Democrats Turn to Leader of Religious Left

[Rose Siding]

Democrats, reeling from the Republicans' success at courting churchgoers, are focusing new attention on a religious and political anomaly: Jim Wallis, one of the few prominent left-leaning leaders among evangelical Protestants.

At the start of the Congressional session, Senate Democrats invited Mr. Wallis to address their members at a private session to discuss issues. A group of about 15 House Democrats invited him to a breakfast discussion about dispelling their party's secular image. And NBC News has enlisted him to appear as a guest during its inauguration coverage opposite Dr. James C. Dobson, one of the most prominent evangelical conservatives.
...
Mr. Wallis, a registered Democrat, told the senators that the Bible contains more than 3,000 references to alleviating poverty. He said Democrats needed to do a better job of explaining the moral and religious foundations of policies intended to help the poor, protect the environment and reduce violence.
...
But Dr. Richard Land, president of the ethics and religious liberty commission of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, called Mr. Wallis "a left-wing evangelical" ill-qualified to instruct Democrats on conservative Christian values. "The Democrats are turning to the guy they can find that is least scary to them," Dr. Land said.

He argued that Mr. Wallis misunderstood conservative evangelical voters because he conflated the moral issue of alleviating poverty with the practical issue of whether Democratic policies are the way to do it.
"I don't know anybody who is in favor of poverty," Dr. Land said. "He doesn't seem to have adequately comprehended that the debate is over, based on the 30-year experiment, about whether big government or free markets work better at producing wealth for everybody."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/17/politics/17wallis.html?ex=1263704400&en=8a0d2c7859c16537&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

[w4rma]

1. Social programs rather than oppressive laws to reduce abortion. (nt)

[renaissanceguy]

129. That's the idea we have to articulate.

Nobody wins when you talk in purely moral terms. But when you put some practicality into it, and show how we can reduce abortions no matter what our stance is without oppressing people, we'll fare better.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[KittyWampus]

2. Dr. Land, Stop Cherry Picking Laws Out Of The Old Testament And

doing your best to keep the Spiritual Majority of Americans from uniting against your band of Pharisees.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. We wrote the Old Testament (we call it "Torah")

and we are the interpreters of the Old Testament (we call our interpretation the "Talmud" and Maimonides "Guide For the Perplexed") and Jesus (real name "Joshua") was a Bar Mitzvah Boy (Luke, Chapter 2).

And Rev Land is wrong. Rev Wallis and Rabbis Brickner and Lerner and Father Charles Rice are right.

[LiberalFighter]

49. Is the Old Testament the exact same as the Torah?

Or has the Old Testament been cherry picked from the Torah?

[tx_dem41]

58. According to Wikipedia.....

the Torah is the first five books of the OT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

This entry says that there is a wider interpretation of the word that means all of Jewish teaching. So I guess it could be interpreted as including all of the OT.

[KittyWampus]

68. The Torah Is The Pentatuch Or 1st Five Books Of The Old Testament

and Christian Fundies cherry pick whatever laws and prohibitions they need to manipulate people out of the OT and ignore the laws and prohibitions they don't need.

For instance, they cite OT when condemning homosexuality and abortion.

They ignore OT where it says the killing of a child shall warrant nothing more than paying a financial sum, that people must wear nothing but cotton, adulterers shall be stoned to death.

[LiberalFighter]

76. Then how do the other 22 books get included in the OT?

22 if they don't include the Apocrypha books

Did Jesus mention anything about the other 22 books? Or was his reference always of the Torah?





Corrected name of missing books

[freedom_to_read]

113. Jewish Bible vs Christian Bible

The Jewish "bible" is known as the TaNaKh, an acronym made up of its 3 sections:

<1> The Torah or Pentateuch, the 1st 5 books. Jewish tradition names the books after the 1st words of the book, while Christian tradition has come up with other names (in English we use latinate names based on the Vulgate, or Latin translation):

Bereshiit ("in the beginning") = Genesis
Shemot ("the names") = Exodus
Vayiqra ("and he commanded") = Leviticus
Bamidbar ("in the wilderness") = Numbers
Devariim ("the events") = Deuteronomy

Traditionally, these five books are considered to have been penned by Moses himself, and constitute the kernel of the Bible. (How Moses could have the foresight to narrate the place and manner of his own death at the end of Deuteronomy is a perennial exercise for modern biblical fundamentalists and traditional exegetes alike.)

<2> Nebi'iim or "The prophets." This includes not only the traditional prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, the smaller prophetic books) but ALSO what might be called the historical books, Joshua, 1/2 Sam., and 1/2 Kings. These are also considered "prophecy" theologically, if not literarily.

<3> Ketubiim or "the writings." These are the Psalms, Proverbs, Esther, and the other later books.

The Christian "Old Testament" differs from the Jewish Tanakh only slightly on the level of text. But the arrangement is different in 2 important ways:

(1) It is called and considered an "Old Testament" and thus is set in opposition to a "New Testament." This fits into Christian theology of seeing a replacement (or perhaps less strongly, a "fulfillment") of the Torah by the ministry/life of Jesus and by the Gospel.

(2) The arrangement of the Christian "OT" switches the Nebiim and the Ketubim around. Thus the Christian OT goes: Pentateuch, Writings, Prophets. This is probably because the Christian view of Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophetic legacy of Israel demands that the story of Jesus appear immediately after the prophetic writings. Thus a Christian can read on the last page of the "OT" (Malachi 3:1):

"See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts."

Then turn the page to Matthew and read:

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham..."

The Hebrew Tanakh, by contrast, is arranged "concentrically" if you will. The heart of the Torah, the 1st five books from which (at least theoretically) Jewish law is derived comes first. Then the Nebiim, and last the Ketubiim, which are seen as (though no less holy and important) less central to Jewish halakhah (legal reasoning).

Any questions??

[LiberalFighter]

116. How could Jesus be the son of David, son of Abraham...

if he is the son of God? Born of the virgin Mary?

[freedom_to_read]

138. history vs theology

I'm no expert in Christian theology, but my understanding is that he is seen as the "son of God" theologically, but a descendent of David (through Joseph, I believe) historically.

The concept of the messiah, in both early Christian and early Jewish belief, is that it will be a descendent of David who will restore the political fortunes of his house.

[LiberalFighter]

147. That is the problem...

How could Jesus be of the lineage of David since Joseph was not involved in the conception of Jesus through Mary?

And Christian belief or at least current belief is that it did not involve the earthly kingdom.

Other readings says that is what the messiah was all about... restoring Israel politically. And that the messiah was not the son of God.

[freedom_to_read]

151. well

again, I'm not speaking as an expert in Christianity. But I doubt that Christian belief at any time (including now) excluded the "earthly kingdom."

I think the connection between Jesus and David, via geneology, is of particular concern to the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. It doesn't appear, as far as I know, in the other Gospels.

If you look at Matt. 1:1-25, you see that it connects him not only with David, but all the way back to Abraham. So the intention here is to connect Jesus directly with the biblical story of God's relationship to Israel.

