Hey, you guys who are going to the Pentecost forum...let's have a REAL debate.

[madfloridian]

The debate that would encompass women's rights, the rights of gays, the rights of Americans not to be religious...the secular debate one could call it.

Let's talk about that important right taken away from women this week, based on a vote by both parties. Let's have a real debate, but make it about all of us...not just the Pentecostals.

I was just reading here that 3 of our candidates will be appearing at a forum called Pentacost 2007. Here is the link.

Pentacost 2007

Leading Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards will appear at Pentecost 2007, as part of our presidential candidates forum on Monday, June 4, where they’ll be answering questions on faith, moral values, and poverty. Seating will be limited, so be sure to register today to be guaranteed a spot at the event.

...."The goal of Pentecost 2007: Taking Vision to the Streets is to call individuals, churches, and most importantly, our political leaders to commit to putting poverty at the top of our national agenda. We believe that the conversation about moral values in America has been widening and deepening, building into a movement for real change.

I have some deep feelings about this situation. This has not been a good week for women's rights. It is hard to see more and more of the reaching out to the religious groups without any real reaching out to women and other groups marginalized by the new religious movements in our country.

I was raised Christian, but now it has become intensely personal...almost to the point of resentment when my faith is questioned. I have written some thoughts on it, and quoted from some articles about being judgmental about a person's religion.

Wallis: Dean is the leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between church and state, and to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons and groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations.<2> In this way the state is to be secular in status and operation.

..."Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

He refers favorably to the Seamless Garment movement which was part of the Schiavo thing. It means religious folks get to decide when life begins and ends...just like they did this last week with the 5 justices on the Supreme Court.

I am a part of the wing of the party that is tired of having someone else's religion shoved down my throat. I was called unpatriotic when my Southern Baptist church sang songs about war, and prayed for Bush as he invaded another country. They were pumping for war, and I was called unpatriotic by a church in which I had been raised.

So let the debate begin. Let's talk about the rights of women that were taken away last week. Let's make the candidates and the moderator be honest about that decision. Who gets to decide that a woman's health is not as important as that of the fetus.

And let's leave religion out of our government. It is a personal thing, and Wallis often skirts the edges of judging others on the basis of their religion. I remember he responded to Atrios and Kos once when they blasted him, but it was still done in a patronizing way.

I was a Southern Baptist, and I am still a Christian. But it is no one else's business.

Jim Wallis on PBS about Democrats as "secular fundamentalists".

PBS Frontline with Jim Wallis

Interviewer: "When I ask people in more conservative places like Midland, Texas, about politics and political parties, their answer to me is, "The Democrat doesn't know bunk about religion or faith, so we really don't even have a choice. We have to go with the Republican Party, because at least they understand faith. The Democrats don't even talk to us in a language that we understand or care about."

Wallis:…"Well, I've said this to Democratic leaders -- they often seem to be clueless about religion or faith, or are dismissive or disrespectful. There are religious fundamentalists that we all know of and speak of. There are also secular fundamentalists, people who have a disdain for religion, and many of those voices are in the Democratic Party."

Dear Mr. Wallis, you don't have the right to decide who is disrespectful or disdainful....maybe they are dismissive because the religion of others has been pushed on them for 6 years in this country.

More defining of "secular fundamentalism"
Jim Wallis defines all kinds of secularism

Farley:" The values of secular humanism are strongly indebted to Christian values. They are part of the same Western tradition.

Wallis: But that's where I differentiate between people who are "secular"—that's not a very good word; I admit it's kind of loaded—and people who are "secular fundamentalists." There's nothing wrong with not being religious; some of my closest friends and colleagues have not been religious. But secular fundamentalism is different. That's a disdain for religion. A journalist said to me yesterday, We have an allergy to spirituality, and that's not helpful for us. And I said, No one is saying that to join the struggle for global poverty reduction you have to get converted first. None of us is saying that."

And being judgmental about people who are not comfortable talking about religion...wrong.

And this whole paragraph about Dean is judgmental in tone. No one in politics who is good and honest and has integrity should be forced to talk about religion when they consider it a private thing.

MSNBC quote by Jim Wallis

"The worst thing is being inauthentic, Wallis continued, and that's how Dean appeared when he called upon Job as evidence of his religiosity, and got him in the wrong Testament. "If you're motivated by religious values, let it shine through," says Wallis. But if you’re not, don’t be a phony. Dean was raised as an Episcopalian, and more recently has attended a Universalist church in Vermont. His wife is Jewish. Like most New Englanders, he is not accustomed to discussing his religious faith in a political context. "Dean talks about community and that's a value," Wallis says to reassure the crowd that the new Democratic leader can hold his own. "So let's hope for the best with Howard Dean."

