nothing for the Glory of Christ ?
Yet these liberal organizations following this movement " FOr NOW" are calling them selves Christian , and making the Gift of Christ in our Hearts as something narrow . This is the deceit of the evil one at work , is it not ?

This Appears what is being said here , correct me if wrong , pro life views have hurt the pro life cause because of the way they were proposed .
Marriage issues are not that important ? Not sure if that is a true sentiment , and at least in my state through public education advocacy and liberal politicans it becomes a closer reality . In Washington its all the legal benefits but without the word marriage . Interestingly not that many people signed up for it .

So for the sake of unity in the church ,pro lifers and those who see the issues say that Dobson trumps as important , but like the issues that also are important here also have much importance .

I can agree with Jim Wallis on some issues , but it seems that Christians have to relinguish some of our stronger beliefs in the Soverignity of God , and the importance of the nuclear family which was designed by God ?

Politics is broken , but so is the church that advocates one political party only .

Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2008 4:10 PM

Canucklehead - The millions of immigrants clamoring to get into the U.S. every year can't all be wrong...

Posted by: Eric | August 26, 2008 4:39 PM

Just talking with Rick, Don, I and I, and many of the leftys here I would say that is not true in their belief. How do you get along with the fact so many followers of this movement believe your faith to be that which a narrow minded person takes.

That's essentially the wrong question. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally am completely independent of any movement, whether right or left. Although my views do lean to the left, my convictions are my own and not influenced by any organization; that allows me to pick and choose what I believe to be true regardless of the source. FWIW, twice I have left churches that had become too liberal for my tastes.

Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 4:41 PM

Well, if we're going to use politics for Christian values, then Christian democrats have to fight the, "Abstinence doesn't work" myth that is attacking the abstinence training in schools.

People, abstinence does work -- maybe the training is broken or not all inclusive -- but abstinence not only works, but is the Christian value that sex outside of marriage is sin.

Why are we buying that myth? Women from my generation were abstinent a lot longer than girls are today and it did keep teen pregnancies as well as STDs down. Maybe we don't want to motivate people with the fear of God anymore, but to undermine the basic tennants of abstinence undermines the Bible itself.

Can't we come to a compromise that embraces Christian values on this one? I'd rather kids have condoms than not, but to say, "All kids will have sex" pressures kids into having sex just to be normal.

Posted by: U TOO | August 26, 2008 5:09 PM

Women from my generation were abstinent a lot longer than girls are today and it did keep teen pregnancies as well as STDs down. Maybe we don't want to motivate people with the fear of God anymore, but to undermine the basic tennants of abstinence undermines the Bible itself.

That's not the problem. Abstinence training generally does not work because it doesn't deal with emotional hungers that people have they they often try to satisfy through sexual activity -- it only tells people not to do it without any alternatives. That's why you have an explosion of "purity balls," to which fathers take their daughters, because it's a known fact that girls who have good relationships with their fathers are far less likely to engage in sex. Besides, it's always been true that the most "desirable" boys/men will "get theirs," and no one talks about that one.

Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 5:34 PM

As someone who has actively taken part in the political process since becoming of age, I find it quite obvious as to the current state of our political system.

What I wish people of faith would hear the most is when you or anyone else speak of social movement that consist of "clear spiritual values".

All to often causes taken up by groups of faith are anything but clear. When we talk about the sanctity of human life at conception, yet turn away from those who are fully born and dying of hunger, we lack clarity. It's so often the case that we take a vigorous stand for an issue only to ignore that very issue when it has a slightly different look, or requires a different type of solution that may require a bit more of our time or energy.

The time has come for communities of faith to stand together upon a solid framework that is "clear" in it's mission to carry Christ's light to a world that so desperately seeks a message that is as solid as the message we have to offer the world.