There may be a logical problem with asserting that Jesus is both the son of God and of the family of David through his paternal line. But I don't think this problem bothered the writer of the Gospel very much.

[LiberalFighter]

117. So essentially the Jewish Bible is the same as the OT?

[freedom_to_read]

140. depends on what you mean by "essentially"

In terms of the contents of the text, yes they are very similar.

But the Jewish Bible has a different textual history, as it was preserved by a group of Rabbis known as the Masoretes (hence the Jewish version is known as the MT or "masoretic text"), while the Christian Bible has its own complicated history of translations from Hebrew into Greek (the Septuiagint or LXX), Latin (the OL or Old Latin and the Vulgate), and subsequent languages. So you will find differences on the level of individual words or readings among all of these different texts. There is NO "true" text, i.e. a Bible that is "exactly what it was when it was written" since all texts in the ancient world had to be copied and recopied in order to be preserved. (There was no archival quality microfilm back then!)

So textually you will find differences between the two (among the many I shoud say) texts. But most of these differences are so slight that they attract the attention of scholars and textualists. (And these two are attracted to the differences like flies to honey.)

But I would venture to say that, in terms of the way they are understood and read as texts, the Jewish and Christian Bibles are very different. In terms of the role they play within their respective religious traditions, they are "essentially" different.

For example, the Torah in Jewish tradition is and can only be a text in Hebrew. In order to understand it truly, you must read the Hebrew; a translation (and there were many, for example the Aramaic targumin) will help you perhaps, but is not the "true Bible." Furthermore, in Jewish tradition, the Bible or "written Torah" stands alongside an equally important tradition known as the "Torah she be'al peh" or "the Torah that is on the lips" ie the "oral Torah." This is the vast tradition of rabbinic lore, including biblical exegesis (aggadah) and legal rulings (halakhah) that was initially codified in a document known as the Mishnah, and expanded upon in various documents that eventually became the Talmuds (2 different talmudim have survived, the Palestinean and Babylonian).

For Christians, as I have already suggested, the "OT" is essentially different because it cannot be fully understood theologically without recourse to the Gospels. Again I'm no expert in Christianity so I can't tick off any great examples off the top of my head. But the statements in Matthew in which Jesus says "I come not to replace the law but to fulfill it" certainly point in that direction.


Any more questions? Keep asking...

[LiberalFighter]

118. Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple.

Would that satisfy the phrophecy considering that Jesus was born a baby and was living for about 30 years before doing starting his religious teaching?

It would seem more likely that someone would come out of nowhere and totally unknown.

[freedom_to_read]

144. I can't answer that

It's neither within my competence nor my interest how Christians interpret the prophetic traditions from their "OT". You'll have to decide for yourself.

;-)

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

141. Where's the part about tuna cassarole?

Just kidding - my Lutheran roots are showing.

Thanks for the informative post.

[shawn703]

121. The Torah usually refers to the Pentateuch

but sometimes is used to refer to the collection of Books in the OT. The Torah "collection" consisted of the Pentateuch, the Prophets (divided into the Former Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the Latter Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets), and the Writings (pretty much everything else).

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Yeah, and the Haredi call Michael Lerner

an "apikorat" and a "shaygitz."

Thank you - I will "daven" at Beyt Tikkun.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Er...but Mr. Land. We don't want to be conservative Christians. We

want to do better.

[renaissanceguy]

130. We want to support REAL Christians, not rightwingers.

When we talk about morality, we should emphasize the need to help the poor, protect our environment, promote peace.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741193
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[Stepup2]

5. Check out Sojourners

This website is fantastic and is a great place to keep up to date on the progressive religious goings on of Wallis.



http://www.sojo.net/

[Ouabache]

6. And Social Security is the #1 eliminator of destitute poverty

among the elderly. Proven for over 70 years now. And who wants to go fucking around with it?

[renaissanceguy]

137. Because like all good programs and ideas

it's a Democratic one.
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[bemildred]

7. More bizarre political drool from the NYT. nt

[TahitiNut]

50. I don't recall the Moral Majority flocking to Jimmy Carter's side.

I must have memory loss. I recall them supporting a divorced secularist - a brain-dead warmonger and spokesman for the money-changers.

Funny that.

[bemildred]

90. Surely you don't suggest they just make this shit up as they go along?

:thumbsup:

[420inTN]

94. They are neither Moral, nor a Majority.

[Demeter]

9. No, Dammit!

Having a pet cleric is not the way to go...the point is that religion is not compatible with reason, that faith doesn't trump facts, that theories are more than wishful thinking, and that we need some functioning adults to operate this country!

[tx_dem41]

10. Ummmm...okay....

Shut off discussion and dialogue with millions of people and have fun never being able to lead this country ever again.

[Supersedeas]

80. discussion and dialogue are way over-rated....sound familiar.

[me b zola]

101. Ummm, many of people of faith support the separation of

church & state. This is rw propaganda that we must become like them or we will never win elections. I am a Catholic who votes on issues, or who will uphold the values that the Dem party stand for. Right now, it seems as though it is all we can do to stave off the rw from dismantling every social program (that assist real people, not their programs that serve the wealthy) and the Constitution, as well.


We don't need to pander to people who are susceptible to repub propaganda.

[tx_dem41]

114. I must have missed the part of the original article where it said...

we were trying to "become more like them".

[me b zola]

128. "Trying to overcome a secular image"

<SCREAM>
If not secular, than...what?? Theocracy? Taliban or Nazi?

I am truly frightened for the future of our nation. The Taliban & Nazis spewed their religious 'righteousness' to gain unquestionable control of the masses--it worked...and it is working on the cons here at home.

Meeting with an Evangelical in response to "reeling" over the last election is most definitely a warning sign.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

142. Separation of Church and State...

I love dark chocolate and I love pickled herring.

But I'll be damned if I want them together. Keep your government out of my religion and I'll keep my religion out of your government.

It's a fair deal that everybody can live with -- except the Baptist Taliban

[me b zola]

145. LOL

Baptist Taliban. That is exactly what it is. I've been trying to think of what their version of the berka (sp) is going to be.

I can not agree with you more, and I am frightened by anyone who feels differently.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. That is exactly why Democrats lose

out in the Heartland and among voters who shower after work and don't have PhD's from New England or SF Bay universities (in liberal arts especially)

[leveymg]

14. Not so sure about the showering after work part

How many rednecks you know who are really "clean in mind, body and deed?"

[tx_dem41]

18. Where the heck did you get "rednecks" from.

I inferred that the poster was talking about blue collar workers, the majority of which are people of faith. If you think that makes them "rednecks", well....I'm not sure what to say.

[leveymg]

22. That's the term that my favorite Texan friend uses. If it's good enough

for her . . .

My apologies to anyone who takes offense to the slur. Feel free to call me a "damn Yankee", if you like. She does.

[tx_dem41]

24. "Redneck" is generally a pejorative term...

"Blue collar" is certainly not a pejorative term.

[w4rma]

28. Redneck isn't pejorative, but the way leveymg was using it is.

Redneck simply refers to the sunburnt necks/shoulders that working class folks get when working outside.

