Thanks, Jim. In a year where the campaign seems more like a soap opera or a reality show than an opportunity to really transform society, you once again write words of wisdom that challenege us all. I look forward to the follow-up posts related to this...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 1:01 PM

I agree with this. I don't think it will happen for a bunch of different reasons but it is possible.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 15, 2008 1:03 PM

Between "outrage" at the use of the colloquialism about putting "lipstick on a pig" to the Obama ads that childishly mock McCain for his unfamiliarity with computers, I certainly agree. For two campaigns that were promising a good clean fight, I am NOT impressed. It just shows, I think, the corrucpting influence of desire for power. Maybe the voices of reason will win out some time before November and we can see the differences not just in perosnality, but in the merits of the solutions they propose.

Posted by: Brian | September 15, 2008 1:24 PM

Jim is right. We need a strong leader who can built real bipartisan coalitions to tackle these problems. We need real reform. That is why John McCain and Sarah Palin offer the best hope for real solutions.

Posted by: Real Answers | September 15, 2008 1:34 PM

For the record, I find Palin's personality to be rather annoying.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 15, 2008 1:42 PM

I think there's another Tom Eagleton moment coming. Who is McCain's second choice?

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 15, 2008 1:54 PM

As I read this latest post, it seems that Mr. Wallis continues to offer his only solution: Empower the state. Give the state unlimited powers and all these problems will be "solved."

We are NOT seeing "unprecedented" warming, despite the Al Gore hyperbolic language he uses. In fact, over the past decade, we actually have seen a small cooling trend, and during the early Middle Ages, the planet was considerably warmer than it is now.

Mr. Wallis, is there anything in life you have not politicized? From the weather to the food we eat to the very worship of Jesus Christ, you have politicized everything. You are not the only one, but yours is a pure political gospel and nothing else.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM

The last things Obama wanted was to have to talk about experience, abortion, and his role as a community organizer.

If that's what you think, I think you have pegged Obama quite wrong. Not only is he ready to talk, but he's probably saying to himself, "Bring it on!" Talking about his record would be refreshing if it means not having to deal with negative personality-based campaign nonsense.

D

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Mr. Wallis, is there anything in life you have not politicized? From the weather to the food we eat to the very worship of Jesus Christ, you have politicized everything. You are not the only one, but yours is a pure political gospel and nothing else.
Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM
---------

William, Good post. I agree. Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 2:26 PM

William, Good post. I agree. Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports.

And I take that to mean that you don't? Take a look at Carl Copas' comment on the NRA thread.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 2:52 PM

Heck, I'd be happy if each candidate answered, "What is about this ecomony that concerns you most?"

Posted by: frankie | September 15, 2008 3:42 PM

And I take that to mean that you don't? Take a look at Carl Copas' comment on the NRA thread.
Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 2:52 PM
----------
Don, No I don't employ lobbyists in a commune in DC to change US politics, or have a pseudo-christian leftist propaganda magazine that continually brow-beats anyone and everyone who has ever stepped foot in a church to believing that Jesus would like higher taxes in the US to accompany a more 'socialized' political agenda.

Some here constantly invoke Dr. Dobson as an example Wallis counterpart on the right. The difference is that every major protestant denomination and Catholicism strongly sides with Dobson on abortion and even the more liberal denominations would not dare suggest that Jesus wants more socialist political policies. Jim Wallis is a true outsider in all but the most leftist religious circles thus the comparison is not balanced.

PS: Carl is welcome to post as infrequently as he likes.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 3:57 PM

"3. Globally, the progress we were making on international poverty has been seriously set back because of food and fuel prices. Untold numbers of people are facing starvation."

I would be interested to hear some honest opinions from those who agree with the assumption of this point that the US government should use it's police power to collect taxes from its citizens then send that money to poor people in other countries. Honestly this makes no sense to me and is surely unconstitutional.

By voting for these type of policies, who am I to force others to feed the poor?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 4:10 PM

I agree, the issues are critical. As Evangelical Christians we feel a responsibility to let our vote count for the Kingdom of God. As a missionary’s kid and as a Christian Education major at Wheaton College I learned the Bible well. and I am very thankful for this strong background but I’ve struggled with how my fellow believers see it's application in politics. The Bible has many commands, we tend to focus on only one or two.

The Evangelical community has been focused on one verse in politics, “thou shalt not kill.” In the last two elections Bush was voted in as president partly because he didn’t believe in abortion and he didn’t believe in gay marriage. The problem is that even with a Republican congress most of those years he not stopped abortions or gay marriage in almost eight years. Instead he has gotten us involved in two wars that have killed thousands of people. In my view he has not obeyed the commandment, “thou shalt not kill”.

According to the congressional record, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. McCain is pro-war. McCain’s father and grandfather were admirals; he graduated from the Navel Academy and fought in Vietnam. He said he will never surrender in Iraq. He is focused on war and will most likely lead us into more wars where more people will be killed. Palin in a recent interview suggested that she may be willing to attack Russia.

Obama takes the verse, “thou shalt not kill” seriously. He tackles the root of the problem with programs to prevent teenage pregnancies and health care reforms that will give people the support they need to keep their babies (60% of abortions occur because the women doesn’t have the money to deliver her baby) Obama believes in war only as a last result. He believes in diplomacy, reconciliation, building community and working with our allies. I am convinced that far less people will be killed if Obama is president.

Jesus’s says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself.” Mathew 22:36. Which candidate believes in loving your neightbor? Obama’s program includes taking care of the poor and downtrodden. He proved his commitment to the poor by working in the ghettos of Chicago. Obama will tip the scales away from the rich to be kind to the poor. According to the Washington Post, Obama will help even out the wealth by lowering taxes 1.9% for those who make less than $227,000, 2.4% under $66,000, 3.6% under $38,000 and 5.5% for those under $19,000. He believes in taking care of all Americans.

There are numerous verses in the Bible about our responsibility to help the poor. "He who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and He will reward him for what he has done." Proverbs 19:17 Obama believes in helping the poor. He’s lived what he believes. He worked in the inner city coordinating with a number of churches to help that Chicago community. He has a number of well thought out programs for helping the poor.
In Psalms 24:1 God says, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof....” If the earth is the Lord’s who are we to ruin its delicate balance and cause global warming with our carelessness. McCain and Palin want to drill for oil in our sensitive national park which would destroy that ecosystem and the wildlife that depend on it (Palin’s husband works for the oil company). Obama is focused on funding alternative energy which will help us wean ourselves off the oil that is damaging the earth and causing wars.

The Bible instructs us to tell the truth but Palin insists that she was against the “bridge to no-where” when there is documented evidence that she fought for it until congress stopped it. In addition, she and McCain have made a number of false statements about opponents. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.” Exodus 20:16. If they are not honest in campaigning will they be honest in the White House? Will they tell us there are “weapons of mass destruction” when none exist?

Palin is under two investigations for mistreatment of employees in Alaska. Shouldn’t these investigations be completed before voting her into the White House? Some of her financial dealings in Alaska are also questionable. Palin is pro-life and carries her babies to term which is admirable but is it right to not take responsibility for raising these children? She has a four month old baby, a 7 year old, a 14 year old and a pregnant 17 year old at home, is this a good time in her life to leave them and run for office? Pro-life includes taking care of life. McCain, according to those who know him well, has always showed apathy toward religion until he realized that his ticket to the White House was ( like Bush before him) the Evangelical vote, so he chose inexperienced Palin.

