Preacher to Dean: You Can't Fake It

[iconoclastNYC]

USNEWS and Republican report:

Preacher to Dean: You Can't Fake It
As if mouthy Howard Dean didn't have enough troubles, now comes a left-leaning evangelical, much in demand by the Democratic Party, telling the party boss to shut up about religion. "Dean doesn't understand religion very much," says Jim Wallis, who has advised many Democratic leaders. He meets with Dean this week as part of the chairman's effort to woo the churchgoing crowd. Now promoting his book God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, Wallis says he'll tell Dean not to fake it on religion. "The worst thing people could do is be inauthentic," he says.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/050718/18whisplead_2.htm

[tk2kewl]

1. worked for bush

:shrug:

on edit: and i don't think Dean is particularly targeting the religiously insane, but rather the vast middle -- people who are more like him, believe in god and go to church for weddings, funerals, baptisms, christmas and easter.

[confludemocrat]

5. Wallis is Bush-like in "reading hearts"? What an asshole.

So where is Wallis' criticism of Bush, he seems so good at reading whats in people's hearts, if he can surmise that Dean is not genuine. So, Wallis only if they sound authentic can they not be criticized by you. What an asshole.

Al Franken used to talk about Bush's religious phoniness, how when 2000 or pre-2000 reporters tried to probe his knowledge of biblical scripture, he became flustered and even angry. On religion he is infinitely more phony than Wallis claims Dean is.

[silverlib]

8. He has plenty of criticism in his book

for Bush. Wallis doesn't believe that Chritianity has a monopoly on morality - so - go with genuine morality over the Christianity stuff is what I hear him saying and I agree.

[confludemocrat]

32. Don't you flog a book by talking about the "best parts"? Nuttin said.

So it's buried in his book and is not in the form of a public repudiation of how genuine it is on the level with his public, pointed and overwrought slap at Dean? So, he is basically and essentially silent on the subject.

So as long as you can fake it by using all the code words and be the third-rate mimic of a religious person as Bush is, you are above reproach in Wallis' book--literally.

[WCGreen]

68. He's been critical of the Bush Family since the 1980's

On Edit,,,,

He took Bush to task on the Daily Show

[eallen]

7. What makes you think Bush faked it?

The vast middle may not be very religious themselves, and for that reason don't speak very religiously. When someone like them stands up and practices luke warm religiosity, they recognize that that is inauthentic. You appeal to the religious by being religious, and the vast middle either sees that as neutral or has some degree of attraction or repulsion to it. But you appeal to neither the religious nor the middle by being faux religious.

And please, don't argue that Bush can't be authentically religious, because he is so corrupt. Religiosity and corruption often go hand in hand.

:hippie:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

20. It's not religous that W can't be...

"And please, don't argue that Bush can't be authentically religious, because he is so corrupt. Religiosity and corruption often go hand in hand."

IMO, it is a person of integrity, sanity, and spiritual health that he can't be.


:crazy:

[eallen]

25. But now you're changing the subject.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

28. No, just taking it on a little side trip

[confludemocrat]

37. So Bush is truly religious, ergo that would explain his corruption?

So its better to attribute true and sincere religiosity to Bush and tie that together with a blanket statement about a link of religiosity with corruption. That's gonna be very convincing to middle america. Congratulations, you just made an argument likely to be even more unpopular than mine above, good job.

So if he was an irreligious faker as I think, he might be a better person than he is or am I not getting it and going too far

[eallen]

38. More along the lines: religiosity doesn't conflict with corruption.

There have been scads of religious leaders who proved corrupt. That's a fact of life. I suspect most Christians explain it away with their view that everyone is inherently sinful, true Christians included.

I think we need to press hard on the culture of corruption that Bush has created in his administration, not knock the authenticity of his religious belief. These are orthogonal issues. The first is not necessarily an attack on religion.

[WCGreen]

69. Just like ther have been scads of democrats who

have been corrupt...

Corruption stems from all sorts of different motives....

Greed is usually the least prominent....

Most likely, people become corrupted when they have their backs to the wall and have no where else to turn...

That is why tragedy is such a universal theme in literature, people forced into horible situations by circumstances beyond their control...

But the Bush Family, they have everything under control so there is simply no excuse for the corrupt mind set of that awful family.

[eallen]

88. Like Lord Acton, I suspect corruption more often comes from power than...

Than from desparation.

[liberalfriend]

39. yeah but do they vote?

your absolutely right that he is probably going after that crowd but you must admit that the very religious are much more likely to go out to the voting booths than most people. The question is then will he push away liberal votes in an attempt to court the middle ground by trying to appear more religious than he normally does in public?