[tx_dem41]

29. That is why I couched it...

with "generally". I would say that in today's common usage, it is now a generally pejorative term. You and I do agree on its original usage.

[cap]

48. No, redneck comes from the skin rash that

pellagra gives you as a result of malnutrition.

[oneold1-4u]

71. It also refers---

To many of us who worked at minimum wage, inside or out, for 50 years to get enough SS to buy a couple of bags of groceries each month!
Yeah, guess I'm a pink neck at least, but don't get hot under the collar now that I found DU and can say something without getting slapped on the hand or head with a bible!

[renaissanceguy]

131. Mmmmm that's a stereotype.

While it may be true that many blue collar workers are people of faith, keep in mind that very well-educated are religious, even rightwingnuts. Bushie isn't originally from Texas...he is a preppy from Connecticut...not a cowboy.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[tx_dem41]

139. Not sure what you're saying.

Its not a stereotype if its true (positive or negative stereotype) IMO. And, I didn't even talk about "well-educated" or "right wing-nuts".

BTW, I found it very interesting that you think "well-educated" is the converse to "blue collar". Now that just MIGHT be a stereotype.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. Down in the Steel Valley

REAL Democrats sweat at work in the mill, shower after work, go to Church on Sunday, and always pulled the Democratic lever,

And folks who shower after work are not "Red Necks" - they are working men and women and mine our coal and melt our steel and build our cars and solder our circuit boards and electroplate our fuel cell electrodes.

[Bluzmann57]

34. Speaking as a Blue Collar man

I agree with you. I cuss at work, I drink beer, watch football and other sports, play cards on Saturday night, shower after work, and ALWAYS vote Democrat in elections. Getting really tired of this stereotyping of people like me. All you out there who are college graduates and fancy yourself as somehow better than us "lowly" working stiffs, fix your own damn car, mine your own coal for heat, pour your own cement on the highways of America. On this day especially, we should heed the words of Reverend Martin Luther King and all be brothers and sisters. If we stand united and stop the sterotyping we can win in '06 and beyond. This divisiveness is exactly what the repubs want, it's called divide and conquer and it works.

[tx_dem41]

36. Great post, Bluzmann! n/t

[KittyWampus]

37. Huzzah! It's Not What You Do For A Living... It's The Effort You Put Into

doing your job well.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

83. Thanks for the reminder

Many working folks vote democratic and more would if we didn't allow the repubs to use religion as a great divider. Lots of these folks vote republican, against their economic interests for religious reasons or cultural reasons.

It doesn't help when dems like my brother above, look down on working people. Working people are the heart of this party.

Jim Hightower says we need the sprout eaters and the snuff dippers. He's right.

[Stepup2]

85. Yep!

This is the stuff that right wing dreams and presidencies are made of.

This is the digression that puts the divide in the wedge issue de jour. The problem is THIS is the mother of all wedge issues.

On the day that many of us celebrated what Martin Luther King got murdered over isn't time we all take a deep breath and try to learn where we have things in common with others, rather than dissolve into stereotypes along the lines of race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

I know this sounds all sociology 101 and everything, but the reason these issues are used to divide and conquer it that simple fact that united people create an powerful force for change.

[420inTN]

95. *Applause* n/t

[renaissanceguy]

136. Exactly.

As a Party, we need to respect our differences. As a stereotyped intellectual type, I am offended with how the MSM tends to bash "intellectual elitists," as if there is something wrong with learning and thinking for oneself.

We need to understand that everyone has a purpose, and every job is important. Some people are better at being the brains behind an operation, others are better implementing that operation with their hands.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

143. Dude, you're my hero

[Torque67]

146. I'm in total agreement.

I joined the site after the election to see what I could to to help make things better in the next elections, but since I've been here, I just see people like me (ex-military, gun-owning, blue collar southern churchgoer) being classified as redneck, stupid, uneducated, murderous Jesus freaks. I'll stick around anyway, and still try to help, but I'm not as happy with the whole thing as before.

I guess some Democrats are better than some other Democrats. Hopefully we mostly have the same wishes.

[leveymg]

40. "Redneck" is the last ethnic slur generally tolerated. GMAB.

Nobody should be really offended by it. None intended.

No aspersions cast on the disappearing American Working Class, either. Since 1968, however, a growing number of those who used to be called "blue collar", "white ethnics", "Joe six-packs", etc. have gone over to the other side. A lot of them also moved south to the Red Zone, looking for work.

The political shift to the Right has coincided with the movement off-shore of relatively good-paying industrial and service jobs. Increasingly economic insecure people tend to fall for the politics of insecurity. Until the Dems have a real, workable plan to do something about the former, we're going to continue to lose at the polls to the masters of the latter.

I'm afraid those hydrogen fuel cells, when and if they're ever produced in quantity, will be made in China by Japanese companies employing Indian engineers. Of course, they'll be owned by the same multinational energy companies guarded by 50-year-old Texas reservists and 19-year-old draftees from Florida.

Pretty soon, we'll be Kevlar collar. Keeps the sun off your neck, though.

[tx_dem41]

41. I've never seen "rednecks" and "blue collar" equated.

So, I'm not sure exactly where you are going with this.

[leveymg]

52. Not equated. Lots of overlap, though.

Original point was to let a little air out of the stereotypes employed by someone who's obviously fed up with the charactature of all Dems as vegan-SF-Lefties -- gotta agree -- and perhaps a little too wedded to the Old Left rhetoric about the "nobility of the working class". There's nothing really wrong with that, either.

The division of the working world into those who take showers after work from people who don't was too funny to be left unmolested. The rest followed as a mix of absurd and serious. Excuse me - isn't that allowed on this discussion forum anymore? Sorry if anyone was offended.

Not sure where we're taking this next. Let's try to steer away from stereotypes.

[420inTN]

96. I know people who have proudly called themselves "Rednecks".

Including myself, in my younger days. As with other words, it depends upon the usage, and the user.

You can use it as an insult to refer to someone you see as an an ignorant, racist, hick. Or you can use it to refer to someone who lives a simple life, lives in (generally) rural areas, works hard, and plays hard(er).

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmicdot]

84. how did you get 'heartland', 'PhD's', 'SF Bay universities','liberal arts'

from post #9?

what does "in liberal arts especially" mean?

what exactly are the Liberal Arts when speaking of Education?

if our schooling didn't have Liberal Arts, what would the curriculum include?

personally, I don't believe Democrats lost the presidency in 2000 nor 2004; and, several Senate seats were stolen in 2002 ... so, you lose me with the "this is why Democrats lose" line

[Zhade]

86. "voters who shower" - is that a slam against "unwashed hippies"?

Odd post. Seems very antagonistic.

[WI Independent]

120. Key part was "after work"...

Workers that get dirty at work tend to shower in the evenings. Workers with desk jobs tend to shower in the morning.

[Zhade]

126. Oh, duh. I misread it, cool.

Too many "leftist commie!" slurs being tossed around these days, makes one leery.

[progressivebydesign]

149. "Liberal Arts" means nothing but a general eduaction degree now..

Wow.. you are certainly parrotting a party line... and it's not ours.

