Rev. Jim Wallis Gives Democrat's weekly radio address

[wyldwolf]

Brilliant move...


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats turned to an evangelical Christian to give their weekly radio address on Saturday, citing a desire to avoid partisanship after last month's elections that gave them control of Congress.

"I want to be clear that I am not speaking for the Democratic Party, but as a person of faith who feels the hunger in America for a new vision of our life together, and sees the opportunity to apply our best moral values to the urgent problems we face," the Rev. Jim Wallis said in his remarks.

Wallis, author of 2005's "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," highlighted issues that he said required a new direction, including U.S. policy in Iraq. He also called for new efforts to combat poverty and protect the environment.

"We need serious solutions, not the scapegoating of others," Wallis said. "The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America."

In a statement, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he chose Wallis to give the address, usually reserved for politicians, "in the spirit of bipartisanship."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061202/ts_nm/usa_democrats_religion_dc

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Some may disagree

but it is a way to show that the Dems are going to take care of social issues-I'm assuming that Wallis's remarks were okayed by the Dems before he spoke.

[LA lady]

4. Not okayed with me! n/t

[1932]

16. His remarks weren't OK'd. IIUC, he was allowed to say whatever we wanted

but anyone who has read God's Politics would know that there's nothing in it which should give any Democrat pause.

[trotsky]

2. Yeah, brilliant.

As long as you're religious.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. How religious was it? I haven't seen a transcript.

[jefferson_dem]

7. His statement was pure and true progressivism, couched within a "liberal" faith-based theme.

Here are some excerpts, i posted to another thread --

*****

A government that works for the common good is central. There is a growing desire for integrity in our government across the political spectrum. Corruption in government violates our basic principles. Money and power distort our political decision-making and even our elections. We must restore trust in our government and reclaim the integrity of our democratic system.

and

Answering the call to lift people out of poverty will require spiritual commitment and bipartisan political leadership. Since the election, I have spoken with leaders from both parties about creating a real anti-poverty agenda in Congress. We need a grand alliance between liberals and conservatives to produce new and effective strategies.

and

This week, President Bush met with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, seeking solutions to the rapidly deteriorating situation in that civil-war torn nation. Nearly 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war are moral issues our country must address. Leaders in both parties are acknowledging that the only moral and practical course is to dramatically change the direction of U.S. policy, starting with an honest national debate about how to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq with the least possible damage to everyone involved.

and

Our earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God's good creation. Yet, our environment is in jeopardy as global warming continues unchecked and our air and water are polluted. Good stewardship of our resources is a religious and moral question. Energy conservation and less dependence on fossil fuels are commitments that could change our future- from the renewal of our lifestyles to the moral redemption of our foreign policies.

...

FOR COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT AND AUDIO -> http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/12/reverend_jim_wa.php

[trotsky]

9. See, that's what bugs me about him.

He peppers WAY too much "faith talk" in with an otherwise decent agenda.

Answering the call to lift people out of poverty will require spiritual commitment

Good stewardship of our resources is a religious and moral question.

I say bunkum to both those examples as well as any others. Wallis seems to purposely exclude those with no faith from this dialog.

[1932]

17. Like MLK "peppered" "faith talk" in his speeches? Did you feel excluded by

his speeches?

[trotsky]

18. Well, considering I wasn't alive then, no.

But since we've been through the ringer on this before, with you firmly supporting a melding of politics and religion, I don't see much point in rehashing it now.

[1932]

21. Well, considering that you didn't understand what I was arguing last time

(judging by your characterization of it here), it probably would be a waste of time rehashing it.

[trotsky]

26. If you say so. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

20. When people express such a fear of ideas...

...it makes me wonder about the strength of their own convictions.

NGU.

[trotsky]

25. And if I feared the ideas, you might have a point.

But I fear the fusion of religion and politics.

[Cha]

24. He's a man of faith and sorry

you don't like it but there's millions out there who need to hear a speech like that that it isn't peppered with hate for some groups.