And please, Reverend Wallis, stop judging who is religious, who is just "secular progressive" and who is "secular fundamentalist." That is not your place to do that judging.

And one more request. When you have that debate with the Democrats...ask them what they think about limiting the rights of women when their health is in crisis.

Jim Wallis is a good man. I am a good person. He is more religious than I am right now, but that makes me no less of a good person. I know Governor Dean is working with his group, and I admire him for being able to do that. I am having a hard time so far with it personally.

[Warpy]

1. I expected more from Wallis than the oxymoronic

"secular fundamentalism." Just what holy writ are we supposed to be dead letter literalists of? The constitution?

I hate to tell you, Jim, but the constitution supersedes any religious wingnuttery because no two groups of religious people have ever agreed on anything, something the founders knew would lead to disaster if any one of them were allowed to push its will on the entire country.

Face it, Jim, the only person for whom you can call the shots is YOU.

[gratuitous]

2. By all means, let's continue to do nothing

After all, what is there to be gained by couching progressive, liberal political ideas in the language of faith? Goodness gracious, some of the people who think they don't have any choice about who to vote for because the Democrats don't "get" people of faith might just vote Democratic if an idea is presented in language they understand! And we surely can't have that; otherwise, what would Democrats have to complain about? That we're getting too many votes because we frame ideas with near universal appeal in terms that fundy voters might grasp?

And what's with this 50 state strategy Howard Dean's cooking up? Do we really want the votes from people in places like Utah and Wyoming?

[madfloridian]

3. If that is what you read in my post, then I am stunned.

So be it.

[gratuitous]

4. Then perhaps you should be a little clearer

Because what I read in between all the "you shouldn't be so judgmental" finger wagging was a lot of, well, judgment.

[madfloridian]

5. Exactly.

The judging of others must stop. The taking away of the rights of women and gays must stop.

I think I was clear. I would rather you would say you disagree than to say I was not clear.

[hfojvt]

8. then you can start

by not judging people for being judgemental.

I would rather have a debate. If somebody says something that is wrong, then the ways it is wrong can be discussed. But your argument was that not so much that Wallis was wrong, but that 'he should not say that'.

[madfloridian]

9. But I am judging them for being judgmental. That is my point.

I said it very clearly. I don't want religious leaders having so much say over who is worthy and who is not.

[hfojvt]

10. then you need to also judge yourself for being judgemental

Or are you the only one who gets to judge?

I never saw Wallis say anything about 'worthy'. Besides, just because a Wallis or a Falwell says something, does not mean that all Christians will genuflect or take it as gospel.

[madfloridian]

12. I am not the one pushing religion on our candidates.

That's not me.

And there is something I do when someone keeps deliberately twisting what I say and misunderstanding. Watch me.

[kineneb]

6. only one comment

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

-from your friendly local Buddhist, and follower of Jesus as Bodhisattva. (Why is it I know the Synoptic Gospels better than most Christians?)

[madfloridian]

7. That verse is seldom quoted these days.

It should be posted in every Southern Baptist Church, in every church in fact.

"Give to worldly authorities the things that belong to them, and to God what belongs to God.”....Jesus.

Instead in my Baptist church, and in the church camps I attended because I memorized hundreds of verses....I saw this on the posters all around. I have never forgotten it. I saw it again in Alexandra Pelosi's documentary:

"God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Then when you try to discuss an issue, they pull that out. The bible says it, so I am right, you are wrong.

[kineneb]

11. failure to understand history

in their statement: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." The God of Abraham does not have a covenant with them.

The God of the OT was exclusively addressing the Jewish peoples, and so was Jesus, if one reads the Synoptic Gospels closely; note that J. had nasty things to say about the "Gentiles" (=Romans), especially in Mark, the oldest Gospel. Paul invented much, including the mission to the Gentiles and the "new covenant".

Yes, I am a Heretic, hence the reason I consider myself a Buddhist and not a "Christian". Too much knowledge and history studies. The So. Baptists would not like me much.

Another quote they wouldn't like:
Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than of a rich man to enter into the kindom of God.

(sorry, all I have is the KJV, which is not the best translation)

from the eight-fold path: Right livelyhood.