I do agree that the Dems are out of touch with continued stupid-facation of Americans.. but a Liberal Arts degree is what most college students consider a basic degree, as they decide to choose their career. It's not some LIBERAL thing.

[w4rma]

12. What the heck are you talking about, Demeter? (nt)

[Rose Siding]

13. One of those facts is that

a large number of functioning adults are people of faith. They should hear that Democratic ideals aren't in opposition many of theirs.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. As George Wallace said in 1968

that attitude (append 9) is the attitude of pointy headed, brief case tottin', pseudo intellectuals -- that completely turns off the folks in the Heartland, the folks who shower after work.

I came up as a blue collar - AFL-CIO Democrat in a steel mill town, where people went to Church and Temple.

[renaissanceguy]

132. There is nothing wrong with intellectuals.

If it weren't for intellectuals, we wouldn't have a free society, just dogmatic life.

At the same time, there's nothing wrong with blue collar workers. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't have roads, buildings, plumbing, or anything.
http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[Zhade]

87. This atheist agrees with you.

After all, it's not like the religious left is going to try to install a theocracy!

[me b zola]

104. My question is

Why can't people of faith figure it out for themselves? The policies and values of the Dems has always spoke volumes to me, even as an adolescent. I can't think of any of our greatest presidents feeling the need to convince everyone that they didn't hate God.

Because the repukes have brainwashed their constituents that us liberals are trying to take away their religion, now some of us feel the need to convince them otherwise? If they cannot think independently & rationally, then nothing we can say will be able to help them. :crazy:

[Demeter]

17. Okay...Let's Try A Little Reasoning Here

If we try to trump the Right by playing the Religion card...

we play the game on their board, with their rules. We start out outnumbered, and

Their game is rigged...they make the rules and change them when it's inconvenient.

Meanwhile, Reality goes to pieces. Chaos spreads.

If on the other hand, we work with Reality....

the whole religion game is revealed to be a fraud, as is the GOP.

Our game becomes organized, effective, and makes measurable, real differences to countable, real people.

And even the religious benefit, much against their will, no doubt.

[tx_dem41]

20. Well....that's a nice scenario.

What color is the sky in your world?

[JerseygirlCT]

23. NO!

Religion is NOT their board. They have successfully perverted Christianity and sold that to the masses. Most Christians do not hold with their latter-day "fundamentalist" views at all. But they've successfully co-opted religion as their own. It seems you've bought into it.

Who led the civil rights fight? Which groups are often in the forefront of the fight against poverty? Who speaks out against the death penalty?

The religion "game" is not a fraud. It's a very meaningful part of life for many people in this country.

Is love a fraud? Can't quantify it, can't reason about it... you willing to throw that out, too as lacking reality?

You are the one playing on their board.

[w4rma]

25. Bingo. (nt)

[rjbny62]

111. you got that right

Love is REAL and powerful. This perverted message is a sham.

[Coastie for Truth]

26. When I was a kid comin' up

in the Steel Valley - the Democratic Party was the "Faith" party.

And "faith" is not being "anti-abortion" or (in my community) anti-ham sandwich. It is being anti-segregation and pro-integration, anti-poverty and pro-prosperity, anti-ignorance and pro-education. The Democratic Party is the real party "of faith" - the faith of tearing down barriers and not building barriers.

We do not have a tradition of the "anti-Christ" - but we do have the "dibbuk" - and these right wingers who claim to be "faith based" are dibbuks.

[QC]

61. Yes, let's be the Party of Atheism in the west's most religious country!

That's some great "reasoning." :eyes:

Demeter, as you see it, does politics have anything at all to do with winning elections?

[reprobate]

62. Self Deleted. Memo to self: read ahead before posting.

[rucky]

106. Jim Wallis has been doing what he does for YEARS

You may have just discovered him because the NYT gave him a write-up, but let me assure you - he's the real deal.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. You're very wrong

and being not a little bigoted here.

There are a vast number of religiously minded people in this country who do not agree with the nasty perversion that people like Dobson spew. There's no conflict between speaking to them in the language they understand and keeping a firm separation between church and state... in fact one supports the other.

You're in the minority in this country (though I thoroughly respect your right not to believe), and the Democratic party will do well when they realize that faith is not the enemy, and in fact, much of what the Democratic party has stood for dove-tails nicely with the basic tenets of all major religions -- which comes down to respect for your fellow humans.

[Demeter]

27. People, Try to Distinguish Between the Religion Game and Religion

This is a game to the GOP--they jerk the nation around by using Religion--a political form of jujitsu, where the opponents strength is used against him. It has NOTHING to do with faith, and everything to do with gullibility.

The ONLY defense against gullibility is knowledge: facts and the ability to demonstrate the power of facts. Try to prove you are more "religious" than the other guy, and therefore more worthy of attention and belief is as bad as trying to be GOP-lite.

We have the entire Reality behind us as our tool. They have a cardboard construct and a good PR firm. Guess which one wins (but only if we use it).

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Now you're changing what you've said:

yes, they have a perversion of religion, which they use cynically and quite effectively.

There are, however, a majority of people in this country, who consider themselves people of faith. Their faith isn't something to be trifled with or disparaged. I'm not suggesting we play the same cynical game the GOP does. I'm suggesting we point out that for most of these people, the values they embrace as part of their faith are the SAME values the Democratic party embraces. For the Christians, it's good to remember that Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about abortion or homosexuality. He had lots to say about poverty, and helping the least among us.

We need to force the GOP to confront their own hypocrisy. We need to show their supposed sympathy for religion for the cardboard cut-out you rightfully claim it is. We don't accomplish that by saying religion is wrong, or silly, or stupid. Doing that plays right into their hands.

We do that by becoming every bit as vocal as the loud, obnoxious minority that has appropriated the "values" debate in this country for their campaign of hatred. We force them to look at the real issues, and to confront their unwillingness to do so. We point out where the Democrats have done and will continue to do, more for the majority of people in this country. We find ways to speak to the religious people of the country in terms they understand -- which doesn't mean changing our values or positions at all!

[Cats Against Frist]

59. Demeter has a point

And this is why --

Part of the reason that the "fundies and evangelicals" are attracted to the GOP is not because of faith, but because of an amalgam of civil policy, myth, prejudice, fear of losing privilege and a desire to rationalize their wealth in the face of world suffering.

That's what the GOP does for them. They're not going to the GOP Church of Civil Mammon & Fake Jesus because they want to get closer to GOD -- they're going because they want to rationalize their own behavior and worldview.

And Demeter is right -- they'll just change the rules. The Bible, in many conservative circles is no longer about helping the poor, despite the "3,000 references," to poverty -- it's about enforcement of traditional social mores and a way, in a consumer society, to rationalize consumerism. As Dr. Land so brilliantly illustrates, "the most effective way to ease poverty is through the free market." And we know that most of the dumb shits that buy into this aren't really into charity -- they're into flat-screen televisions, giant cars and reality television -- and they unabashedly flaunt the "personal responsibility," meme -- (which only applies to the poor and the downtrodden, as opposed to the wealthy and the middle class), which suggests that charity runs in opposition to the "tough love," that will make people pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

The Dominionists have it all figured out and YES, as Demeter says, they'll just change the rules. Haven't you heard? God smiles down on the rich, now, and "meek" means you make a lot of money and boss other people around.