I went to "church" today for the first time this century and it was an amazing experience..course, it was The Universalist Unitarian and their mission statement is.."Our religious community is a home for inquisitive, spiritual free thinkers in the Mohawk Valley. We welcome diverse religious beliefs. We strive to provide an environment that accepts , nurtures, and shares people's search for truth, justice, and spiritual growth."

They played music(banjo, fiddle, harp, guitar, harmonica, and the organ.

It was about "Be Here Now", "Live in the Moment" and don't get too sucked into "The Rapture".

[Bjorn Against]

5. Have you ever read Wallis?

I am not religious and I agree with much of what he said. He is not really preachy, and he really points out how the religious right abuses religion. I don't agree with every thing the guy says, but I do have a lot of respect for him and I think you would to if you read some of his work. You really don't have to be religious to understand and agree with many of his points.

[jonnyblitz]

6. I couldn't get past the first chapter of his book. I tried to read it.

he was too preachy for me. but that is just me. uber-religiosity bothers me in politics whether it is from the left or right. :shrug:

[1932]

22. Fundamentalism irks me. Religions doesn't. I loved this book.

This was one of the best books I've read on politics recently and it was because this guy was coming to all the same conclusions I came to about politics but through the avenue of spirituality.

It was fascinating.

[trotsky]

10. Yeah, he points out how the RR abuses it.

But then he takes Democrats to task for not genuflecting enough to it. He wants BOTH parties to adhere to his particular religion-based agenda. Oh I like some of his agenda (certainly not the anti-choice and anti-homosexual parts) but when you have to anchor an agenda to a religious interpretation, you're doomed from the start.

[salvorhardin]

8. Yep. He's just arguing for a more liberal theocracy and moving the Party toward the right

At least that's the way I see it. He has said some really dumb things about atheists from time to time as well. Here's what he said at BeliefNet the Thursday after the election:

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. A significant number of candidates elected are social conservatives on issues of life and family, economic populists, and committed to a new direction in Iraq. This is the way forward: a grand new alliance between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, one that can end partisan gridlock and involves working together for real solutions to pressing problems.
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/11/jim-wallis-defeat-for-religious-right.html

So the secular left in Jim Wallis' world aren't part of the moral center?

[trotsky]

11. He's anti-choice and against gay marriage.

So the secular left in Jim Wallis' world aren't part of the moral center?

Absolutely not! Us secular types (funny, I thought since our Constitution is secular, approaching matters of law from a secular standpoint SHOULD be what we strive for) don't respect his religion enough.

Wallis wants to inject religion into politics just as much as Jerry Falwell does - it's just a different kind of politics.

[salvorhardin]

14. Exactly

Funny you said almost exactly the same thing I did when I wrote about it.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2006/11/09/will_somebody_tell_jim_wallis_

[trotsky]

31. That could just be where I got that brain nugget from!

I remembered reading something like that - it must have been NG! Great minds... ;-)

[Ninja Jordan]

12. Is the 'atheist vote' something Democrats should be coveting?

[salvorhardin]

13. No absolutely not

In no way do you want to associate with a group of people who care as much for the Constitution, especially the first amendment, as some of the Founding Fathers did. A totally disreputable bunch. And while you're at it you might want to throw out the gays and women too.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. Yawn

Talk about being an alarmist.

[trotsky]

19. Estimates put the percentage of atheists & agnostics around 10-15%.

About the same percentage of Jews, Afro-Americans, or homosexuals. Would you have uttered your same statement about any of those groups? If you had, would you expect members of those groups to not appreciate it?

[1932]

23. What about his next three paragraphs?

It is clear from the election results that moderate, and some conservative, Christians - especially evangelicals and Catholics - want a moral agenda that is broader than only abortion and same-sex marriage.Poverty, the war in Iraq, strengthening families, and protecting the environment are all moral values. And many Americans this year voted all of their values.