Obama is not an Evangelical Christian but his faith has proven to be more consistent. When you’re sick, would you rather go to a good doctor who cures your illness or an Evangelical Christian who doesn’t? American has a serious illness and we need a good doctor, Obama is an excellent healer. He has more integrity than either McCain or Palin. Obama is honest and straightforward. With all the scrutiny on him he has not been found in any scandal. He cares for the poor. He wants to rebuild our relationships abroad. He cares about taking care of the earth that God called us to be steward of.

If you listen to both convention speeches you see that McCain’s is “the warrior” and Obama is “the healer”. Micah 6:8 instructs us to, “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.” We will be accountable for what we as a nation do. If we want God to continue to bless American we cannot continue to kill and main thousands in war. We need to heal our nation and help heal the world. I believe that we Evangelical Christians honor God and His Kingdom by voting for Obama. I believe that would be Jesus’ choice.

Posted by: Kathi Simonsen | September 15, 2008 4:20 PM

I would be interested to hear some honest opinions from those who agree with the assumption of this point that the US government should use it's police power to collect taxes from its citizens then send that money to poor people in other countries. Honestly this makes no sense to me and is surely unconstitutional.

Two things about that.

1) It's likely that more of the tax monies you pay actually finance pet projects of lawmakers in wealthy districts in order to keep them in office -- depending on where you live, you actually might get more money than you pay out (see Alaska and, by inference, Sarah Palin). The poor, whether domestically or around the world, really don't see that kind of money.

2) This has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 4:21 PM

Like you Mr. Wallis, I was raised in an, evangelical home. Mine also happened to be dysfunctional amd emotionally abusive. As a minister's child, I grew up trying to reconcile the God of the bible and my family politics. I always voted Republican. But then I felt like a square peg in a round hole. I was just about ready to give up on how to practice my faith when I discovered your blog. Thank you so much for a home where I can follow my heart and Jesus.

If we go back to the bible and discover what God's plan is for our lives, being salt and light really boils down to seeking justice for those who need it, to feed widows and orphans, take care of the strangers, (those with out legal rights) in our midst. The far right would "Christianize" our nation by making "sin" illegal. I find the only way we can fulfill the law of Christ is by loving our neigbor as ourselves. This is true religion and in my opinion true politics.

If anyone out there is willing to print, bumper stickers that says, Attention Christians, Dobson is not God, I'd put it on my bumper. If we can learn to think for ourselves, raise good questions and follow Jesus, we may end up putting down our political fisticuffs and fulfill the law of Christ. May the best candidate win and may Jesus rule.

Posted by: liberalinlove | September 15, 2008 4:26 PM

I'm going to make a prediction now that if McCain wins the election commentators on this blog will say how unfortunate is was that the election was decided on personality, culture, or wedge issues rather than on real issues. There will be no consideration given to the idea that perhaps the average American voter thought McCain had better answers for the real issues Americans face.

Posted by: Eric | September 15, 2008 4:39 PM

"William, Good post. I agree. Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports."

As opposed to the religious right, which never ever would do such a thing.

(I'm being sarcastic)

Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 4:41 PM

"...so in that sense he's more "establishment" than they."

"And perhaps that might be a good thing -- because he doesn't have to worry about offending the "powers that be" in delivering God's message."
Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 4:15 PM
------
Hmm you seem to have argued that Jim is both establishment AND an outsider.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 4:54 PM

Please, Rick--Does Jim need you to step in and defend him ad nauseum??? It gets to be a bit annoying.

Yeah? And all the unprovoked and unwarranted attacks on Rev. Wallis are much more than annoying. They're often slanderous, too.

Thank God for people like Rick who are willing to step up to the plate and tell things like they are.

It's the ultra-right-wing partisans who refuse to cut Rev. Wallis--or many of the others who post here--even the tiniest bit of slack, it is they who need to chill out.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 15, 2008 5:03 PM

"By voting for these type of policies, who am I to force others to feed the poor?"
Do you also think, then, that we shouldn't provide any HIV/AIDS assistance to impoverished nations?
And on another note--if a nation is in need of military support, should we spend tax money on that?
Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 4:55 PM
------
S, you make a good point and one worth mentioning that Bush has given far more to world poverty, aids, & debt relief than any other president ever. Far more than Clinton. And while these are noble causes, we are completely out of control spending-wise here. Whether it be Fannie/Freddie bailouts or pork barrel spending, we are out of control. Since Obama has never bucked the Democrats I don't have any confidence that he will 'change' the spending game. I think maybe McCain/Palin will. Their record certainly is more favorable toward this than Obama who has managed to add billions in port to his district even while campaigning for the last 20 months.

So to answer your question, no I don't think it wise to pass so much of our kids money around to other countries. Charity can do it if they like. The UN can do it if they like, but we should get our spending under control, then let the people decide. As for the military aid, we have carried that burden for 60 years plus, let someone else take a turn as the world's bail-bondsmen.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 15, 2008 5:14 PM

I THINK THERE ARE VERY FEW CHRISTIANS THAT BLOG HERE. So if you want to insult people and think you are so smart get lost---OR ASK FORGIVENESS OF YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND ASK HIM INTO YOUR HEART. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE ARE TOO MANY HERE THAT WALK IN HIS FOOTSTEPS AND HAVE HIM IN THEIR HEART..

JIM IS RIGHT AND NOT A LIBERAL. THAT MIGHT SOUND LIKE A PUN BUT WE WANT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND CORRECT AND WHAT WILL BENEFIT THE MAJORITY.

Ask yourself "Am I REALLY A CHRISTIANS? JESUS SAID "MANY WILL COME AND SAY, LORD, LORD DIDN'T I DO THIS IN YOUR NAME OR THAT IN YOUR NAME" AND he says "BUT I NEVER KNEW YOU!".

THERE ARE MANY SELF SERVING CHRISTIAN
ORGANIZATIONS OUT THERE THAT PREACH
FALSE GOSPLES. (Isn't that what scripture says)

I AM SO PRIVILEDGED TO HEAR JIM WALLIS, FOR HE IS THE FIRST REAL CHRISATIN I HAVE HEARD IN A LONG TIME. HE IS NOT JUDGEMENTAL OR ANGRY. IF IT WEREN'T FOR HIM I WOULD PROBABLY FEEL VERY LONELY.

(I think some hearts need to be circumcised here.)

Jesus would distribute the wealth and take care of everyone. He did feed the poor, and He healed them. Would he be a socialist? Or would he say seek "THE KINGDOM OF GOD" THAT IS WHERE OUR REAL SALVATION IS"

It was discussed by many of us when I attended church friends-not in the church but by many of us college kids.

IF YOU ARE CHRISTIANS YOU SHOULD PUT SCRIPTURE IN HEART. WHAT I HEAR HERE IS NOT FROM THE LORD.
IT IS HATE! AND YOU KNOW WHERE SARCASISM, INSULTS, AND HATRED COME FROM.

Posted by: Judith | September 15, 2008 5:31 PM

Judith,

I bristle when someone tells me I am not a Christian because I don't believe a certain way. And although I think you and I probably agree on many points regarding our approach to Christianity, it is not your right to judge whether or not someone is a Christian. It is true--you can be a Democrat and still be a Christian. And it is equally true that you can be a Republican and still be a Christian.

You said Jim Wallis is not judgmental and that you appreciate him for it. Your post is very judgmental, so if you admire that of Jim, strive to be non-judgmental yourself. I think most here who proclaim to be Christians can agree that He is our Lord and Savior. We don't, however, agree about what that means for our political lives. But just because someone disagrees with us, that doesn't mean we have the right to question whether they are even Christians. I think that most of us have very good Scriptural reasons for what we believe politically, even if others would find our justifications incomprehensible and astounding.

God made us all different so that we would approach problems from a wide array of perspectives. When we do that well (and that seems to be a rare occasion these days), we are able to avoid pitfalls we would not avoid had we only received input from those who agree with us.

Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 5:47 PM

Today's verse of the day:

O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save?

Why do you make me see wrongdoing and look at trouble? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.

- Habakkuk 1:2-3

For eight years we have had a policy of de-regulation and support of privatization and individual control. Today our economy is on the brink of total collapse. For the last five years we have had a policy of war, torture, and violence. Today our national security is more precarious than ever. It is time for Obama - an A student - in the White House. Not McCain, who was the bottom of his class (884 out of 889). In today's complex society we need someone like Obama who perceives nuances - Jesus taught in parables, did he not?
O Lord, how long must we cry for help?

Posted by: Annie | September 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Peter S: "PS: Carl is welcome to post as infrequently as he likes."

Why, thank you!

Posted by: carl copas | September 15, 2008 6:14 PM

carl, buddy, i responded to your inquiry about the gazelle & the tapes on the russia post but it rotated off. i reckon you can click on "september 2008" over there on the left & scroll down & find it. peace brother,

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 6:25 PM

If someone is seeking what Mr. Wallis called "solutions that result in real abortion reduction," he certainly should not look to Senator Obama, who is firmly committed a public policy agena that will, if implemented, predictably and substantially increase the number of abortions.

The issue of public funding of abortion is indeed a good place to begin a reality check. The Hyde Amendment cutting off almost all federal funding of abortion, and the comparable policies that most states have adopted, have resulted in major reductions in the number of abortions. Both sides agree that this is so. For example, a December "factsheet" issued by NARAL observes, "A study by The Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage have abortion rates of about half of those women in states that fund abortion care with their own dollars." By even the most conservative estimates, over one million Americans are alive today who would have been aborted if the federal Hyde Amendment had not been enacted in 1976. So, here we have what both sides agree is a proven "abortion reduction" policy (although one side thinks it is a good thing, and one side thinks it is a bad thing). Obama advocates the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and all other such restrictions on tax funding of abortions. Moreover, in 2007 Obama gave a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in which he promised abortion would be covered in his national health care plan, which means that everybody would be required to pay for elective abortion through taxes, mandatory premiums, or
both. I am sure he means it.

In addition, Obama is a cosponsor of the "Freedom of Choice Act," a bill that would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion. In addition, this bill would make partial-birth abortion legal again, and require tax-funded abortion on demand in both state and federal health programs. The "Freedom of Choice Act" further provides that "A government may not . . . discriminate against" abortion "in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” (That doesn't sound like a formula for "abortion reduction," does it?) In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do." More on this radical bill here: http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html

In the past, Obama has gone to even further extremes in his zeal to defend "abortion rights." In the Illinois state Senate in 2001-2003, Obama led the opposition to, and ultimately killed, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was a simple three-sentence bill to provide protection for babies who are born alive during abortions. The bill that Obama killed was virtually identical to a bill that passed Congress without a single dissenting vote in 2002. When the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on August 11 released recently uncovered documents to prove that this was so, Obama himself said that we were "lying." After an investigation, Annenberg's independent FactCheck.org concluded: "Obama's claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act]." Obama's history on this legislation, and what it tells us about his thinking on abortion, is explored in a White Paper released by National Right to Life on August 28, 2008, which can be read or downloaded here: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
http://www.nrlc.org

Posted by: Douglas Johnson | September 15, 2008 6:36 PM

Jim is on the right track and this is why I will vote for Obama-Biden. At least they have demonstrated sound judgement and if Supreme Court vacancies will have to be filled in the next four years that sound judgment will mean a lot for the country.

Posted by: Sunriverat | September 15, 2008 6:39 PM

Who is kidding whom this election cycle? The “issues” are the same as they have been for at least the past 8 years; the talking points on both sides are the same as they have been in recent elections; and the political rhetoric has remained politically divisive for as long as I can remember. McCain is lying in his ads, and Obama seems to just tow the party line - despite his cries of "Change You Can Believe In".

The whole system is filled with absurdity. A great quote from Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury comes to mind when I think of either side winning this election, because there is so much to overcome and both sides are full of crooks and liars: "Victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools."

Posted by: Steph | September 15, 2008 6:45 PM

Posted by: squeaky | September 15, 2008 5:47 PM

Thank you, squeaky, for that post. I personally see little evidence of hatefulness on this site, although it does sometimes get heated. Both in my present life as a conservative and in my former life somewhere far to the left of Wallis, I have had to constantly remind myself that people who disagree with me are just people who disagree with me, and not make it into a moral issue.

Posted by: Gordon | September 15, 2008 6:49 PM

I liked the article. I'd have included something on foreign debt.

But what I found most interesting was the responses from both sides.

The responses were almost entirely about personality and character. Who's stronger, more experienced, more faithful, more glamorous.

Which is exactly the point Wallis made. None of those ought to matter. What ought to matter is who has the best plan to address some (ideally all) of these issues.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | September 15, 2008 7:42 PM

kevin, i don't think editorials count as journalism, the same way the editorial from the WJS that "broke" the story was not journalism. if you've got some other source that has evidence that obama sent a team of lawyers (or anyone for that matter) in there, please let me know. they should be called on it if they are denying it but it is a fact.

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 9:20 PM

"We are NOT seeing "unprecedented" warming..."

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 2:05 PM

Unless you were around prior to modern record-keeping and can document otherwise, perhaps you ought to consider the very real possibility that your statement is a load. This is only the 2nd summer on record that the deep channel of the Northwest Passage has thawed sufficiently to permit ship traffic. Oh, that's right, Al Gore probably manufactured that data too, right?

Posted by: canucklehead | September 15, 2008 9:38 PM

Generally it turns out that people who want this election to be about personalities, have long since made up their minds about whom they'll support. The "personality" issues are handy things to grab if one is looking for back-up for a decision he/she made for other reasons.

We only hear what we want to hear.

Comparing moral qualities between the parties is dangerous business; both sides have their serious slip-ups. "The ends justify the means" is not a Christian value; neither is lying either for applause or support.

Deciding who to vote for based on TV commercials means you aren't concerned about objective info.

Since Sojourners are, and always have been, committed to justice and peace, why come here if those qualities bother you? Find a political blog and argue out the bitter biases of partisanship there. If the bloggers on this site can't bring up any issue without being accused of being partisan, "left" or "right," what's the point of even attempting to see the world through the eyes of faith?

And Peter: what gives you such pleasure in cutting people to written ribbons? Putting people in "defense mode" leaves little time for constructive support and reflection. This Christians-for-justice-and-peace website gets uglier and less faithful than secular sites.

Posted by: openeyes | September 15, 2008 9:55 PM

I find it interesting that on God's Politics Blog, a person is able to tell lies about me. Here is the quote from I and I:

"William, what a remarkable, orginal insight you have made. We must stop the politicization of life and listen to James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Rod Parsley, who present us with the pure unadulterated gospel. Your post has inspired me to go join the John Birch Society and even the Council of Conservative (White) Citizens, who are also against the power of the state. Bless you!"

Posted by: I and I | September 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Indeed, over the years, I have written a number of articles that have dealt with how Dobson and Bauer and others have politicized the Gospel. I am NOT a member of any racist group, and, for the record, my two sons (adopted) are black. I don't support McCain, and I do not approve of what the Religious Right has done, and I clearly am on the record as being critical of these groups.

But, Mr. Wallis permits someone to call me a racist because I disagree with how he politicizes the Gospel. I guess this is part of "God's Politics" in which God permits Mr. Wallis and others to violate the commandment against bringing false witness. Truth apparently does not matter on this blog.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 10:27 PM

As for the resurgence of John McCain's campaign, we need to remember something. It was not John McCain or even Barack Obama who brought the Culture War into this campaign; it was the hard left of the Democratic Party with its over-the-top reaction to the nomination of Sarah Palin.