Posted by: Steve | August 26, 2008 5:47 PM

Proof that politics is broken in America:

Excluded From Saddleback Church

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhhOa9aymfY

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 26, 2008 6:17 PM

That's essentially the wrong question. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally am completely independent of any movement

Posted by: Rick

But you often attack positions taken here based on other organizations that the person is not associated with ,or maybe is or maybe not even konw about . You suggest at times they are just duped by a motive 30 years ago based in bigotry that was inconsistent with Christ . You do often Rick , you just did it with me on the Soverignity Of God and the fact he created the life in the womb . You switched the subject and my intentions to race , nothing was further from my mind . You took a view based on your view of the people who also have supported my view . Hence the coalitions that agree with your views , have an effect , your debating tactics often prove that . The way you see the people you politically oppose at times are based in the perceptions of all those groups that share that view . It is with me , and I am working on it .

"What does that say to the child whose parents can't keep a commitment?"

Posted by: Rick

Well 100 percent agreement with you it starts in home . King Solomon being the wisest man in the world yet his personal moral failings I contribute to his Father . David was a man after God's Heart , but what a lousy role model as a dad . In the long run Solomon followed the role model and not his wisdom.

I guess we almost agree , but role modeling is one thing , the important thing first . But our kids being thrown in a culture that goes against that role modeling is a hard thing thing for kids to come against . Especially when it is done in the confines of a trusted institution like a public school setting , where kids are led to believe this is just how it is .
I really think you need to sit in a public school classroom .
Perhaps you are a bit too strong in this area to understand the help we weaker souls needs .

Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2008 6:44 PM

I disagree a bit. We have successfully, somehow, managed to teach most young people to take their time getting married. The age of marriage keeps going up, so the long term commitment thing is somehow being taught and caught.

However, even when my parents weren't telling me, "It seems like everyone is doing it, but not everyone is doing it" my youth leaders did.

Are they even saying in safe sex talks, 'If they won't talk about it or practice it, they do not care about you'?

I've seen Oprah address it from a very non-religious perspective on her show from time to time. You can give some basic guidelines of a healthy relationship without stepping on religious values. Like, "Having a baby won't fix a relationship or cure your loneliness."

Posted by: U TOO | August 26, 2008 7:02 PM

"It's become fractured into factions, often vying with each other only for the sake of power at the expense of the common good."

That has always been the case, which is why we limit the authority of government.

"Proof that politics is broken in America:

Excluded From Saddleback Church"

How does this prove that politics is broken in America?

Posted by: kevin s. | August 26, 2008 7:34 PM

But you often attack positions taken here based on other organizations that the person is not associated with, or maybe is or maybe not even know about. You suggest at times they are just duped by a motive 30 years ago based in bigotry that was inconsistent with Christ.

That still exists today, thank you, and has plenty of pull in evangelical Christianity even now -- otherwise there would be plenty more blacks involved and we wouldn't be talking about Dobson, Falwell, Kennedy et al. Those of us who have never subscribed to the conservative agenda but feel put upon by it understand this, even if you don't.

If someone here puts forth a position that registers as "conservative" in his mind, he then freely associates them with any other conservative view or conservative individual, and then launches into a rant about the evils of "conservatives", of course, ensnaring that individual in his wide web.

Ricardo -- How do you reconcile that statement with my actual positions on abortion and gay marriage, which are staunchly conservative? Oh, by the way, conservative activists have been using especially those hot-button issues primarily for the sake of power. That is not subject to debate.

Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 7:51 PM

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 26, 2008 6:17 PM

How does listening to a rant by Ralph Nader prove that politics is broken in America?

Posted by: Gordon | August 26, 2008 8:31 PM

And it also isn't good enough for Christians to just be personally against abortions.

Posted by: Chris D. | August 26, 2008 8:37 PM

"That still exists today, thank you, and has plenty of pull in evangelical Christianity even now -- otherwise there would be plenty more blacks involved and we wouldn't be talking about Dobson, Falwell, Kennedy et al. Those of us who have never subscribed to the conservative agenda but feel put upon by it understand this, even if you don't."