One of the central issues in this election was the continuing violence and death in Iraq. As of today, 2,836 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in this disastrous war. The people have now spoken, and there is a mandate to change the course of U.S. policy in Iraq. The president acknowledged this yesterday with his announcement of the resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and his recognition that the country needs a fresh perspective in the Defense Department. We believe that the first order of business for the new Congress and the administration must be determining alternatives to the current disastrous course.

Voters also recognized that while the economy is in good shape for some, there are still too many being left out, especially working families. It is significant that in all six states where an initiative to raise the minimum wage was on the ballot, it passed, in most cases by overwhelming margins. Congress and the administration must now pass a federal minimum wage increase that will benefit all working people in America.

Wallis is making an observation about races like Casey's in Pennsylvania, and, even if you wish Casey hadn't won, Wallis's observation might be fair and accurate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. regarding the organization Rev. Wallis leads

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.




Sojourners is the organization Rev. Wallis founded and now leads:

Link for Sojourners

http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) on Democracy Now - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

Might I suggest?

check this link to see the kind of issues these American Evangelicals of Sojourners are involved in -- this is definitely not the Pat Robertson type:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_archives&mode=current_opinion&article=CO_031217

[1932]

33. And their big theme is that the social issues should not be used to distract

people from big moral issues like poverty and empire.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. exactly..

Rev. Wallis may very well hold some conservative social beliefs...but neither he or his organization, Sojourners makes a big deal of of them...

Rev. Wallis and his organization is a progressive--some might even say a "left-wing" influence on the Democratic Party. Their politics are what some from the right would deride as the "McGovernite wing" of the party.

IF progressives are genuinely serious about building a progressive majority we need allies which might include religious people who don't necessarily agree with all of us on some very important issues but don't allow those personal opinions to become a distraction.

[Superman Returns]

27. His book was God awful

pun intended.

[1932]

29. What didn't you like about it?

[Superman Returns]

35. Because...

I thought it was going to be a fact-based book with historical examples and researched information; maybe actually go into detail of MLK and his linkage of religion & progressive causes, not just drop his name a million times. Essentially, it was his opinion or editorial with a lot of clippings from articles he had already written. Look at his footnote section or lack thereof. Everything was just edited bad and put together in a fashion that was not enjoyable to read. He wrote about his role in trying to prevent the Iraq War. I frankly don't care. What we get is a personal thesis on why Democrats should blindly embrace issues simply because God says too. What we should have gotten was a reason why progressive issues and religion have been historically intertwined and how we can channel that natural alliance today. Poorly researched. Poorly put together. Boring. I was real disappointed with this one.

[Dob Bole]

37. It assumes a lot of preknowledge

about Christianity and social issues. It was mostly written to sway young evangelicals.

[1932]

48. The book clearly has a different audience in mind.

I was never confused that the book might be something other than a personal expression of how Wallis matches his faith to his progressive politics with a broad audience in mind.

And I thought the book was incredibly successful in achieving that purpose.

If you want a fact-based, history of a more technical nature, read the chapter in American Theocracy on fundamentalism and read all the books Phillips cites.

[Dob Bole]

28. Jim Wallis' political/religious views are EXACTLY the same as Jimmy Carter's...

if you've read Carter's latest book, you may have noticed that. I happen to like both books, but those of you who intensely dislike Jim Wallis are faced with this logical choice: You must either approve of the political views of both, or reject both, because they are the same.

DB

[trotsky]

30. Carter and Wallis share similar views in VERY different ways.

And is Carter anti-choice like Wallis?

Wallis is much more in-your-face, fuck-the-nonbelievers. Carter is inclusive and tolerant.

[Dob Bole]

36. Sorry, I am anti-semantic.

That's like saying you like Clinton's style better than Evan Bayh's, even though they vote the same. Carter and Wallis have the same views. Both oppose abortion, but neither would approve of overturning Woe v. Rade. That's because both are believers in the Consistent Life Ethic...they oppose abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and unjust wars. Wallis supported Kucinich in 2004.