You get into shaky ground with religion, since it's all conjecture, myth and interpretation anyway -- anyone can use it to their advantage -- and have been for hundreds of years -- that's why Marx called it the "opiate of the massess," or whatever. Spirituality is one thing, but the formal application of Christianity, from top to bottom, has always found a home with the powerful, the greedy, the stakeholders and the privileged as a tool of oppressing the "believers."

Capitalism and the free market are not compatible with Christianity (and I happen to believe in both capitalism and the free market, in theory), because there ARE no morals in capitalism -- all of capitalism's tenets are practical and intended to increase profit and ownership. It is obvious that this system leads to the oppression of other humans, as their weaknesses are the MEANS to make a lot of this money. There is none of this in the self-deference narrative, and any fake-o Christian, left or right, that is trying to make them congeal is just clawing at the slick sides of the well.

Rationality is the only answer. Rationality and the free market, compassion and charity are my answers -- I don't even agree with a broad, federal welfare state, and think that these things should be provided on a much smaller level -- and if people weren't such dickweeds, then we'd be a whole lot better off.

Our morals are broken, and it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity or the free market or the welfare state, or however you want to frame it -- and those right-wing intellectuals who are leading the freepers around by their pug noses are the least scrupulous and least accountable to religion of all of them.

Yes, to play religion is to play on their board -- and they are starting with a huge advantage -- by the time you get around to saying "but the welfare state is what Jesus would have wanted," you've already let them frame the meat of the debate, which is "is the role of society, AS OUR FOUNDERS INTENDED, self-evident and only granted by a non-denominational, non-interventionist nature God of rationality?" By suggesting that religious tenets are more important than rationality, you're betraying the founders and the Constitution.

Argue Rousseau, Jefferson, rationality, the Bill of Rights and the "just and virtuous society." The law of this land is the Constitution of the United States of America, not the right-wing loonie free market feel-good-by-domination-Bible -- and NOT the left-wing feel-good-the-federal-government Bible.

Everybody needs to figure this out, and fast, or we're doomed.

[OldVlad]

64. You're very right

What you said is 100% Gospel truth, no pun intended. But I would go even a step further politically, I don't even think the Dobson's of the world are particuarly partisan, as much as they have been particuarly lobbied by the GOP. I think the GOP has done a clever job of listening to them, and giving them a seat at the table, (or simply the appearance of) while anger filled bigots like Demeter have alienated and shunned them. Looking at it from a Dobson's standpoint, and I don't know much about the man although from what I do it sounds like he has a radio show that's apolitical-if there was one party that was kissing your butt, and another that had a few that align themselves with it that's burning your ass--you're gonna chose the former every time.

If we can take back these "Reagan Democrates" to where they belong, we won't suffer the continual decline in the House and Senate, and maybe reverse course. The best way to do that is what these fine DU posters have done here, when we see religious bigotry from the angry-Athiestic set we isolate it. It may be not much of a start in winning the red states in the greater scheme of things, but its a start. Our fashionable silence has given complicite approval to the Newdow's of the country for too long.

[papau]

30. And that will get us 3% of the vote - since 90% disagree re religion

and we will spit the voting portion of the rest.

Faith is a fact.

[QC]

65. Yeah, but after we lose 50 states and our remaining House and Senate seats

we can sit around on message boards like this one and congratulate ourselves on what wonderfully noble and brave souls we are, compared to the 96% who voted for someone other than our candidate.

And aren't self-congratulation and moral posturing what politics is really all about?

[Demeter]

35. Let Me Tell You About Great Uncle Adam

Uncle Adam was trying to replace the wheel on the tractor--but the nut was left-handed. He tried and tried to screw that nut on the usual way, he rejected all the advice of his younger family, to try it the other way. Finally, he got that nut on the bolt, with a hammer. This was unfortunately not too good for the tractor. That is the fallacy of faith over knowledge.

Faith can be useless if not just plain wrong.

Facts eat your lunch and then go for your loved ones.

[KittyWampus]

39. Faith Is The Only Thing Making A Dollar Bill Worth Goods & Services

Faith that the other driver will stay in their lane is the only thing that allows us to drive on public streets.

Faith is essential.

Blind Faith divorced from Reason is the problem.

[Demeter]

42. That's not Faith, that's Probability

You are betting that the fact that since so far the dollar has been accepted as a medium of exchange, it will continue to be accepted for the duration of your transaction. It's still a fairly safe bet. For a bit longer.

You are also betting that the system of driver education and law enforcement is sufficiently ingrained that the next driver you encounter will follow the traffic rules and stay on the designated side of the road. Still a fairly safe bet, unless the oncoming driver is drunk, insane or otherwise disinclined to follow protocol.

Keep your faith in God, but when it comes to men, get the facts!

[KittyWampus]

53. No, It's Faith. Probability Is Simple Mathmatics, Not Human Psychology.

If we were nothing but machines you might have a valid point.

[Demeter]

55. Probability is a Mathematical Means of Dealing with Uncertainty

there is no law of man or nature that restricts probability. In nature, most things are cut and tried, true or false, go or no go. It is in all things that depend on chance (or in other words, multiple, undefined variables) that probability has its use, and Man and his actions are certainly part of that.

[KittyWampus]

67. Man & His Actions Are Subject To Their Emotional, Psychological &

Spiritual Nature as well as their Material Existance.

Mathmatical Probablity enters into playing the Lottery and dictates that the odds are phenomenaly against someone winning... and yet people play all the time.

Mathmatical Probability shows Americans are more likely to die driving than in a terrorist incident... and yet they allow themselves to be manipulated through fear of terrorism and get into their cars with no real qualms everyday.

[Demeter]

72. Modern Examples of Probability and Man

1) Polling (obviously)

2) Drug studies

3) Insurance (all kinds)

4) Advertising and marketing

5) War games

6) Economics

7) Genetics

8) Lotteries (as a form of taxation)

somebody else complete the list.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[southlandshari]

100. No light at the end of this tunnel

What the heck does your little anecdote about shit-for-brains Uncle Adam have to do with personal faith?

Are you saying people of faith don't have a brain cell to stand on?

Look, I am trying to remember that you are probably dissing only ignorant right wing fundies, but please help me out here and tighten up your approach. Because you are offending the vast majority of dedicated DUers who also happen to be religious with your insults.

[FlaGranny]

45. Your way would require strict

re-education of the kind in sci-fi thrillers - wiping the brain clean by chemical means and introducing new false memories. While that may seem like a nice idea on the surface, it is extremely :scared: frightening. If we could, they could. We need to convince these folks that they are falling for right-wing misinterpretations of their own bible. We need to show them that they are totally disregarding the words of their own Jesus. That can't be done by denying their entire belief system. It must be done by showing that they have been misled by religious and political leaders with an agenda that has nothing to do with their God or their Jesus. That they are easily misled is glaringly obvious.