When Democratic women write that Palin really is not a woman, and when a seminary professor from the University of Chicago claims that Palin, who has been a working woman, does not know what working women experience, I have to laugh. Yes, I am sure that a highly-privileged seminary professor from one of the most exclusive universities in the world really is in touch with "working people." Right. I am a college professor myself and am quite aware of the disconnect between working people and those in my profession.

So, if McCain is elected, it actually will have been the Democratic left that put him there. I believe that McCain and Palin can and should be criticized on the issues. Deal with their support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and for the growing culture of government abuse of individuals. Deal with their support of the Patriot Act and the like.

Instead, we hear criticism from Democratic women because she did not abort her Downs child. A Canadian doctor even expressed alarm because he believes that Palin might encourage other women to take Downs children to term instead of killing them. Truly sick and evil.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 15, 2008 10:37 PM

Hilarious. Who has the stronger bi-partisan record out of Obama and Palin? Hint: Obama has never gone against his party on anything of substance.

Irrelevant -- when you get as much money from the feds as Alaska does, who needs partisanship? Heck, in that environment Republicans and Democrats both make out like bandits.

Hmm you seem to have argued that Jim is both establishment AND an outsider.

He's not really establishment, but he's been around longer than much of the Christian "establishment." That should count for something.

But, Mr. Wallis permits someone to call me a racist because I disagree with how he politicizes the Gospel.

That's not what was said. However, Christian conservatism does have a historic racist streak that many of its defenders simply won't address -- remember, the Ku Klux Klan calls itself a Christian organization, Jerry Falwell was a staunch segregationist and the "religious right" started in response to the IRS under Carter investigating "seg academies" that sprung out in the South to avoid court-ordered desegregation in the public schools.

Anyway, whether we like it or not, the Gospel does have political implications. Even though he said that His Kingdom was "not of this world," Jesus Himself was a political figure in his day precisely because He was a threat to the established order. Knowing Him intimately does have implications for all of one's life, not just "salvation" or participation within a local church. The only problem is when religion is used for the sake of political power, which the likes of James Dobson has always done but I have never seen Wallis do -- take away the spotlight and Wallis will still do what he does.

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 10:49 PM

"What is the deal on this blog? I thought Christians posted here, but all I see is hate spewing from right wingers."

Translation: I am reading things with which I disagree.

Read: How dare they criticize us!

Posted by: Rick | September 15, 2008 10:55 PM

william, the post you reference was out of line. i don't think it was intended to say you are a racist, but it certainly was not a very nice response, and i too would have been offended was it directed at me. then again, your post, the one to which it was a response, wasn't brimming with the spirit of mutual respect either. you said to jim that he wants to "Give the state unlimited powers and all these problems will be 'solved,'" that he politicizes everything and that his "is a pure political gospel and nothing else." really? if i was rev. jim, i think i would have taken issue with that too.

if mr. wallis is permitting things to be said by not monitoring this site for content to your liking, then he has also permitted posters here to say i am an apostate headed for the lake of fire when i'm done (nevermind the wonderful contributions of Donny or any crazy right-winger we could ascribe to jim under your logic). your association of someone else's content to jim wallis is pure sophistry. how can you say with a straight face that jim wallis is bearing false witness because you are ascribing to jim what an anonymous blog poster put in the comments? show respect & the odds of it being shown to you will increase. peace

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 11:27 PM

"Read: How dare they criticize us!"

Not really. I don't recall ever getting up in arms over the fact that people disagree with me here.

" i read that response by the obama team on factcheck to mean that indeed they are denying that anyone is there one behalf of obama or the dnc."

That people are there on his behalf is indisputable.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 16, 2008 12:20 AM

I don't recall ever getting up in arms over the fact that people disagree with me here.

That you made that post in practice says otherwise. The real problem is that conservatives often project their motivations onto other people and assume that their opponents do certain things because they would do the same if given the opportunity, witness their consistent attacks on the MSM.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 12:54 AM

The real problem is that conservatives often project their motivations onto other people and assume that their opponents do certain things because they would do the same if given the opportunity"

Actually that is how I have taken many of the posts here by certain bloggers on the racist roots of conservatism . I agree with you in a sense but that I believe liberals often do this .
They are racist seeing the way laws should be enacted such as affirmitive action , hence they project racism in everyone . I have seen racism in all avenues , but never more preavalent then in liberal strong holds , like my Union job or political grandstanding by the left like Hate Crimes legislation that is about as helpfull as anti gay petitions .
In religion The worse offenders I see is the secular media and its unprofessional and lack of in depth reporting on religion from the mainstream media , from Sean Hannity screaming about Reverend Wright and his cult . Sean Hannity has no clue to Black Theology being as common as it is . The Church of Christ is a mainstream denomination , and Trinity is the biggest church in that denomination . We now have the CNN anchor talking about what will happen if
Sarah Palen was influended by her Assembly of God teaching in childhood . Ahhhhh , the world will fall apart by the teaching of the fastest growing Evanagelical church in America , and the largest Penetecostal denomination in the world .
What will we have , people advocating food and shelter for the homeless. baton down the hatches , God is in the House .
Most media have no clue to the spirtual beliefs or the importance people put in Faith in God by regulr people .Elites see it as a crutch , something for the uneducated . When they find it , they are scared of it or mis charactercize it to fit a stereotypical box .

Just like some do with conservatives , and what i do to liberals too I guess.

Posted by: Michael | September 16, 2008 1:42 AM

Here in Dar es Salaam Christians strongly believe that GOD has enabled Obama to reach the position, Democratic Party Presidential nominee, that he has.

We are not so politically correct and would, without any prompting tell you that the white man would NEVER allow a black man to be the leader of a country dominated by white people.

Incidentally, here, Obama would be called 'white' by many Africans, because, at least, he is half-white.

And,

Most of my fellow Africans, reading the comments here, would call Kevin S, Peter S and a host of others RACIST.

FR

we believe that Americans will decide the next President

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 3:41 AM

It is not racist to criticize Senator Obama.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | September 16, 2008 4:20 AM

Thank-you Nad2 and Squeaky for your contributions; and to those expressing desire for fair and reasoned dialogue.

Last night at bedtime prayer my 8-yr-old quietly revealed, "Daddy, I'm trying to love God more than anybody; but I love you so much; but I am getting there."

Could I submit to such a simple call to a live of love, allowing my words, meditations, and acts to be fully pleasing to God; reflecting an understanding and humility that would be truly a gift to those around me?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 16, 2008 4:43 AM

Michael wrote:

I am tired of your insulting diatribes hiding in I obey all rues of conduct , I insult everyone who disagrees with me BUT with no names attached . What are you a professional insulter ?

Whom have I insulted? Name names, please. If the answer that comes to your mind is you, Michael, you have to carry at least some of the blame. During our last exchange, you went to great lengths to make sure you misunderstood me so you could ream me out, and then you threw in some insults of your own ("grow up!"). In fact, calling me a "professional insulter" is itself rather an insult. Meanwhile, during that exchange, I tried to make sure my replies stuck to the issues and stayed away from personalities. Believe me, that wasn't easy, as I was getting more and more steamed with your intransigence and belligerence.

How many times do we have bloggers here speak to the racist origins of beliefs that differ with your ULTRA LIBERAL VIEWS . I never see you speak to that , NEVER .

I have never brought up the racist thing. Never. And I don't comment on it because I have nothing to say on it. Frankly, I try not to spout on about things I don't know much about. I just don't think that's a wise thing to do. Maybe the racist thing is true, maybe it isn't, but I don't really know. So why should I respond out of ignorance? Just to defend people like you who are offended by such comments, or to make you feel good?