Basically, they are both evangelicals who believe in Catholic social teaching. Wallis' primary issue of focus is poverty, while Carter's is human rights.

[trotsky]

38. Sorry, but you can't see this from a non-believer's perspective.

Carter's words have never made me feel excluded or rejected. Wallis' have. Big difference to me, and apparently to a hell of a lot of other non-believers. As I noted upthread, we make up about the same percentage of the population as Jews, Blacks, or homosexuals. Do you think a winning strategy for the Democrats would be to alienate any of those groups?

[Dob Bole]

39. You've never heard Carter teach a Sunday School lesson...

Then you might feel 'alienated.' It turns out that he actually believes people should be Christians! Carter's sister was an evangelist, in fact.

But if that's not offensive, Wallis shouldn't be. His intent is to organize evangelicals who disagree with the Religious Right, not put atheists in internment camps. Like Carter, he believes in separation of church and state, a Baptist tradition. Only good can come from this, for atheists and theists alike.

[trotsky]

40. So, in other words,

"Shut up, you atheists, and put your fears aside. Us good Christians have got the answers, you just keep quiet, and everything will be fine."

Okey dokey.

[Dob Bole]

41. Nice words

but I have no idea where you got them from. Separation of church and state is good for everyone, and both Wallis and Carter believe in it. You may not be the one who thought Wallis wants a theocracy, but whoever it was is wrong.

[trotsky]

42. I get them from Wallis himself.

He's delighted that the "secular Left" was supposedly defeated in the last election. Secularism is a GOOD THING and I will never apologize for fighting for it. (And please note, not all secularists are atheists.)

[Dob Bole]

43. Once again, his audience is young evangelicals...

who have grown up hearing right-wing radio and right-wing parents, but know that they're wrong.

His "the secular Left doesn't get it' doesn't mean that secularism is bad, but that the Left doesn't get evangelicals, or how to convince them to vote for their ideals. At all. And I agree with him.

The rest of his book is dedicated to repudiating the policies of the right. Which I also agree with.

I understand that you are somehow offended by this, as you've already made it clear in your last 12 posts in this thread. But I think your fear is misplaced.

[trotsky]

44. Young evangelicals are big listeners to the Dem weekly radio address?

News to me. And he's not just saying "the secular Left doesn't get it":

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.

He's happy that secularism was defeated. But secular does NOT mean anti-religion. Wallis either deliberately or ignorantly equates the two. Secularism protects his and your religious beliefs far more than you (or he) apparently realize. That's sad.

Now this is not a matter of just being offended, it's about rhetoric that's marginalizing one of the cornerstones of our free, open society. It's about trying to force a larger role for religion in the formation of public policy. Such a thing used to be frowned upon by Christians of all stripes, as it profaned their religion. But the right realized they could use religion to whip up support for their ideas, and I see the exact same thing in Wallis' words. Yes, it's nice that many of his policy goals are the same as mine. But in order for me to remain morally and intellectually consistent, I cannot support tactics on the left that I abhor on the right. So yes, I fear him. Just as I fear the Falwells and Robertsons of the right. I don't think politics and religion should mingle like Wallis is advocating. Now go pat me on the head, tell me all my fears are "misplaced" and everything will be just fine. Yeah, that takes care of it.

[eridani]

46. AFAIK, Carter saved the specifics of Christianity for Sunday School--

--which is where it belongs.

[Zhade]

45. The guy who said the "secular left" lost this election?

Which is obviously a lie, since most liberal believers are also secularists, in that they support the separation of church and state?

Pass.

[eridani]

47. I'm mostly on the same page as Wallis on the subject of ethics--

--in the public sphere. I just don't get why he or anybody else keeps insisting on linking ethics and spirituality with faith. Why blow off all the non-believers who share his ethics?