[FreedomAngel82]

155. Same here

He wants to reach out to everybody and I think all Dean should do is be himself. That's what people like. Not a phoney religious person like those on the right such as Bush and Cheney and the gang who only pretend to be religious once every four years.

[demnan]

2. Actually he's right

I don't think Dean is much for religion, one of the reasons I liked him. So he should just avoid the subject (don't think he dwells on it too much though - what prompted this?)

[MsTryska]

4. actually....

he's made it a good chunk of his stump as of late.....

when he gets warmed up and rolling he sounds pretty good - but there are times when he stumbles, and it does sound a bit fake.

[LittleClarkie]

9. The "White Christians" comment?

So easy to criticize though. Kerry would go to church, and people would tell him not to. Then he got criticized because he didn't go to the churches.

Aw fuck it.

All we are saaaaayyyying... is Let Dean Be Dean....

[FrenchieCat]

13. I think that there is a difference between going to ...say ....

a Black Baptist church, like on MLK's birthday for photo ops, and actually going to worship without the fanfare.

I think that the fanfare hurts many politician....who only "look" like they are going to be seen to get the votes.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Or to give a perfectly appropriate speech on MLK day

about suppression of the vote.

And I don't know about Dean, but Kerry has been seen headed to church by folks in Boston who live near him, without fanfare.

Regarding either one, damned if you do, damned if you don't. In one case we're conceding religion to the RW, in the other we're accused of pandering. Whatcha gonna do.

[MsTryska]

3. Jim Wallis strikes me

as in-authentic and self-serving himself, to be truthful.


I much prefer Bishop Spong.


Altho i do have to say, i hate when Dean stumbles on scripture.

[FrenchieCat]

12. I respectfully believe that you are mistaken in your assessment

of Jim Wallis.

And there is a ton of people that would agree with me.

Have you read any of the books that he has written.

He is a progressive Christian....and speaks very clearly about God's politics.

There is a reason that his last book is titled "God's Politics; why the Right gets it wrong, and the Left doesn't get it".

My observation is that Wallis his right with his premise.....ya know!

[MsTryska]

15. that may be......

but he still strikes me as inauthentic and self-serving when i've seen him speak.

[FrenchieCat]

19. But, may I ask.....

What is it specifically that Jim Wallis says or does that leads you to this labeling of him as such? Is it the way that he carries himself; the meaning of the words that he speaks, or both?
What in particular?

Judging based on some "Gut" core "feeling" of the superficial outward, rather than the content of his words and character is not something that us, as liberals need to do much of....as it is part of what we find wrong with the other side.

[MsTryska]

24. oh please......we all do it all the time.......

like your visceral reactions to Mark Warner.



I'm entitled to a gut instinct - and i'll use it - it's always served me well. thank you very much for your input.

[FrenchieCat]

26. I have no visceral reaction Mark Warner....

although you can show me where I do this.

Warner having no F/P or N/S experience is not a "visceral" thing...as much as you would like it to be so.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[WCGreen]

70. The Soul of Politics changed my whole approach to

running for office...

It didn't work but let me tell you I have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to my political flings...

[Ian David]

16. Let me see if I can find a link to Jim Wallis' Daily Show interview (here)

Jim Wallis -- Jim Wallis, author of "God's Politics" talks to Jon about moral values.
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/celeb/celeb_10009.html

[MsTryska]

22. that's actually one of the one's i saw.....

i was geeked to read his book, until he started speaking, and i got totally turned off.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Jim Wallis has been speaking up for social justice and against

militarism since the early Reagan administration, or even before. I remember reading his writings on the nuclear arms race in about 1982, and he was already pretty well known in the religious left.

He has a much longer track record on criticizing Republicans than Dean or most other current Dem politicians do.

He and Bishop Spong are both terrific, but they're not directly comparable. Spong's focus is mostly on theology, while Wallis's focus is mostly on religious activism in the wider world. He's a leader of the Sojourners Community in Washington D.C., which has been doing anti-poverty work for ages.

[mitchtv]

6. One thing Dr. Dean knows about religion

the meaning of the word"pharisees". He should use it some more

[FrenchieCat]

10. I read Jim Wallis' book and gave it to my pastor to read.

My pastor is the Pastor J. Alfred E. Smith Jr., who ministers to the largest Black Baptist church in the Bay Area (California).

Allen Temple Baptist Church, located in Oakland, Ca, is 85 years old.

Barbara Lee is a member of our church.

My husband is a Deacon and the Pastor Smith's personal assistant.