I have family members who have been misled and are following someone (Bush, his government, and his "preachers") much like that false messiah their bible warns them about. They are good people, but easily swayed by anyone claiming to "know" the word. They will even admit to me they don't understand the bible, but since they believe it is "the word of God" they believe others' (who they think are smarter than them) interpretation of it. The bible is very confusing to them and contradictory and they feel inadequate and not smart enough to figure it out. If a Fallwell or a Robertson comes along and claims to know the meaning of the word, they are revered and believed because they seem so very confident in their "knowledge" of God's will. There is absolutely no way to get through to these people other than making them understand Jesus' own words and works - asking them "what would Jesus do?" What scares me is that this group of pliable people is growing by the day and we have done nothing to counter this growth of misinformation. These people don't realize it, but they are the very embodiment of the bible's warnings about followers of the false messiah.

The "real" messiah would not be advocating war, greed, and hatred. He would be calling for forgiveness and charity. He'd be asking his followers to believe in him, follow his example, and to take care of the things God has provided for their own welfare. He would be telling them not to be so arrogant as to unnecessarily destroy one atom of what God has created, whether animal, plant, human, or any part of the earth.

Unless enlightened religious leaders can show them these "truths," we are all doomed.

All things occur in cycles and hopefully this current cycle of religious fanaticism will come to an end soon, when enough see the folly of their misinformed beliefs. At the turn of the 20th century a group of people got rid of all their personal possessions and went to sit on a mountaintop to await the end. They were probably so embarrassed by their foolishness that they disappeared into the woodwork until 25 or 30 years ago. Now they are at it again.

[Demeter]

47. Excuse me, but you are confusing the issue

Education is not science fiction--what you are describing is brainwashing and indoctrination. I think the US has had enough of that already.

[FlaGranny]

89. Maybe I was not clear.

I was saying it was a bad idea to brainwash. Sorry if I was not clear.

The family story I related is illustrative of the kind of people some of the religious fundamentalists are. They are dependent and misled. Showing them the error of their ways is education. But I would not propose trying to convert anyone to atheism. Some people need to believe they will have an afterlife and their religion gives them comfort. Why take it away, if they need it. But if they need it, at least teach them how the current fundamentalists are corrupting them.

[heidler1]

91. Voltaire's "Candide" was his attempt to show mankind wants more.

I believe that when there isn't enough of the bare essentials available men and women will probably wear a cloak of compassion, but if a man sees a way to individually rise above the masses most will abandon their cloak of compassion and strive for what they will call the cream that rises to the top. The only difference between a man and a Bull Moose is that the Bull Moose's drive is pretty limited to the size of his harem whereas a man is competing in limitless arenas. Women get in on the act, too. Most of these post are trying to show that mankind is above this dog eat dog horror story, but their proof always depends on the rare cases like Jesus and thus the admiration. The good times of the 90s caused many to take off their cloaks.

[LiberalFighter]

51. Faith will not destroy the evil in society nor create the good

[Demeter]

56. Amen Brother!

Thanks for the "moral" support!

[southlandshari]

99. I agree...and disagree...and ultimately agree

Whether or not the Democratic leaders in this article are fishing for a "pet cleric" for our party is debatable (but I wouldn't be surprised).

What is not debatable is the fact that Jim Wallis would never allow himself to be relegated to this mascot-like standing. You should check out http://www.sojo.net for more.

I disagree that religion and reason are incompatible. Agree that we need some functioning adults to operate this country - and would add that Jim Wallis and others like him (who are found in a variety of faiths around the globe) are higher functioning than just about anyone I know inside the Beltway these days!

[TankLV]

103. MLK had such a strong religious foundation.

Are you suggesting that we do NOT want such a person again?

I continually pray, in the back of my mind, day and night, for a noble and courageous person to come to the forefront once again to fight the good fight for all of us!

And I bet a lot of posters on this board are now choaking and spitting their respective drinks over their keyboards seeing me post this compared to a lot of the stuff I have posted in the past.

It's just that the intolerance and idiocy and blasphemy and bullshit spewed by the intolerand (non)religious right makes me so mad at times, I cut my own nose to spite my face! The current state of affairs makes us so blind with rage at the unfairness and injustice of it all at times that we just can't see things and say things that we partially regret.

What the world lacks is a true spirituality that trancends and uplifts and enobles us to be the best and brightest and brings us to a true "heaven on earth".

How soon we forget the greatness of those we have lost.

ESPECIALLY on this very day!

[Demeter]

105. I Would Say MLK Had A Strong Moral Foundation

and a good connection in a strong church. it WAS THE MORAL FOUNDATION THAT MADE HIM GREAT.

[TankLV]

127. I concure. And some would correctly argue that one in not mutually

exclusive of the other.

They can be both the same thing.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Couple of things stick out for me here:

one, why does Wallis need to represent conservative Christianity. Land is aware that much of Christianity is NOT of the conservative stripe, isn't he? We need many more vocal folks from the mainstream of Christian thought -- what's now being relegated to "liberal Christianity" although I think Christianity itself is really liberal.

Second, I DO think there are people who like poverty just fine. The current adminstration seems to think it's fine and dandy for a growing segment of our population to live like that. It's no fun being a big old "have" if there aren't any "have-nots" after all.

[leesa]

32. Right. The debate is over Free markets are a disaster!

[GoBlue]

33. As long as folks believe that

religious faith equals spiritual faith, there ain't no hope of getting it right.

[JusticeForAll]

38. Jesus was a Liberal

I just learned that fact yesterday...I think I will use it for the next four years.

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/?Nao=1&No=1&Nty=1&N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=jesus+was+a+liberal&x=10&y=13

[renaissanceguy]

133. It's a good and true statement.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[Guns Aximbo]

43. He's right

and this is a good tactic / strategy. As much as I'm against organized religion you have to fight fire with fire.

[Guns Aximbo]

44. actually... I'm wrong

now that I think about it. I'm wrong. KEEP RELIGION OUT OF OUR POLITICS ALTOGETHER!!!

[merh]

46. "based on the 30-year experiment" - What the heck, Dr. Land,

because it is difficult, you want us to give up?

[Malva Zebrina]

57. the problem is

that the literalist extremists pay little attention to Jesus. Their theology lies heavily in Paul. This is logical to them, because Paul was told directly by Jesus, to preach the word, thus handing to him the banner. Jesus was crucified, and the Jerusalem Jews who were his disciples, fought with Paul, and disappeared during the destruction of the temple by Rome in 70AD.

Paul himself, in all of his writings, mentioned JEsus only once, if I recall. He never met Jesus and was "converted" from being a persecuter of the followers of Jesus, to a Christian when he was thrown off his horse or camel on the way to Damascus and was blinded, from which he miruaculously recovered.

No--Paul is the leader and the one whose words are followed, and the Old Testament is very highly relied upon because of it's prophecy. It had to be incorporated into the Christian Bible because of it's prophecy of the Messiah,(annointed one) which they interpret as the man Jesus.

It is Paul who they cite in their hatred of homosexuals, and it is Paul they cite when they say women are to be subservient to men and etc. etc.