The answer to the racist thing, instead of attacking people here because they refuse to counter such comments, is to do some research yourself and find out if what is being said is true. And if it isn't, give the reasons why it isn't. Otherwise you are just whining.

And you don't really know what my views are, because sometimes I play devil's advocate here to try and get people thinking. Sometimes what I write here, in other words, doesn't reflect my own views. So calling me an 'ultra liberal' is rather silly, isn't it?

HPulllesse , we know you always had a problem with the religious right , or beliefs that conflict with yours . If it makes you feel better the leftys here think your intellectually and kind hearted .

My problem is not with well-articulated, well-defended views on either side of an issue or on either side of the political spectrum. My problem is with people who think personal attacks are arguments and who are then offended when they are confronted with that fact.

But on email Don , your just an ultra liberal throwing mud on conservatives . That is how your viewed by us .

Laugh out loud!!! Michael, who is throwing mud here?

For one thing [Rev Wallis] needs to respect those who differ, he needs to understand those in Christ ...

Respect is a mutual thing, Michael. Please tell me, do any of the following comments, taken right from this thread, exhibit respect for Rev. Wallis and the Sojourners organization?

"Mr. Wallis, is there anything in life you have not politicized? From the weather to the food we eat to the very worship of Jesus Christ, you have politicized everything. You are not the only one, but yours is a pure political gospel and nothing else."

"Jim co-opts Jesus on every issue that he supports."

"I don't employ lobbyists in a commune in DC to change US politics, or have a pseudo-christian leftist propaganda magazine that continually brow-beats anyone and everyone who has ever stepped foot in a church to believing that Jesus would like higher taxes in the US to accompany a more 'socialized' political agenda."

Isn't it possible, Michael, that Rev. Wallis' thoughts about the Religious Right are informed by the attitudes expressed in comments such as these?

Finally, Michael, you really to re-read and reflect on Squeaky's reply to our last exchange. It's on Amy Sullivan's "Are evangelicals sold on Palin" thread. (Posted by: squeaky | September 9, 2008 7:32 PM) I don't sense from what I read here that you have taken her comments to heart.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 16, 2008 6:50 AM

I concur with comments about public debt and deficit spending needing to be in Top 5.

To me public debt represents not only poor stewardship, bad policy, and a 'mortgaging' of the future; but also a fundamental failure to govern. This USA 'experiment' in self-governance risks melt-down.

The melt-down in financial services sector has no single cause but I fear we are seeing but a sliver of a harvest that has been sewn. The financial services sector is a monster created by a thousand forces. We need good governance--and a basic national revival of ethical responsibility.

Government reform must occur to bring a revived governance. We have two "reform candidates." Sadly, I cannot say I see either one having waged an effective battle for reform in the Senate. I am always doubtful of reformers who only need a little more power to accomplish the reform they advocate. I am doubtful of reformers who believe they can forego reform in the way they get power so as to change once they get there.

The budget is the primary mechanism for governance. It demands not only one take a stand on an issue (e.g. "I am for truth, justice and the American Way"), but requires us to conceive exactly the parameters of what government can/should do. The failure to control the budget largely represents the failure to debate and agree on how to govern.

This failure is rampant in government, business, churches, families and individuals--and these are connected.

Let us awake from our slumber. God has granted us a spirit of power, love and a sound mind. Deficit spending is fear. Let us dialogue, vote and govern with a clarity of mind, heart, and love.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 16, 2008 7:44 AM

First, while Jerry Falwell was a segregationist when he was younger, he certainly did not hold to that position in his later years. If we are going to hold him to the earlier standard, then we also should hold Mr. Wallis to the same standard.

When Mr. Wallis was younger, he fervently supported Mao ze Dong during the Cultural Revolution. Clark Pinnock, who was part of Mr. Wallis' circle when they were in Chicago, wrote about how all of them believed that what Mao was doing was perfectly in line with what the Gospels preached.

Remember that Mao had the bloodiest reign of any dictator in history, and he was even more brutal than Hitler or Stalin. So, would it be fair to say that Mr. Wallis today supports genocide? Obviously not, but if one is going to call all Christian conservatives racist, then it would seem to me that those on the Left need to be held to the same standards.

Second, Mr. Wallis is on the record as supporting high tax rates, protectionism, a strong internal regulatory structure that piles heavy rules on all business enterprises (outside of statutory law), and a huge cradle-to-grave welfare system. Now,these are the policies that we see in many African countries, yet none of them has eliminated poverty, and, in fact, many have become even poorer after these policies were implemented.

China has seen a real rise in its standard of living ONLY since it threw off many of the laws and policies that Mr. Wallis has fervently supported. (That is why he no longer is so religiously supportive of China.)

As for trade issue, Sojourners tells us that the reason that the Third World is poor is because it trades with the USA. However, the same people claim that Cuba is poor because of the U.S. trade embargo. These are mutually-exclusive positions, yet they give us them with straight faces.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 8:05 AM

In response to everyone who keeps saying "Obama will raise taxes";

The Republicans spend every bit as much as the Democrats. The Democrats are called "Tax and Spend". In response the Republicans should be called "Borrow and Spend" Do you think that just putting something on the national debt and that debt gathering interest is better than paying for it now? You probably have a wallet full of credit cards if you do :)

from above; "The last things Obama wanted was to have to talk about experience, abortion, and his role as a community organizer."

What does it say about the a political party that wants to slam someone who tried to improve his community?

Nope, not a Democrat writing this: www.gp.org

Posted by: Paul W. | September 16, 2008 8:18 AM

Posted by: nad2 | September 15, 2008 1:03 PM

11. Deficit spending.

I agree and if we could give back to the Exe. Branch the 'Red Line' our budgets would come back into sync with our ability to pay. A little 'deficit' spending is not back - but currently we are out of control.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 9:19 AM

Thank you for this. I hope I do not lose my religion during this process which is what I think has happened to McCain, a man who I was excited about but have now lost all respect for. I know I am redundant here at Gods Politics, but I am voting Democrat this year for the first time in my life. John McCain never did and never will give a darn about evangelicals or their issues, only their votes - that is clear to me now. These are dangerous and complicated times and he should have chosen a running mate with foreign affairs credentials and an education background worthy of such a high position. It is so obvious that McCain bowed down to the very crowd he once rightly called 'agents of intolerance.'

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | September 16, 2008 9:49 AM

The republicans have wrecked America. The economy is in a serious meldown while they are spending your grandchildren's money to fight wars that cannot end well. The constitution has been shredded. Not a single child's life has been saved, but hundreds of thousands have been destroyed . The last 3 republican administrations went out with huge deficits while the Democrats balanced the budget, but the lies about fiscal conservatism are a matter of faith not facts, mythology not history.

As far as this nonsense about personalities. I personally have a hard time getting past the lies to the glowing (and reassuringly white, 'I made mine, let the losers go to the salvation army') "personalities" which others find so enthralling. I think personalities as used above bespeaks evangelicals magnetic attraction to the big-haired Jesus-in-a-can salesman, the smiling authoritarian liar, the heroic poser. Buy now everyone, Wall street is selling. The holy pistol packin mama has come to save us and chase common sense and justice back out of sight where they belong. We're off to the crusades, drill baby drill.

Posted by: jonabark | September 16, 2008 10:05 AM

"Thy Kingdome"

Ah yes, the Kingdome. I have fond memories of the place. Steve Largent, Jim Zorn, Ken Griffey Jr. Good times, good times...

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 16, 2008 10:18 AM

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | September 16, 2008 9:49 AM

'...should have chosen a running mate with foreign affairs credentials and an education background worthy...'