[spoony]

14. You overestimate your knowledge

For you, remarkably, overlook the many instances where Jesus--though working primarily within his Jewish culture, hey 33 years isn't that long of a time and you have to start somewhere--had numerous positive interactions with Gentiles which show the relationship between the God of Abraham and these Gentiles who approached him with proper humility and respect. He healed a number of them, and praised one as having faith such as he'd not seen anywhere in Israel.

Also, when he sends out the disciples in Matthew, he gives them instructions to bear witness before the Gentiles. So if Paul invented the idea of saving Gentiles too, why do the writers of Matthew and John (especially John, who talks extensively about the issue) also tout the concept?

Similarly, your notion that in the OT God's only focus is on the tribes of Israel is gravely lacking. Just a skimming of Isaiah:

"And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
and all mankind shall see it together,
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken."

"And nations shall come to your light,
and kings to the brightness of your rising."
On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make
for all peoples a feast of fat things,
a feast of wine on the lees,
of fat things full of marrow,
of wine on the lees well refined.
And He will destroy on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
He will swallow up death for ever,
and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of His people
He will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken."


It doesn't get much clearer.

[madfloridian]

13. Well. Hardball just put it on the line about Edwards...

I did not watch, but Edwards must not have used the word Jesus and used my Lord instead?

Chris Matthews said it was his fear of secularists.

Oh, my. It really has gotten out of control.

I feel so sorry for our candidates.

[silverweb]

15. Ummm...

"...let's have a REAL debate. The debate that would encompass women's rights, the rights of gays, the rights of Americans not to be religious...the secular debate one could call it.

"Let's talk about that important right taken away from women this week, based on a vote by both parties. Let's have a real debate, but make it about all of us...not just the Pentecostals."

Pentacost 2007 is not just for Pentacostals, but for any interested Christians who want to focus on social justice by working against poverty.

Other forums can address the rights of women and gays. Other groups can focus on secular solutions. There's a great deal to be said for diverse, multi-pronged, multi-team attacks on different problems from different angles -- and Pentecost 2007 is just one team with one approach.

I'm sure there are plenty of secular, civil rights-focused groups that would love your help. You might try contacting Planned Parenthood, the HRC, or the AHA for example, and get active with them or a similar organization.

The organizers of the Pentecost forum have picked one problem to fix and are trying to do something very positive using their particular perspective. This is very commendable and I think your criticism is quite unjustified.

[madfloridian]

16. "Other forums can address the rights of women and gays"

It is mainly the Christian community that is wanting to squelch many of these rights for women. I think it is fair to ask that they be addressed there.

Ok, just so you know, I find your assumption that I don't support and work with groups rather upsetting.

Planned Parenthood, Interfaith Alliance, locally with some groups.

So you don't think a religious forum is the place to address this fact? I do. It is the religious community in many ways that is judging so many of us. It is in many ways the religious community that has taken up the banner of wedge issues that will hurt women and others.

I think it would be a good place to have a real debate. But I do understand we won't. Appealing to the groups on the right of the spectrum is more important than appealing to those in the more left/liberal/equal rights for all segment. I understand that.

Would you like to know other causes my hubby and I support financially and otherwise? Well, DFA and DNC are two, but there are more.

A religious forum debate to discuss religion's issues with abortion and contraception would be good.

[silverweb]

17. Sorry I upset you.

But you missed my point.

My point is that whatever your cause or point of view, there is very probably more than one existing organization that addresses it.

Therefore, there is no good reason to expect or demand that any particular organization address a specific cause that you hold dear when its stated purpose is something else.

The Pentecost 2007 group has chosen poverty as its focus and should be encouraged, not criticized.

To throw stones at them because they're not doing what YOU think they should be doing is, I think, as foolishly counterproductive as those narrowly focused liberal groups who recently have protested, interrupted, and heckled Democrats giving speeches on other topics.

There are many, many issues that urgently need to be addressed.

There are many, many groups and organizations that address various issues from different perspectives.

They should each and all be complimented for whatever good they are doing in their multi-faceted ways. Every one helps and there is so much to do.

[madfloridian]

18. It is the religious groups who need to address it.

But I can see most here are excited and happy about the forum.

No one wants to talk about the elephant in the room....that there are two victims of the Democrats' outreach to the evangelicals. Those victims whose rights were put on the table for negotiation are women and gays.

Instead of our party standing up for the rights of a woman and her doctor to make vital decisions...they are giving in to the Christian community.

They threw stones at women in 2003, and again this week. They said doctors can go to jail for 2 years.

I think a religious debate would be a very good place to address the rights of all people.

Planned Parenthood for example is fighting to save us from the Christian right. So why not address it at forums like that.