What is not needed is an icon from the ministry to get people back to their spirituality , imo


What is needed is for the majority of people to cut it out with the materialism, the fascination with crystal cathedrals, the striving and striving for things that determine who they are as a person, such as a big house, SUV, the latest in toys, the pride of membership in ostentatious religious monuments that reach to the sky, and etc and the need to belong to the "in group".

It is not only the literalists who push for faith based money either, and I think it is a done deal, especially if Democrats adopt an official "minister" we will see our money being distributed to the Christian churches, mainly, and we will see our money supporting missions all over the world so the believer can distribute Bibles to Muslims, and try to convert Hindues. I am sure Democrats will simply support that unquestionably and we will witness another freedom gone.

[reprobate]

69. You're on the right track on Paul, Malva.

There are even some who say that Paul was in the employ of Rome as an agent to assure that the new religion was a peaceful one toward Rome.

The speculation goes that since Paul never met Joshua (original name before being translated to the Greek), and was diametrically opposed to the original followers of Joshua, including his brother, that the historical figure was not a peace giver, but a rebellion leader at the time when rebellion against Rome was in the very air.

Also, take into account the fact that NONE of the books the religion is founded on were written until at least thirty years after the facts they talk of. At least one a century later.

It would be reasonable to think that, since the person he created a religion after was executed as an enemy of Rome, that Paul would have faced extreme trouble from Rome in proselytizing in his name. Unless of course he had Rome's approval and was simply corrupting the real teachings of Joshua in a way that was not antithetical to the current tyrants. Does "Give unto Rome the things that are Romes" say anything to you?

[happyslug]

108. St Paul, misunderstood and mis-used.

St Paul was a brilliant propagandist, read his writings and you will see he obeys all the "Rules" of a propagandist:
1. NEVER OFFEND ANYONE. If you offend someone, that person will NOT listen to you. This can be seen in St Paul's Attempt to convert the Athenians with his use of the Athenians Temple to Unknown gods as a Temple to God and thus that Athenians were already worshiping God through Jesus.
2. Make sure the power that be have no reason to silence you. To be silenced is NOT to be heard. Thus ST Paul's writing that "The people over you are appointed by God to be your leader", this was NOT directed at believers, for believers had Old Testament to read which clearly shows the right of the people to overthrow bad rulers, but directed at the censors of St Paul's time to give the impression that Christians supported the status quo. This is the reason St Paul makes this statement, but when the Jews revolted in 70 AD and 135 AD, St Paul's statement were brought out again to show that Christians did not oppose Roman Rule. This use of St Paul worked, Christianity was not repressed throughout the Roman Empire till Diocletian's time period (They were some individuals cities repression but no Empire wide repression till Diocletian's rule). The early Christians seems to have dismissed St Paul's Statement as to who rules over them based on the Christians retention of the Book of the Maccabees in the Catholic Bible. The early Christian also seems to have put St Paul's position that one can be saved by Faith Alone as false given the predominance of Jesus statement that only through WORKS can you show your faith and the clear rejection of Faith alone by the Letter of St James that follows the letters of St Paul in the Bible (St James letter clearly rejects St Paul's position on being saved by Faith alone, again demanding works to show you truly have faith). But this is getting off my theme of PROPAGANDA.
3. GET THE MESSAGE ACROSS . St Paul's numerous letters is to repeat to the people the message, making sure they understood what Christ stood for. The letters from St James is to reinforce the teaching of Christ.
4. REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT, , Keep telling people what the message is, over and over again. St Paul was the most literal of the founders of the Church and as such the one who wrote the most. Thus he understood the need to keep repeating what Christ had taught and told his fellow Christians to repeat what Christ had taught.

Some personal comments on St Paul. Given the two times in the early years of the Church St Paul's writings were used, he became the most known of the early founders of the Church. While St Paul was the most Known even in the Acts of the Apostles it is clear that he did NOT fully understood all of the Teachings of Christ until long after his conversion. Thus some of his early writings reflect his belief as to Christianity BEFORE he meant the original 12 apostles and had those beliefs modified to reflect what Christ actually taught. Thus some of his writings, while in the bible, were never considered "Theological" for it went counter to the clear statements of Christ (For Example St. Paul's statement that a person can get to heaven by Faith alone, something Jesus clearly rejects in the Gospels where Jesus clearly says your faith will be judged by YOUR ACTS, not what you say).

Another comment on St Paul, people have claimed that he was a "Agent Provocateur" to guide the early church, Rome was NOT that while organized and neither were the Jewish Priest Class. No his conversion was genuine, the confusion comes into his weak understanding of Christianity at the time of his Conversion AND the Use of his early Writings during the time of the Second Jewish Revolt, to show that Christians were NOT part of the Jewish revolt. This use gave his writing predominance at the time the Bible was "firming up" (I use this term for the books of the Bible had been written by 100 AD, but the decision as to what books would be the "New Testament" was not the time of Constantine c312 AD).

A secondary result of the use of his writing to show the Romans that the Christians of 135 AD did not Support the Jewish Revolt is after the revolt the Jews removed the Books of the Maccabees from their collection of books in their "Bible" while the Catholics kept it in (The Protestant Bible follows the Jewish Bible in content, thus the Revolt of the Maccabees is in the Catholic Bible but not the Protestant Bible).

Back to the Theme of PROPAGANDA (i.e. spreading the Word, getting your point across etc). The Early Church was a Church out to convert people. As such the Early Church was willing to follow the above rules. This can be shown in the Decision of the Apostles that Greek Converts to Christianity need not also convert to Judaism. Circumcisions etc was NOT required by Greeks Converts to Christianity, nor were the Greeks required to follow the strict dietary restrictions of the Jews. These were retained in the Christian Bible, but anything in the old testament that interfere with Converting people to the teachings of Christ was dropped or modified. Getting Christ's Teachings across was viewed as more important than strict following of Jewish laws. The Church Fathers followed the rules of effective propaganda, get them hooked, do not offend people, do not give people reasons NOT to listen to you, don't' give the power the be reasons to silence you AND maintain the Message. The early church Fathers (Including St Paul) did ALL OF THESE. The Democrats have to do the same, do NOT offend, but make a Clear Stand, emphasis Christ DEMAND that people help each other, that is it a RELIGIOUS obligation to help the poor and the best way to help the poor is through retention of Social Security and the welfare.

[Zhade]

88. You raise a good point.

It is not only the literalists who push for faith based money either, and I think it is a done deal, especially if Democrats adopt an official "minister" we will see our money being distributed to the Christian churches, mainly, and we will see our money supporting missions all over the world so the believer can distribute Bibles to Muslims, and try to convert Hindues. I am sure Democrats will simply support that unquestionably and we will witness another freedom gone.

I am horrified to think you might be onto something here...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. While Paul never met Jesus, he DID mention him--a lot

However, he (like the writer of the Gospel of John) was heavily influenced by dualistic philosophy, in which the flesh was "bad" and the spirit was "good."