So a person that has risen quickly through the ranks of the party, a loving spouce and parent of a large family. That has taken on issues within the state and party and made them better. Now has been tapped for the VP position and you are concerned that they have only been a Govenor?

Well - if I remember my history, you have just cancelled Teddy Rosevelt. How sad that those credentials were good enough for him but not for Palin.

What foreign affairs experience did Pres Carter have - basically nothing. Neither did Pres Clinton for the most part. For that matter what does Obama have in that area when it comes to real experience? I think you are setting two standards - I might be wrong - but it looks that way.

'...he once rightly called 'agents of intolerance.'

There have been some that have been that way and we need to take out licks. But for the most part we as conservatives believe that everyone should have the chance to succeed which means that you have the chance to fail. Some of my best learning experiences have been my failures or my being connected to someone who ways heading for failure. Thank goodness - I have been able to see what they were doing and in most cases I was able to bail prior to it going down.

Vote you convictions - I trust the American People, they are wonderful people, not perfect but more often than not they rise to the challenge and make it better.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 10:28 AM

Just because I do not think it is the government's role to tax it's citizens at threat of prison then give that money at its discretion to other countries I am a "religious right fanatic".

Then make your case with your congressman -- don't lambaste us here. Besides, that comment does indeed represent the type of simplistic, often uninformed thinking that typifies the "religious right" because it feels entitled to make the rules for everyone.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 10:45 AM

It's not about personalities, but since people do the voting, personalities do come into play. But they don't have to.

I really doubt anyone voted for George W Bush (or Bush, Sr. for that matter) because of an egaging personality. Maybe for the lack of it, but certainly not because of it.

Obama is referred to a celebrity because for a while anyway, he was hot. Sarah has come in and taken some of that away, which is a classic problem with celebrity.

If I may add -- it's also not about the physical. It's not about color, or age or sex. But I'm not so sure that America is ready to vote about the issues and not about the above.

No one is saying Biden is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I'm not for McCain, but the agism is apparent. We've also proven as a nation that we hate those with wealth. We all dream of making it, but sure do hate those who do. I see this from both sides. It's extremely distressing to me that we've only changed one prejudice for another. Historic election. Right.

Posted by: frankie | September 16, 2008 11:05 AM

big guy, you are talking about the line-item veto law that was struck down which gave the president the right to "red-line" through certain spending measures tacked onto bills. i am not aware of any other provision like that ever being tried. if there was such a provision, your beef is not w/ the dems, it is w/ the constitution which says congress makes the laws & the president enforces them. for the president to add "only if we have the $ to do it" is to add to the law. guiliani as mayor of nyc brought the case against clinton back in the 90s to challenge this presidential budget-altering power, look it up. the court said definitively that to do what you are suggesting requires an amendment to the constitution.

Posted by: nad2 | September 16, 2008 11:29 AM

canucklehead: "That's b/c the psychological orientation of same is to belly-ache non-stop about how God's chosen nation is going to hell in a handbasket unless abortion and homosexuality are eradicated from the face of their tiny little world. It's neither fun nor empowering having to do that in forums where everyone's attempting to chew each others' ears off over some minor irrelevancy, so they have to come over here where moderates who feel duty-bound to be remotely Christ-like in our discussion tolerate their bilge."

That pretty much sums up GP these days. It's what I was trying to say rather haltingly on a different post several days ago, but as usual canuckle is much more eloquent

Posted by: carl copas | September 16, 2008 11:46 AM

LV: "Ah yes, the Kingdome. I have fond memories of the place. Steve Largent, Jim Zorn, Ken Griffey Jr. Good times, good times..."

nad2: "LV, since thy kingdome is in seattle, i can now see why william insists that the hard left thinks it has a monopoly on it. thank you for so nostalgically clarifying it for us all."

"Viva viva viva viva viva Sea-Tac
They've got the best computers and coffee and smack"--Robyn Hitchcock, "Viva Sea-Tac"

Posted by: carl copas | September 16, 2008 11:56 AM

Let me correct my faux pax -

The correct term is 'impounding' that the Pres. could do. It has been done since Jefferson and Nixon used a 'red pen' so it was commonly called 'red line'. Congress could look at what was impounded and deal with it seperatly - but now the public could know and see what was happening and why. It was a way of keeping everyone accountable. If Congress was going to push it through - it had to detail how they were going to obtain the funds. Now we just get more loans and no one is head accountable.

Let the Exe Branch - IMPOUND - what it believes is excessive and let there be open discussion about why and how it will be fulfilled.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM

you can put lipstick on a pig...
call it impounding, redlining, line-iteming, whatever, the president under the constitution either has to sign or veto what is presented to him, budgets included. those are the only 2 options (other than not signing, which is irrelevant here). there is no law saying the president cannot veto something & say why he is vetoing it, or impounding it, or whatever you want to call it. in fact, the constitution says the president shall send it back to where it originated w/ his reasons for why he vetoed it so it could be reconsidered. don't blame dems for the way our government was constitutionally setup. i will now leave this topic alone. suffice it to say we both agree we need to find a way to get our national debt under control.

Posted by: nad2 | September 16, 2008 12:38 PM

"Nowhere in my post did I lie about you. But it seems you lied about Mr. Wallis."

Which of my statements was a lie? Sojourners is and always has been a political magazine. For example, the newest "vote out poverty" is a call for expansion of the state. Raise taxes on some people, and then give resources to others. Have the government pay for all medical care, which means some will pay a lot and others will pay nothing, with the medical care and payments to be politically distributed.

Remember the "well done, my good and faithful servant" quote? It was given in honor of a person, John Edwards, who has called for a massive expansion of the state into domestic affairs.

I have been reading Sojourners since its Post American days. In fact, in the early days, I liked what they were doing. Granted, my politics were much more left-wing than they are now. Sojourners always has been about the expansion of the state and the further politicization of life. From food to sex to the weather to medical care, everything falls under the nexus of the political with this publication.

As to your earlier comments, you basically accused me of being a racist, which means you accused me of hating my own children. Your point was that if I did not agree with Wallis, then I must have been a disciple of Jerry Falwell or a member of the White Citizens Council. I have been around for quite a while and I can recognize your comments for what they are.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 12:57 PM

"That you made that post in practice says otherwise. "

No it doesn't. I find absurd the accusation that I am a right-wing smear campaigner standing athwart Christ, and have every right to express this finding. If someone wants to call me a non-Christian they can have the guts to do so directly and by name. Otherwise, I'll lend little credence to their accusations.

I have expressed no problem with dissent with my opinion here, and I deal such dissent specifically. For example, Rick, I have never called your faith or motivations into question, aside from a light-hearted jab at reformed theology every now and then.

"Most of my fellow Africans, reading the comments here, would quickly assume that Kevin S, Peter S and a host of others are white and call them RACIST. We would do it at the risk of being called 'judgmental' - simply because, in our 'innocence' we don't much care for what's 'correct' to say."

Well, if you don't mind being incorrect, than say what you will about my alleged racism, in caps or otherwise.

"the court said definitively that to do what you are suggesting requires an amendment to the constitution."

Or a different court. I think the line-item veto is perfectly sound, and would do a great deal to end the earmarking and lobbyist paybacks that infiltrate virtually all legislation coming out of congress.

A line-item veto would prevent, for example, a $100 million hotel infrastructure subsidy for Nevada from being attached to a bill authorizing more benefits for military veterans.

As the system currently operates, that infrastructure earmark would be attached to a bill that a president has no political cover to oppose. That results in bad legislation.

A line-item veto would allow the President to support the right legislation, and force Congress to vote up or down on a provision related to infrastructure spending in Nevada.