I get the feeling this is not a welcome topic at DU any more than it is at Kos or other "liberal" forums. So I will have to back off from it before it gets deleted.

The religious community is the one setting the rules for the Republicans and the Democrats put women and gays on the table for bargaining chips.

I guess I was wrong to post it. Indicators are that it is not appreciated. I guess women give in and await their fate.

I gave another hundred to Planned Parenthood this week. A minute sum. But since I no longer tithe since I left my church....I can give more elsewhere.

I think this post has been a source of attention, and not good attention. So to survive another day, I will back off.

[silverweb]

22. Perhaps.

"It is the religious groups who need to address it."

But not necessarily this particular religious gathering, which wishes to address and focus on poverty -- which is certainly an issue that affects women just as much as reproductive rights do.

I understand and sympathize with your passion on the subject. I just think you're getting into a one-track-mind rut by expecting everyone else to have the same intensity for the subject that you do -- which seems sufficient to push other equally urgent issues aside.

[madfloridian]

23. "my one track mind"

No, I have two tracks, the war is one of them as wel..

Don't worry, the message got to me about the post. I won't post anything like this again.

[madfloridian]

28. More about my one track mind...

And the many tracks it travels daily. I cover many topics, and I am especially passionate about the Iraq war, about church and state not becoming one, about people who are wronged..do a search before you decide I have a one track mind.

[silverweb]

31. You're misquoting me, but that's okay.

I do understand your point, even though I disagree with your approach.

You're choosing to ignore my point and focus instead on taking personal offense at misquoted portions of what I've said.

So be it.

[madfloridian]

32. My point is that now religion trumps medicine and science in our country.

Religious groups pushed hard until doctors can now get two years in prison for performing a procedure to protect a woman's health. Wallis is one who supports this ban.

This is turn will make a doctor feel like the 5 men on the Supreme Court are looking over their shoulders....and women could die.

Religious groups have pushed creationism and protested evolution until some states have given in to them.

I think we are not alarmed enough.

I was sent a subtle message about this post. I am pretty quick on getting messages. I won't post such again.

[Chovexani]

38. Poverty often goes hand in hand with misogyny and homophobia

Particularly in the last few years with the shift to "faith-based" social services. Poor and working class women always suffer the most in the war on choice--after all, when abortion rights are compromised women of means will have the resources to "take a family trip" to the next state or abroad. Poverty is compounded and the cycle continues when impoverished women can't get access to safe, affordable medical care and reproductive education. And that's ignoring the plight of the GLBT poor--National Gay and Lesbian Task Force did a study a few years back and showed that lesbian couples, particular lesbian couples of color, make much less and are more likely to be below the poverty line than their hetero counterparts (blame unequal pay among other factors). They're also less likely to seek social services because of the homophobia they often face. Especially with this faith-based nonsense. I will never forget back when I was a child coming up in the 80s and my gay uncle was dying of AIDS, and our church refused to help my family. Thankfully he was a vet and we were able to get him the services he needed elsewhere.

I don't think anyone is demanding that this group's focused be changed. Just that poverty is a very complicated issue and that there's a big picture here that needs to be acknowledged.

[RevCheesehead]

19. Just for the record:

Pentecost is a season of the Christian liturgical year. Although there is a denomination known as the Pentecostals, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS GATHERING IS ABOUT.

Jim Wallis, leader of Sojourners, is one of the few left-leaning voices of the mainline Christian denominations. He is not a Pentecostal, or an Evangelical.

The gathering is called Pentecost because it will be held during the Pentecost season. On Pentecost, the gathered disciples received the Holy Spirit, and began taking their message to the people.

[madfloridian]

20. I just put the name of the forum, the one they called it.

Do you agree that women's rights are on the table because of the pressure of religious groups?

Doesn't matter, really. People who espouse women's health rights must be careful even at progressive forums. Kos banned about 12 people for it. Other forums have as well.

I guess this will be my last post on the subject, best to let it go.

Let someone else fight for it here.

I explained myself well, no one got it. Ok.

[RevCheesehead]

21. I honestly don't know.

I got an e-mail from Sojourners about the event, but deleted it, since I'm unable to go.

But I do know that many, many liberal Christians believe strongly in a woman's right to choose. I am one of them. And United Methodists, according to our Social Principles, are also pro-choice.