Rick the old cliche is your proving my point . I was adressing that your opinions are often associated with other organizations that share your view points . That because of it your view point can be mis understood . The danger of associating one religion with one political party as this organization does , as Dobson'e does .

Then I tried the best I could to give you an example of me speaking on one on one with you on the Soverignity of God for the scriptures that obviously have sewed with your heart if you are pro life , and mine . You then dismissed me and stated i was leading to race ? But then you finish off that others understand this your associate view with , even if I don't .

I guess if I said others understand what it means that you are supported in your views by other groups that have an agenda based on power , even if you don't we would be even .

I don't think so Because you actually accused my ideas of being based in that thinking . Hence I refuse to believe your thinking is that insincere , but obviously your understanding is placed into a limted culture .
Since I ditched the GOP , I admit to seeing more , but I do not dismiss the excellent and sincere beliefs coming from that side of spectrum either .

Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2008 9:08 PM

Rick the old cliche is your proving my point. I was adressing that your opinions are often associated with other organizations that share your view points.

But I have never received any of their literature, especially in church. I have never heard that agenda blasted on Christian broadcast media. In short, those organizations do not influence my thinking one bit -- my second year in college a militant pro-Marxist group was trying to raise the same issues, but I dismissed it out-of-hand. (The only thing I receive that's at all liberal is union material, and only because I belong to one.) And besides, many Christian organizations pretty much work hand-in-glove -- did you notice just how many of them are located in Colorado Springs?

Posted by: Rick | August 26, 2008 9:48 PM

"People are not blessing them in sex-ed classes. I don't understand how teaching condom use gives a tacit consent to sex. That's just silly'

And if I said that i would agree . Easy to make up a quote then dispute it . I don't find that silly however . As I said , teaching condom use , information on sex has nothing to do with my criticism . Its the context that sex out of marriage is on a equal moral setting with sex in marriage . In my district , marriage is no longer even mentioned . Committed relationship is the term used .

If teaching a mandatory gun safety class the teacher promoted using the safety on the gun when you walked around the community with you on it , most people would understand that it was not the gun safety , or the teaching how the safety was used , but the fact the teacher stated the fact that the their was nothing wrong with walking around with a gun .

I don;t share that value system either .

Posted by: Michael | August 26, 2008 11:01 PM

"Ricardo -- How do you reconcile that statement with my actual positions on abortion and gay marriage, which are staunchly conservative? "

As I understand your positions, you want abortion and gay marriage to be illegal, but only after conservatives are out of office. Am I wrong on this?

Posted by: kevin s. | August 26, 2008 11:03 PM

How can people say that a consistent ethic of life means you must both be pro-life and anti death penalty. I am against the death penalty, but I am horrified when Democrats respond to Republicans by saying, 'You may be pro life...but you are for the death penalty...so you are pro life in one area, and I am in another.'

At the risk of stating the obvious, there is no comparison between someone convicted of a heinous crime that led at least 12 peers to think that person should die for what they have done, most often being the worst of crimes imaginable and an unborn child who has done nothing to anyone.

Like I said I am against the death penalty, but it can be argued cogently from Scripture unlike abortion, which has been declared sinful ever since the church first began (see the Didache). But even if you are against the death penalty, there is no comparison between a convicted murderer dying and an unborn child being aborted.

What is even more sad is Wallis and friends can speak out forcefully against things like unjust wars and the death penalty but not abortion, which is clearly the greatest moral evil of our time. Imagine Wilberforce saying 'Well at least Parliament is willing to talk about decreasing the number of slaves...' No he called a nation to repentance, something Wallis is unwilling to do for reasons unclear to me.

Posted by: Tim | August 27, 2008 12:01 AM

With out God , what do you have ?

Mathematical proof of the Divine origin of the Bible

isnt it amazing :

611=Secret of God secret of truth=Torah (Bible)=611

611=the Light =Torah=611

Add it up for your self !