Without interfering with the balance of powers, we have a system to produce better legislation.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 16, 2008 1:19 PM

if congress so chooses, it can also include in any spending bill that the president has discretion to not spend the $, but it is for congress to say this for each bill presented. ok, i'm done.

Posted by: nad2 | September 16, 2008 2:21 PM

I do need to point out where I agree with Mr. Wallis and the people from Sojourners. First, I cannot and will not support the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I was on the record before the invasions as being against them, and have not changed my position.

Second, I also agree with them regarding the immigration raids in which children are separated from their parents and people placed in terror and abused by American authorities. While I believe that the outrage that comes from Sojourners tends to be quite selective (and inconsistent), nonetheless I believe I must applaud them when I believe it is merited.

In the past three decades, we have seen a growing epidemic of abuse by government of individuals at all levels of governance. Indeed, today we have what I call a Culture of Abuse, from the mistreatment of airline passengers by the TSA, the Drug War, and the vast growth of the U.S. prison system.

The Culture of Abuse grows as the state grows and is empowered. Both Republicans AND Democrats have taken part in this abuse and both parties have done what they can to encourage it.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 2:53 PM

I find absurd the accusation that I am a right-wing smear campaigner standing athwart Christ, and have every right to express this finding.

You, personally, may not be, but there is by numerous accounts a fairly healthy right-wing smear campaign loaded with malevolent motives and misleading, if not outight false, statements that often invokes God in their efforts to deceive; we've seen many of such statements on this blog. That is the legacy of conservatism, whether it appreciates that or not.

A line-item veto would allow the President to support the right legislation, and force Congress to vote up or down on a provision related to infrastructure spending in Nevada.

The only way to do this would be by constitutional amendment, which the SCOTUS had ruled when Congress passed and Clinton signed such a line-item veto.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 3:00 PM

letjusticerolldown,

Thanks for sharing your son's prayer. Very beautiful. Out of the mouths of babes!

Posted by: squeaky | September 16, 2008 3:07 PM

By the way, a number of ACORN activists have been accused of voter fraud, and some have been convicted. (And I guarantee you they were not registering people to vote Republican.)

However, since ACORN is a gathering of saints, I guess we are supposed to be endorsing voter fraud, especially if those faux votes go for the candidates who support "God's Politics."

As one who has dealt with ACORN in the past, I cannot see them as saintly, self-denying people. What I saw were educated whites manipulating others, stirring them up, but, in the end, not really improving their lives at all.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 3:09 PM

"No doubt, you would find a way to say that my own social views and views of the state really mean I have a secret hatred for my own children. Thus, this is my last post in this so-called dialog."

Since you've already contributed quite a bit to the thread, you might as well stay on and I'll shut up.

Posted by: I and I | September 16, 2008 3:16 PM

To those of you who are trying to disparage Obama because he does not vote against his Party. Be aware that THERE IS NO VIRTUE IN SIMPLY VOTING CONTRARY TO YOR PARTY....You see it depends on the issue and where your party stands
Take the issue of invading Iraq.. that would have been a place to vote against. I am very comfortable that Obama has consistently voted with the Dems. because I feel the causes were just.
Also McCain's mantra has been that he always puts his country first. Then he pulls this stunt
of naming an enpty-headed bit of fluff for his running mate as a clear move to turn the election away from the issues onto personalities. This from an old man with a hx of CA..what happened to country first? I dread to think of the possibility of a President Palin.
I only pray that we get the government that we need so badly and not the one we deserve!!

Posted by: Beevo | September 16, 2008 3:47 PM

There is no doubt that the federal intervention created some relief for African-Americans at that time, but I contend that we would have seen changes in the South (and the North, for that matter) even had these laws not been passed. Of course, if you take everything that Morris Dees says to be Gospel Truth, then the South still is a cauldron of racism in which the Klan is ready to take over at any second, held back only by federal troops.

Based on this post, I would say you know very little about the South -- and Southerners, black and white, themselves will probably tell you that as well. A profile of JFK written about a year or two ago noted that he and Bobby had concluded that the South would "never reform"; in fact, Ronald Reagan made serious inroads when he stated that he supported "states' rights," and a Ku Klux Klansman in Georgia openly endorsed him, saying that "the Republican platform could have been written by a Klansman." The majority of white Southerners began supporting Republicans for national office when the national Democratic Party was supporting civil rights; the Washington Post reported that, in Alabama, GWB received 80 percent of the white vote while John Kerry received 80 percent of the black vote.

It is my belief that this emphasis on politics and political "solutions" to everything ultimately will be our undoing.

Well, at what point do you believe that political solutions actually do matter? In the movie "Cry Freedom," the South African newspaper editor whom the government banned for his anti-apartheid activities talked on the beach with his wife about leaving the country, and he said this: "I'm not God, but we know what this country is like now. And we can't accept it and we can't wait for God to come and change it. We have to do what we can." Martin Luther King Jr., a cleric by trade, nevertheless understood that sometimes the Gospel has political implications. It's not that we focus upon that, but the Bible talks clearly about something called "justice." That's why this blog exists.

Posted by: Rick | September 16, 2008 3:53 PM

"I believe that political "Christianity" has been a real bane on both sides. The liberals have replaced the Risen Savior with the political activist, while people like James Dobson have become political operatives and have damaged the very good work they have done elsewhere.

It is my belief that this emphasis on politics and political "solutions" to everything ultimately will be our undoing. Now, the Gospel will survive and even thrive because the Gospel has survived and thrived under the worst of hardships. But, I don't know about the church in America."

William, you will find that many of us on here, even some lefties like myself, struggle with defining the role Christians should play in the political arena. We want the Cross coopted by neither of the major political parties or by any candidate.

For what it's worth, I, too, was glad to read your post of 2:53. I had written you off as one-dimensional, but obviously that was mistaken. I hope you'll continue to contribute, always in the spirit of Christian fellowship. We need multiple points of view on here from people in the Kingdom.
I hope this does not come off as self-righteous.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 4:02 PM

that last post (4:02) was me.

Posted by: carl copas | September 16, 2008 4:06 PM

By the way, by calling Ronald Reagan a closet Klansman, you demonstrate your own ignorance. The issue of "states rights" involves federalism and the separation of powers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

States are political entities, and political entities do not have "rights," they have powers. I will be the first to say that the states have misused their powers, but I also will state that when we make the central government all-powerful, there is no escape when it becomes an agent of injustice.

During the Jim Crow years and before, there was a huge exodus of African-Americans from the South, called the Great Migration, one of the largest in all of human history. People voted with their feet when faced with oppression in their home states.

I have written for many years about the federal "justice" system and the very real abuses that exist, especially in federal criminal law. This has come about because Congress has empowered the executive branch well beyond its Constitutional bounds, and Congress also has made the Commerce Clause of the Constitution basically meaningless.

Many of us who believe there needs to be more political decentralization do not do so because we are racists, despite what I read on this board. There really are actual things to be discussed, but I see that really is impossible because a large segment on this board simply wants to dismiss anyone who wishes to deal with the law and federalism as a racist. So be it.

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 4:27 PM

By the way, since you have decided to label people like me as closet Klansmen, perhaps a bit of history might be enlightening to some of you on the left. Many of your cherished union activists also supported the Ku Klux Klan, especially in the coal unions (UMW). A history of Williamson County, Illinois, is most enlightening in this regard.

In Chattanooga, where I lived for many years, the unions kept blacks out of good unions jobs and did it openly. And the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was written openly and specifically to keep blacks from being hired in construction jobs paid for by federal funds.

But, what do I know? I'm just a racist Klansman because I don't agree with "Rick." I suppose that is what we call "God's Politics."