[Exiled in America]

24. I feel really torn about Wallis most of the time - here's why:

On one hand, I feel like my religious journey has been similar to yours, where I was raised Christian (my father is a minister, and democrat!) but deeply internalized my own faith. I have become a fairly private person when it comes to my spiritual beliefs. I think that I have become an intense "works" guy, apply the principles that I value from my religious heritage to practical living so much that the lines are really blurred. I don't have much "ceremony" anymore around my faith. Times I "pray" would sound a lot like just thinking to myself to anyone else. I don't have too much dogma left.

So, I honestly think that I could be labeled a "secular fundamentalist" by Wallis' description of the term. I believe in a strong separation between church and state, and I strongly believe that government should be governed by secular considerations. To me, secular in this context simply means: without preference to or consideration of the aims or wishes of any one particular religious tradition or group. As I see it, a secular government is the only possible fair government where equal representation might be possible. You start throwing religion into that mix and that's the ball game. Half of them won't want to co-exist with the other half of them, and most of them will expect or demand that they be the only religion to have a voice.

So I think I disagree with Wallis when he characterizes "secular fundamentalist" as a bad thing for government.

On the other hand, I tend to agree with him to some extent that there are both religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists, and that both are very harmful to a positive direction for this country. I'm not sure I agree that there are a bunch of secular fundamentalists in the Democratic party, but there are most definitely a bunch of them here at DU. It's one think to lack belief, its another thing to be aggressively, militantly hostile towards all belief and anyone who believes.

So in that respect, I sometimes find myself agreeing with some of what Wallis says.

[madfloridian]

25. I too like a lot of his work.

I have often gotten the Sojo mail. I just feel he judges others. A friend was at an event where he spoke, and he talked about Dean and the ones in the party like him in such an odd way. She said he was nice enough, but he wasn't quite sure Dean was up to the job of handling the religious end of it.

That set off our group here. It is not his job to pick the chairman. It is not his place to judge the religious motives of others.

That bothers me.

There are two efforts going on now in Florida to further restrict women's rights. They are being pushed by religious fundamentalists. That is my point. It could be a good forum to discuss why the party put women's right up as negotiable.

I listen to Rev. Gaddy faithfully on AAR. He has an amazing way of making me think I might recapture my faith in churches again. He has a different approach, he does not assign motives nor does he judge.

[Exiled in America]

26. MF, something I meant to say in another sub-thread:

Someone was talking about how there are plenty of other groups to deal with women's issues, and if this group wants to come together and focus on the social justice issue of poverty, then that focus should be hijacked or something like that....

...that seems to be to be a fine notion on theory. It's OK to have groups that have a narrow focus, and its usually true that one group can't effectively focus on every issue of importance. However, the problem I have with that is that it seems to me to be impossible to talk about a Christian faith and not have a broad focus on social justice, not a narrow one. It seems to me that since christians should be well aware that it is the religious fundamentalists who are the primary ones responsible for these huge and horrible setbacks for women and GLBT folks, that perhaps it is a little short-sighted, dare I saw irresponsible, not to talk about it in a forum like the one being mentioned.

[madfloridian]

27. This group supported the abortion ban for years.

And I posted it for that reason. We can support the groups that stand up for women's rights, but the same ones still continue to get more and more of women's medical choices regulated.

Wallis totally supports the SC decision last week. His group is all for that ban. I posted this because a group and minister which advocates taking one right away from women because they find it "offensive"....might find it good to discuss it.

Unfortunately also, this subject is off the table for our party. It will not be discussed. Then the next ban, and the next...none will be discussed. This is off the table because the Chairman said it was off the table. He has a job to do..win. So women's rights are now off the table. It is one of the bargaining points to appeal to the Christian right, or left.

From Wallis's Huffington Post column:

"The procedure in question is a particularly objectionable form of abortion that Sojourners has long opposed, and even some pro-choice supporters have had problems with. And the law in question had strong bipartisan support when it passed Congress in 2003 - a 281-142 vote in the House (including 63 Democrats) and a 64-34 vote in the Senate (with 17 Democrats.) In a 2003 Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans thought that "late term" or "partial birth" abortions should be made illegal.

The procedure involves very few abortions - about 2,200 out of 1.31 million in 2000, the last year for which numbers are available. And simply banning one procedure means that there are alternative procedures that will now be used. But the furious arguments on both sides again show how mostly symbolic the abortion debate remains when focused on primarily legal questions. After ten years of heated debate, the Court's decision does nothing to reduce the number of abortions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/abortion-from-symbol-to-_b_46422.html

I realized the old Baptist guilt was back. Wallis refers so often to "secular" and keeps redefining it, that I feel guilty for believing in separation of church and state. I feel I have been tagged by him as part of "militant" group...when I am really not.