And there is a lot more at

http://godssecret.wordpress.com/category/spiritual-proof/

Posted by: John | August 27, 2008 4:52 AM

Politics is broken, or maybe just damaged in the U.S. An example would be;

The conventions are paid for mainly by the corporations that regularly need things from the federal government, and donate large sums of money to get these things. Example - 1st night of the Dems convention. AT&T throws a lavish, private party (no press or public allowed, many large guards in place to make sure)to thank the Congresspersons who voted for the FISA bill, which granted immunity for certain telecomm companies that illegally tapped all of our phones under a request from the White House. A warrant was required but never requested.

$50 million dollars in taxpayer money for security. Yes this is necessary. There was even a plot to kill Obama by lunatics near the convention! However, it is mostly being used to control, arrest, and even surround and pepper spray crowds legally protesting, mainly by law officers with no clear identification so no one knows who they are.
My immediate source is Democracynow.org. I'm sure articles and stories will be coming out, but don't expect them in the mainstream (CBS, NBC, ABC) media.

Posted by: Paul W | August 27, 2008 8:30 AM

Paul W: "Example - 1st night of the Dems convention. AT&T throws a lavish, private party (no press or public allowed, many large guards in place to make sure)to thank the Congresspersons..."

And at the last one, in 2004, the pharmaceutical industry threw a farewell party for Sen. John Breaux (D-Louisiana) who was leaving office to work as a pharma lobbyist. The party was to thank him for his role in shepherding the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill that threw heavy subsidies their way and was highly inefficient in helping the people it was ostensibly meant to help. Bill Moyers' show had a feature on it and it made me remember why I voted for Nader in '96 and '00. But then I remembered that, thankfully, most Dems were strongly against the bill and Sens. Breaux and Baucus were essentially working at odds with their own party.

Yes, the fact that that SOP could go right from the Senate to a plush lobbying job for big-pharma shows the system is broken. Perhaps progressive Christians can lead the way to help fix it, instead of waiting for the Democratic Party to take the initiative. That would be a much more efffective gospel message to the country than a thousand people knocking on doors and asking "If you were to die tonight..."

Posted by: I and I | August 27, 2008 9:46 AM

I'm all for teaching safe sex and birth control too -- you can use that information once your married too.

However, if one of the criticism of the Abstinence Teaching is that they don't deal with the underlying reasons of why kids are having sex in the first place, neither does safe sex address these things.

I think the point of what is being said here is that these are values we agree on, and we agree that they can be addressed in better ways than they have been in the past and even currently. So why don't we work together and figure something out? Especially now that Bush is leaving and we have some new ears in place to listen???

Posted by: frankie | August 27, 2008 9:57 AM

Why not look at Alan Keyes or Chuck Baldwin? Why not interview them and see what they stand for and what direction they would like to take this country?

They have zero chance of being elected -- and in fact, most of us don't even know who Chuck Baldwin is.

If Christians voted for a candidate that actually held our beliefs maybe then we could rock the system and really bring about change in this country.

Except that 1) There's too much ideological diversity in the church to allow that; and 2) Even if that weren't true, we Christians are still a minority in this country and thus would give too many reasons for people to vote against our platform.

Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 11:15 AM

Posted by: I and I | August 27, 2008 9:46 AM

You seem to imply that "politics is broken" because conventions cost money, and businesses donate to the parties.

I wasn't clear or detailed enough. Corporations promote, and sometimes even write legislation, or parts of it, that are completely for their business, which is understandable. Sometimes this legislation is not good for the country, or a specific location or group of people, for example, pollution. It gets passed anyway, and many times, examples of which I don't have have handy right now, the Congressperson who passed or pushed the legislation goes to work for that company after his term is up. Or in Dick Cheneys case, goes to government while still financilly gaining from a major corporation that does business with the Govt,KBR for example. He got deferred salary for years after 2000.