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 4:32 PM

Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 4:32 PM

I suppose that is what we call "God's Politics."

'Somebodies politics' - well stated.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 16, 2008 4:43 PM

RE: Posted by: William Anderson | September 16, 2008 4:53 PM

William, you are awesome! Thanks for the insight and experience you bring to this debate. Please keep posting the truth!

Posted by: Peter S. | September 16, 2008 5:03 PM

william, conduct your personal pity party somewhere else. no one has called you a racist. the degree of over-generalization & sophistry to which you have gone with the left in general & sojourners & bloggers here in particular is beyond what one could reply to without significant time, which i have a feeling would be wasted. & beyond that, it is insulting when directed at people here who all seem to be trying to work in the same vineyard of the lord as you. this is like jekyll & hyde. it is as though you might want to engage in dialog, but you've got too much pent up to say about the left & too much victimitis to ever let yourself get there. if you think someone is being unfair, say so, but stop beating up on the straw men you've created. southern hillbilly to southern hillbilly: c'mon man,

Posted by: nad2 | September 16, 2008 5:05 PM

William--I'm too tired to slog through the posts to find it, but where did anyone call you a racist? I don't remember seeing it anywhere.

""No one will deny that, over the past 30 years, the rich have become richer and everyone else has suffered."

That simply is not true. Are you telling that only about one percent of people in this country have had a rising standard of living in the last 30 years and everyone else is poorer? "

Good point, except that isn't really the issue--true, all of our standards of living have improved. But, the gap between rich and poor has increased substantially during that time. That is the issue.

"By the way, do you really believe that we can confiscate the entire income or near-entire income of a tiny segment of the population and thus create prosperity?"

What percentage of income is proposed to tax the rich? I'd like to see the numbers--I highly doubt it is the entire income.

As for Mugabe--it really depends on who he is giving the money to. He may have taken it from the rich, but where is it going? Is it going to the poor in his nation? Or is it going to his corrupt cronies? Is it going towards building infrastructure and schools and things that build community and improve people's lives? If not, I would say the failure to redistribute wealth in Zimbabwe has more to do with a corrupt government system than it does with a failure of the idea of wealth redistribution. I"m not arguing in favor of wealth redistribution here, but just pointing out why it might be failing in Zimbabwe. Our circumstances are much different than theirs. Using them as an example is like comparing kumquats to fajitas.

Posted by: squeaky | September 16, 2008 5:33 PM

Could someone give a definition of politics? It's about life and people, right? I hope this isn't a non-sequiter-whatever that means.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | September 16, 2008 6:19 PM

Pastor Jeff,

Why are you trying to talk about faith and politics on a blog like this. Can't you see we have other stuff to talk about?

=)

Posted by: frankie | September 16, 2008 6:48 PM

Thank you Jim for pointing out the very serious issues facing us today. The religious right is determined to continue their same status quo, while vilifying those of us who are weary of Jim Dobson and Richard Land. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Joe | September 16, 2008 10:34 PM

" I personally think that the rifts that we live with call for a spirituality that is larger than any religion." jonabark

In the beginning, beyond the limits of space and time, lived the Word. The Word was with God--and lo and behold, the Word was God.

Could it be the spirituality, for which you seek, is this Word--this word that came to us not as a religion or idol or holy book--but that took on a human form so as to fellowship with you?

Would you try Jesus and see if the Christ is not a wee bit bigger than Christianity?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 17, 2008 12:56 AM

Posted by: I and I | September 17, 2008 9:44 AM

So - just for clairifacation.
Do you have to use the 'r' word in order to be called or labeled that or can just the retoric that one uses do the same?

This is why I limit my posting to some people as I believe it is the retoric that can do the same damage. I agree - take a breath and I have and minused off some phrases - I know that others do not and it does the same damage but some get away with it.

Blessings to all -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 17, 2008 10:06 AM

Big guy, I've made the point time and time again that people who hold to small-government ideology are not always racist in themselves, but that the ideology does help further the racist agenda whether its adherents mean it to or not. That isn't implying that William or anyone else is racist, and you and he should both know that. I don't know what further clarification is necessary.

Posted by: I and I | September 17, 2008 12:07 PM

I'm just coming into this blog and as I was reading the posts for the 15th I noticed a few ineresting things. It seems no matter where I read blogs or talk to people they have the idea that Christians are not true Christians if they don't act like or sound like nice doormats.
Jesus was not/is not a doormat,nor will I be one. He had and still has allot of things to say some of it political, if you read Gods Word in context and study it that way. For instance you had Kathi S. telling us that she went to a Christian College, she said that G.W.Bush has gotten us into wars that have killed thousands of people and refers to Gods Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Yet Bush is against abortion.
She then goes on to say how great Barack Obama is because SHE claims he takes "thou shalt not Kill" seriously. Yet Obama is for abortion at any time of the pregnancy and even after it(Infant Born-Alive Act)in the name of poverty.
Lets all Understand God's Word. Thou shalt not kill means-thou shalt not murder!
And God does not excuse His Own Creations being murdered because people claim they are too poor to be bothered with a baby.(see Psalm 139vs. 13)
Kathi writes:
"Which candidate believes in loving your neightbor? Obama’s program includes taking care of the poor and downtrodden. He proved his commitment to the poor by working in the ghettos of Chicago. Obama will tip the scales away from the rich to be kind to the poor."
In order to answer that question first you have to know who your neighbor is. See the parable of The Good Samaratin. Where Jesus tells the so called expert in the law that the 1st thing is to Love the Lord-God with all your heart, soul , mind and strenth and then to love your neighbor as yourself. Ok, several points-
Who has loved God today with all his heart mind soul and strenth?
Also, I don't think Jesus meant that if for example Obama comes across a poor expectant mother that he should set out to get the government to pay for an abortion for her.
Nor do I think Jesus meant for him or Mcain or Bush or anyone to ignore her.
I think Jesus meant that we should personally help her...personally. And that would not include advising her to abort her baby, or to pay for it themselves get the tax payers to pay for it.
If Barack wants to "heal" either someone or a nation or the world, where does he believe he's getting that power from? I only know ONE PERSON who can heal people or nations and that I God. Some one said we should try to figure out what Jesus would do. Well Jesus would NOT murder. But as in Ecclesiastes 3 it states that there is a time even for WAR. War is not murder. If both canidates are hypocrits then they are. Who of us is not a hypocrit at some time or another, no matter how hard we try not to be? The entire point of this post is to point out the need each and everyone of us personally has for The Savior-The Redeemer-Jesus Christ!!
God know we need Him.

Posted by: JanetB | September 24, 2008 4:59 PM

Good points. Intolerance should be shunned and resisted in religion and politics both. In this election, the borders between church and state, spirituality and rationality, have become blurred. There is a reason why America, a profoundly religious nation since its inception, established a division between church and state. Perhaps it is similar to the reason why Jesus, the ultimate transformer, acted through the power of faith instead of politics in his own time. Government is a uniquely human endeavor; it is how people create their interdependent society and give shape to their present hopes and future dreams. A belief that a person, religious group, party or nation can invoke God on their behalf [implying that their opponents are less godly or less worthy] is not only wrong but dangerous, because there is no arguing about matters of faith. If religion is mixed with politics, elections become contests of faith, not rational discourse where people voice their worldly interests and preferences. Spiritualism and faith, and intellect and rationality, are fundamental components of the human makeup and condition, and exist side by side. Isn't it each person's responsibility to appreciate the appropriate zones of religious and political beliefs and actions, and to act accordingly? To mix religion and politics compromises them both.

Posted by: Insighter | November 2, 2008 11:41 AM