"Secular citizens must not require their religious neighbors to keep their faith silent in public life or confine it to merely private matters. While there is, of course, nothing wrong with being secular, there is something wrong with a kind of secular fundamentalism that shows a disdain for religious faith and believers and would restrict their political conscience. And if religious fundamentalists have too much influence in the Republican Party by seeking to impose their orthodoxies on their party and the nation, a militant group of secular fundamentalists wrongly influences Democrats against being “faith friendly.”

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10005

[Exiled in America]

29. Yes, well said especially this part:

"I realized the old Baptist guilt was back. Wallis refers so often to "secular" and keeps redefining it, that I feel guilty for believing in separation of church and state. I feel I have been tagged by him as part of "militant" group...when I am really not."

Yes, that is how I feel too.

[Crowdance]

30. Abortion IS a povery issue. Bravo, Madfloridian!

Poverty in this country is disproportionately a women's issue. In the US, women constitute more than 57% of the poor. Studies attribute that statistic to the fact that women, many of them single, bear and raise this country's children. Obviously, if women are to be empowered to lift themselves out of povery, they must be in control of the number of children they bear and raise.

I agree with you that Wallis' presentations, in this particular matter, are hypocrisy. Wallis presents that he will decide who is worthy of participation in our economy and our politics, and in what manner. He has worked hard to restrict women's reproductive rights, and refuses to own up to the consequences of his actions. That is despicable, and those Democratic candidates who would kiss this man's ring are casting serious shadows on their own integrity.

I applaud your courage, Madfloridian. You've stepped forward when so many others won't on a lot of women's rights issues. Thanks for being here.

[madfloridian]

33. Another point or two.

He has criticism for some groups I greatly respect and belong to and to which we donate. I do criticize Bush for invoking religion too much. That is not what we elected him to do...preach.

"But those liberals expecting to find Al Franken with a clerical collar may be disappointed -- or challenged -- by Wallis's critique of the left. He firmly rejects the idea that Bush invokes religion too much. "From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political Left's most religion-fearing publications, a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics often display an amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the 'American ideal.' The truth is just the opposite. . . . Many of the most progressive social movements in American history -- anti-slavery, women's suffrage, the fight for child labor laws and the civil rights movement -- had overt religious roots and motivations."

He also criticizes the antiwar activists for not showing enough concern about evil tyranny, Democratic Party officials for excluding anti-abortion views, anti-poverty activists for denying the ruinous role of family breakdown and civil libertarians for remaining mum about cultural pollution.

...."In a way, Wallis's rhetoric ends up being less Jesse Jackson than President Bill Clinton. On nearly every issue, he triangulates a theologically grounded New Democrat philosophy.

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14520.htm

Wallis need no longer be concerned about the Demcorats not welcoming the anti-choice group. There is a fine line, and I fear that group is getting more love than the tradtional Dems who support women's rights.

I don't especially care for the article, but the point about Bush brings a lot to light. Bush got elected because of the Christian right's enthusiasm. As Falwell said, they control the GOP now.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040925/news_1n25christ.html

[bobbolink]

34. Why do you hate poor people?

Post after post on the issues you champion, yet you don't bring up poverty *there*.

ONE POST AND ONE CONFERENCE ABOUT POVERTY, and you're pissed because it doesn't cover *your* issues?

Step away from the mirror, and notice others around you.

[madfloridian]

35. I am sorry you feel that way.

I feel that Wallis's group is one which pushed the controls on women's rights. These will affect the poorest women the worst.

I don't know what to say to you if that is what you think of me.

I am surprised, but then I shouldn't be, should I.

I support a lot of efforts for those in poverty. We support the Edwards' campaign on this issue. We work locally.

As I say, if you need to think that of me...then do it. I can't help that, nor do I worry about it. I know who I am, and I know you are wrong. But you are so angry that I will leave you alone.

[madfloridian]

36. See, you just judged me without knowing anything about my life.

Without knowing what things my husband and I do, what activities, what groups we support.

That is what Wallis is doing when he labels anyone who doesn't want women's right legislated...he calls them "secular" ...in degrees of secularism.

I don't feel welcome in a church anymore because I questioned. I question the war I question their taking women's rights away.

I question Wallis's strong support of the latest abortion ban, and the way he talks about it as if women don't really matter to him.

It would have been nice if you asked instead of making people think I don't like poor people.

:shrug:

[Crowdance]

37. Don't feel badly, MadFloridian.

Poster specializes in that.....