My point is that the Corporations money influences legislation that effects us beyond even the US borders. Do you think the average citizen could possibly have the influence on most of Congress that a business with some re-election money to give does? Maybe you do, I don't.

My point is that the system is damaged by outside financial influences that bear no responsibility for the effects of their influence, such as the real estate problem. Someone somwhere help Congress pass laws that some say helped cause the current downturn. Those same people likey profited handsomely before they sold off the bad loans. No accountability.

I think the government isn't broken, but dented or damaged by outside influences with no accountability. That's why I'm voting Green Party after 30 years of voting Democratic.

Posted by: paul w. | August 27, 2008 11:52 AM

Gordon,

How are the catholics on the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? They down with that, too?

Posted by: freelyb | August 27, 2008 12:07 PM

The problem with the "politics is broken because of special interest money" argument is that we the people have the voting power to override any special interest. There are always more of us then there are powerful, wealthy campaign donors. Yet we continue to vote for the same people and keep them in office.

The problem lies with the voters, not a few powerful special interests.

Posted by: Eric | August 27, 2008 12:58 PM

I found this and many similar comments on a blog site of a middle class evangelical Southern American woman. She and her blogging companions are University educated women (mainly Liberty) and this level of debate is typical of what they come up with time and time again. They are very pro-life, as in anti-abortion, but nowhere do they tackle the issues of affordable health care for all, children dying of preventable diseases in the US as well as in the developing World or the recent slaughter of 60+ Afghanistani children by US forces in a misjudged air raid on alleged Taliban suspects.

Another woman on the site talks about being in favour of Condaleeza Rice being chosen as McCain's running mate to keep "the blacks" happy.

It has left me with grave concerns about the American educational system and the American evangelical sub-culture.

"Suzanne said...
I so agree with Jennifer, I just am not into this election at all. I can't stand Obama and I can't stand McCain. I am really praying about either voting for McCaine (just because he is the better of the two evils) or not voting and just praying God waits to judge America after the rapture."

August 26, 2008 2:29 PM

Posted by: Ayla (UK) | August 27, 2008 1:43 PM

"And if I said that i would agree . Easy to make up a quote then dispute it . I don't find that silly however . As I said , teaching condom use , information on sex has nothing to do with my criticism . Its the context that sex out of marriage is on a equal moral setting with sex in marriage . In my district , marriage is no longer even mentioned . Committed relationship is the term used."

Yay, (I was being sarcastic as I typed that first word)

But can we please stop mythologizing marriage? That's silly. As we can see in the divorce rate marriage is not necessarily a cure all for all of human sexual desire and it never has been. I realize you want a "Christian" ideal solidified for non-Christians or whatever but I honestly don't want a school system teaching what you want. That's the church's job. Let them go to church and hear that instruction. Let them hear it in their individual relationships and even in other ways.

Marriage is sacred according to God but what we have in this country is a poor reflection of that. The government should not be in a single marriage and yet they are. honestly it should have nothing to do with it.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 27, 2008 3:10 PM

freelyb:

"Gordon,

How are the catholics on the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? They down with that, too?"

What's your point?

Posted by: Gordon | August 27, 2008 4:11 PM

Switching subjects or redirecting a topic so that he is on more comfortable ground so that he doesn't have to actually answer questions posed to him is another common tactic.

Posted by: Ricardo

That was quite the articulate MO on Rick . But I honestly feel , discern, their is a sincerity and a Love of God in his heart . And like Don stated this form of communication is not the best . But your right , when you are trying to have a heart to heart , and your compared to 30 years ago , or even your sincerity is compared to another organization , the exchange becomes broken .
But to defend Rick , which he can do better then anyone , he honestly believes he is correcting wrong and allowing it to be used again in such a terrible way .

Posted by: Michael | August 27, 2008 4:42 PM

But your right, when you are trying to have a heart to heart, and your compared to 30 years ago, or even your sincerity is compared to another organization, the exchange becomes broken.