(Now retired) Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong caused controversy when he suggested in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism that Paul's hang-ups came from his "thorn in the flesh," and that this "thorn" was homosexuality. In other words, he was so guilt-ridden about his impulses (which were forbidden in Judaism and allowed in Greek society) that it led him to despise physicality and concentrate on faith rather than day-to-day concerns for society.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. Jim Wallis isn't into being the Billy Graham of the Left

For years, he's been head of the Sojourners Community in Washington, D.C., which is devoted to serving the poor.

He's been prominent in religious left circles for a long time, and has not exploited his position.

[Merlin]

60. This is excellent! Listen to the right wing demagogues squeal!!!

This is EXACTLY where we must go.

For those too young to remember, the times when this party was most vibrant and totally in the embrace of the electorate were the times when we stood for moral values -- especially those of alleviating poverty, racism, sexism, war, tyranny, disease, the afflictions of old age and on and on. NOTHING is as powerful as an electorate convinced of the morality of their cause.

The bible may be mythology. But it is full of injunctions to do good for others.

Jesus may not really be God. Who cares! But he is/was the first and foremost liberal of all time. His teachings are deliberately subdued by right wing religion in favor of redemption through faith in the "mystery" of Jesus' death, not in doing the "good works" he preached -- a key component of their lying, manipulative theology.

Let's steal Jesus back! He's one of us!

When the fascist Dr. Richard Land is reduced to complaining that "I don't know anybody who is in favor of poverty..." and bitching about subtleties like the debate is over the means not the goals, you KNOW they are afraid of this!

[McCamy Taylor]

63. Dali Lama is leader is religious left in my book

[ally_sc]

74. Re poverty issue that is strange because

when i was working today a lady from the other floor came and said there was a homeless man hanging around asking for money. i bet this is just the tip of what we are going to see now.

[ally_sc]

75. Re poverty issue that is strange because

when i was working today a lady from the other floor came and said there was a homeless man hanging around asking for money. i bet this is just the tip of what we are going to see now.

[VirginiaDem]

77. As a Democrat and Atheist

I understand that a little rationality goes a long way. We cannot afford to become the "Secular Party". I'll happily vote for the next Democratic nominee for President, regardless of how much "God this" and "God that" he/she utters. I also don't take the stand that all religious people are dupes or right-wing nuts. There are not very many atheists in America but there are a whole helluva lot of people who want religion kept way the hell away from the public arena, save a few utterances here and there. They weren't quite sure about the whole deal this election but they will be given a couple more years of the fundies liquidating their political capital. That's the motherload we need to tap into--the non-fundy religious voter.

Edited to correctly spell "Atheist". Woops.

[Massachusetts]

79. Exorcise these Pseudo-Democrats

Don't copy other values, strengthen your own.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

82. Thank you!

What we need to do is convert evangelicals to respect for those of other beliefs and non-beliefs. We need to help them understand that separation of Church and State does not stomp on their freedom to practice their religion; but it does insist that inflicting their religion on others will not be tolerated.

[Telly Savalas]

92. Religious people are pseudo-Democrats?

Perhaps someone should have a panel discussion with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton on this.

[renaissanceguy]

135. Of course we need to energize our base.

We certainly don't need to pander to the religious right. They wouldn't vote for a Democrat, no matter what.

What we should do, though, is acknowledge that we DO have common ground with people of faith. There ARE liberal Christians out there. And they do respect and uphold a separation of church and state. They agree that we should help the poor, protect the environment, promote peace, and respect one another.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[GoddessOfGuinness]

150. Those who respect and uphold a separation of church and state

Are for the most part, not evangelical Christians.

The evangelical element seeks to convert others (including other Christians) to their brand of faith. This is the fundamental tenet of their belief...that they must convert people. It has no room for respect for other religions and non religions, and most certainly does not respect and uphold separation of church and state.

We do not need to pander to these people.

[Spider Jerusalem]

93. "dispelling their party's secular image"????????????? WHAT THE FUCK????

Bullshit. Just because the Republicans are turning into god-bots doesn't mean the Democrats have to. If both parties start spouting the same line of insane mythologically-based twaddle, I'm going to have to say "fuck you, America" and find someplace more congenial.

[wabeewoman]

97. What the dems don't get

IMHO is WE are not the problem. The neo-cons who have taken over the republican party are. And the fact we don't seem to have a straight talker who can articulate the difference between us and them and focus on the real issues-someone like, ummmm, maybe Howard Dean?

[southlandshari]

98. Thanks, rose siding

for the thread. I say that with the up front admission I have not yet read all the responses, but Jim Wallis is one of the few true remaining heroes, unsung as he may be, we have in the United States. This should be interesting!

[TankLV]

102. MLK was "religious left". I see nothing wrong in courting such people.

In fact, I feel that is one of the reasons the Dem Party is failing so horribly.

We are losing the moral high ground to some old testament talibornagains radical christian wacko fundy clerics.

Courting people such as MLK would be a welcome and long overdue change and would get my heart-felt warm support.

As long as we are not willing to compromise our other beliefs on the GBLT community and Choice and equivocate on torture.

If they try to "divide and concur", I will opposed such actions with my whole being!

[RandomKoolzip]

119. I agree, and I'm an atheist.

I may not believe in a god, but MLK's goals are my goals; Ghandi's goals are my goals, and The Berrigan Brothers' goals are my goals as well.

I say we build a coalition with the atheist and religious left, and we do it immediately.

[renaissanceguy]

134. I'm fine with it.

Liberal Christians aren't the problem... they, for the most part, support and respect a separation of church and state. They are respectful of views other than their own.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/477698

[rucky]

107. Jim Wallis is the real deal, folks.

He's been doing what he does for years. I'm a subscriber to Sojouners and I'm a Jew - the magazine is that good. The things his group does are admirable, the articles have a genuine social conscious. Just check out www.sojo.net and click around for awhile before you knee-jerk.

[davidinalameda]

112. Yes, Dr. Land you are scary to us

The Democrats are turning to the guy they can find that is least scary to them," Dr. Land said.

I've seen this Dr. Land on TV way too often lately--he is scary

and I'm no bible scholar but where did Jesus and the disciples ever debate free market economics

[the aocp]

115. i just don't buy that the election was a referrendum on religion...sigh...

[southlandshari]

122. Jim Wallis is tonight's guest on The Daily Show

Show just started here in central time - great "coverage" of the Rice hearings so far!

[PallasAthena]

123. He caused us to break out in applause (at home)!!

[wabeewoman]

124. He was great.

The interesting part of listening to an inclusive, help-the- downtrodden type religious person and the righteous, judgmental, hating right is that it is such a contrast in how it makes you feel. THAT is the difference we need to get out there. To me that isn't so much religion(as Wallis pointed out while including all religions )as humanity. Listening to people like Wallis(and Clinton and King) give me hope of mankind's goodness and listening to bush and the rw makes me despair. It should be an easy message to get out: are we treating all of God's creation as we should? Would Jesus approve of the killing in Iraq, the enrichment of the rich, the vilification of gays, the fouling of the environment. Has anyone read Wallis's book, "God's Politics??"

[BrklynLiberal]

125. kick

[jazzjunkysue]

148. How much does this scare me? If we do this, then we'll be Britian and Irel

Ireland by 2008. How dumb is this?