You conveniently forget that neither the issues nor some attitudes have changed in that time. People still send millions of dollars to those same organizations who haven't adjusted their MO or rhetoric. Two years ago one of James Dobson's "Stand for the Family" rallies was held in my city as, in practice, a shill for Rick Santorum (who went down hard at the polls anyway).

But to defend Rick, which he can do better then anyone, he honestly believes he is correcting wrong and allowing it to be used again in such a terrible way.

Again, the opposition hasn't changed at all -- it's just a little more nuanced so that most people don't recognize it. Perhaps this election will finally put an end to it, once and for all.

Besides, most people don't see the "big picture," while I did way back in 1980; I even told a pastor I knew back then who preached regularly against the Soviet Union, "The real problem is China."

Posted by: Rick | August 27, 2008 5:15 PM

Amen Sister Marie. Preach it sis!

Posted by: Hal | August 27, 2008 5:41 PM

And if the system worked the way I would have preferred, Jimmy Carter would have been elected to a second term, we would not have alternately armed both sides in the Iran/Iraq War, we would not have aided bin Laden in his overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan, we would not have elected George W. Bush (well, actually, we didn't really elect him), the Twin Towers would still be standing, we would not have sacrificed the lives of 4000 Americans and 100,000 Iraquis, and we would not have spent 1 trillion dollars on a war against a country that did not attack us on 9/11, and which had no WMD. Bush lied; thousands died!

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 27, 2008 7:29 PM

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 27, 2008 7:29 PM

Well, those are the issues as you see them. I don't agree with most of them, but that's not germaine here. The fact that Jimmy Carter failed to be re-elected or that GW Bush did a lot of things you object to is only evidence that your candidates failed to do an adequate job.

Posted by: Gordon | August 27, 2008 8:05 PM

The fact that Jimmy Carter failed to be re-elected ... is only evidence that your candidates failed to do an adequate job.

Gordon, it could also be because American voters were sweet-talked into buying into feel-good politics instead of making some difficult but necessary choices. Carter in 1980 was perceived as a downer next to Reagan's optimism. But maybe Carter was being more realistic.

The chickens have come home to roost. For example, I think if Carter's energy policies had been enacted and we had stuck with them over the last 28 years, we wouldn't be facing the even tougher energy problems we currently face (like high fuel prices). Maybe.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 27, 2008 9:01 PM

I am not saying abstinence is wrong. I am saying empower it. Just saying wait, wait, wait, isn't working. It's not. Somehow speaking that over and over again gives you a mantra, a sense of righteousness but it is not conductive in stopping a lot of kids from having sex. If you want to actually stop it empower them with knowledge of self and their bodies. Teach them to love themselves and respect their bodies.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 27, 2008 9:30 PM

Conservative Evangelicals are always busy seeking votes for the White House and no time seeking souls for God's House.

I guess they are seeking their kingdom on Earth. Theirs will be a very bitter judgment.

Posted by: Steve | August 28, 2008 12:02 AM

I heard TBN was projecting that John Hagee will be announced (er, revealed) this weekend as McCain's running mate. Can anyone verify this?

Posted by: canucklehead | August 28, 2008 12:46 AM

"Can someone tell me why the Republicans have not managed to reverse Roe vs Wade in all the years they have been in power?"

Stare decisis

Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 6:57 AM

"Actually, speaking only to the abortion question, the process is not simple, since it requires having the Supreme Court overturn a previous ruling."

Given that the Court is usually reluctant to overturn a precedent once made, I doubt that is possible, regardless of the composition of the court. I think only a constitutional amendment will do the job.

Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 7:58 AM

Thank you david of fox lake,

I really haven't done much homework on America, actually. And your response on the studies has shown me my pure ignorance. Sorry.

Nevertheless, [possibly from my simplistic view of human nature or America, I will ask this again]: Is abortion a sin that is peculiar to liberals in America? If that is so why does it concern conservatives so much?

My point is that the seeming preoccupation that American evengelicals have with the subject of abortion is disturbing in a world where there is so much more to be concerned about, especially given that God has been so good to the Christians of America.

But then, again, perhaps it is the very fact that you are so blessed that makes abortion so important to you, so important that Christians choose to be divided by how you see the problem.

There are other questions I asked, though ...

Can someone tell me why there are abortions in America, anyway? Do ALL those who carry them out not fear God?

Can all who make such a great noise about the sanctity of the fetus, especially on this forum, honestly to God confess that they have never, in any way, shape or form, contributed to a decision by someone to opt for an abortion?

For instance, are we, good Christians all, not the same people who sanctimoniously condemn sex (and the sometimes resulting pregnancies) out of wedlock? What happens to the good pastor's daughter when she discovers that her 'experiment' with a classmate has resulted in pregnancy? Of course she could keep the baby, but would you?

Pro-life and pro-choice labels seem to be a poor standard for choosing the American leader, especially if the law is so difficult to change.

Besides, it does seem like a case, excuse me, of seeking to support someone on the basis that he or she is most likely to legislate morality. What use is any such law to Christians?

God bless you!
- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | August 28, 2008 8:26 AM

"Is abortion a sin that is peculiar to liberals in America? If that is so why does it concern conservatives so much?"

Many liberals as well as conservatives abhor abortion. Many conservatives seem to have no problem with it. It has become a conservative cause because it was seized by elements of the Republican Party as a "wedge issue". Because the Republican Party is generally seen as more conservative, it has a cache as a conservative issue.

"Can all who make such a great noise about the sanctity of the fetus, especially on this forum, honestly to God confess that they have never, in any way, shape or form, contributed to a decision by someone to opt for an abortion?"

I can. Even before I was a Christian. Even by your definition.

"Pro-life and pro-choice labels seem to be a poor standard for choosing the American leader, especially if the law is so difficult to change."

I agree. Most of us don't vote on that basis. I will vote for an anti-abortion candidate if all other considerations are equal, but they never are. Choosing who to vote for is a complex matter for just about all of us.

" . . . it does seem like a case, excuse me, of seeking to support someone on the basis that he or she is most likely to legislate morality."

Every law is a legislation of morality. It's just a matter of which morality we legislate, and how we arrive at a decision to do so.

Posted by: Gordon | August 28, 2008 8:38 AM

While there has been progress in the past 8 years, this election could insure there won't be further progress in the next 4.

david del lago de zorro:

I'm just not sure that playing the numbers game with the Supreme Court is ever going to make a difference. First, as Gordon mentioned, we have the problem of stare decisis, that is, the Court's reluctance to overturn earlier decisions.

Second, when past openings have appeared on the court, presidents--going back at least as far as Franklin Roosevelt--have tried to pick justices according to their own ideologies with very mixed results. Part of the problem is that once justices are appointed to the Supreme bench, they tend to change their ideologies and behave in ways that weren't predicted. Eisenhower, for example, regretted his picking of Earl Warren as chief justice because he turned out to be a liberal activist.

Now we have a conservative activist court, and that brings me to a third problem. Continued focus on potential justices' views on Roe have packed the court with ideologues who seem willing to run roughshod over workers' rights and cater to big corporate interests. And because of reason two above, there's simply no way to know whether the goal of overturning Roe will be accomplished. We have no idea how, when push comes to shove, Roberts and Alito might rule on such a matter. Nor would we for any future nominees to the Supreme bench.

Gordon is right again; a constitutional amendment is the only way to permanently reverse Roe. And there's no political will for that now. And to partly answer Alu's question, it's quite legitimate to ask why Republicans haven't been pushing for that solution.

The bottom line for me is this: I've abandoned basing my vote on what kind of justices a presidential candidate might pick. I just don't think it's been very productive, and frankly I have far more pressing concerns that I want my next president to address.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 28, 2008 8:44 AM