Jim Wallis is my pastor's favorite author.
I trust Wallis' judgment on this one.
Religion is not toy.....even if the Repugs use it as such!

http://www.jalfredsmithsr-ministries.org/index.htm

[Eloriel]

27. I don't trust his judgment on Dean

What I've heard of Dean on religion has been entirely coherent with his rather secular approach to even his own religion, but his adamant loyalty to the type of values Democrats stand for.

Now, someone upthread said that lately he'd been including more "religion" stuff, and I haven't heard that -- so it must've been VERY lately because I have heard him recently.

And you can put me in the category of those who find something phony and overblown about Wallis. A little puffed up with himself. Self-serving, a word used by otheres, would fit that profile as well. I'm not saying he's a bad man, or a Jerry Falwell, or wrong about everything, just someone I don't entirely trust AND someone I'd just as soon see a lot less of, given the fact that I strongly prefer my politics, government and entire culture to basically secular.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I forgot.....any critique of Howard Dean on anything he says or

does is not open to discussion....and only means that the messenger is just a little more than piece of shit.

The adjectives that you employ; phony, overblown, puffed up, self-serving doesn't stand for a "good" man in my book.

Gotcha! God loves a cheerful giver.
=========
Barbara Lee wrote the Foreward to the book I have reference above ,"On the Road to Jericho".

In it, she writes about how she decided on her vote in which she cast against by her lonesome...

FOREWORD

by United States Congresswoman Barbara Lee

We are living in troubled times--times of discord, not of peace--times when the drums of war beat their discordant rhythms in the night of injustice. When the dove falls prey to the hawk. But in the worst of times, the sun yet casts its rays over the horizon. The devastation of the hurricane is really little more than the opening act of the rainbow. The Reverend Dr. J. Alfrend Smith Sr., Pastor of the Allen Temple Baptist Church, is the rainbow that arches broad and wide over the mean streets of East Oakland.

I was working closely with the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense as a community worker in Oakland, Californina, when I first met Pastor Smith in the 1970s. He was deeply involed in the struggle for human rights and social justice, and we respected him for that.

In the early 1980s I returned to Oakland from Washington, D.C, to continue my work with a great statesman, Congressman Ronald V. Dellums. It was around that time that I joined Allen Temple Baptist Church. Here I found a church that was committed to making religion real, to making it alive.

Anyone who is committed to economic and social justice has got to understand Pastor Smith's ministry. His life and ministry are based on the World of God, and he teaches us how to live according to the Scriptures. Pastor Smith is my counselor and spiritual, pastoral advisor. He is the first person I think of when I have extremely difficult decisions to make. He helps me to weight the facts and sort throught he variables. One hundred percent of his advice has turned out to be correct--Barbara Lee (who goes on for another page).

Pastor Smith advised me that Jim Wallis is the real deal. Considering who would know....I'll go with the Pastor, as opposed to some here at DU.

[Guaranteed]

51. What's your critique?

Personally, I think it's almost impossible for Dean to be disingenuous. And I think that what he says about the Democrats' philosophy following the teachings of Christ, as opposed to the Republicans', is right on.

[FrenchieCat]

73. I didn't have one against Dean.....

But I was defending Jim Wallis....who people are judging negatively....right here on this thread.

[Guaranteed]

86. Well...if he's saying something without anything to back it up...

Which is most definitely seems he is....

[WCGreen]

71. He lives among the poor and helps in his mission

Where do the right wing blown dried preachers live....

With Benny Hine in Malibu.....

Come on, the man is sure of himself, cocky and knows what his mission in life is...

Do I agree with everything he says, hell no but his take on what it means to be a spiritual person is dead on.....

[CAG]

78. I agree... We need "Christian left" leaders to start speaking up, and

now that we've finally got one, we attack him for having the gall to warn someone who has said some reckless rhetoric to be more authentic.

[WCGreen]

82. It's just ridiculous that Jim Wallis

is considered pariah because he critized Dean...

And then the fact that the quote may have been taken out of context...

So, I recommed The Soul of Politics......

[madfloridian]

103. Not about Dean, about keeping religion out of politics.

That is my gripe anyway. Wallis has some good points, but Dean is actually speaking to moral values.

I just think we need to keep all our preachers out of politics.

[bobbieinok]

167. thanks for the link to the church site

[wyldwolf]

11. oooh, now this is tough

I've seen Wallis speak in person and could not recommend his book more. It's excellent.

But I'm also 100% loyal to the DNC.

So, here's my take.

Wallis didn't tell Dean to "shut up" about religion as the article writer wrote. I believe that was purposely inflammatory. He said not to fake it. To be authentic. And he's right.

I might also agree, based on what I know about Howard Dean, and based on what I know about Wallis's philosophy on religion, that Dean doesn't know much about religion.

But I'll also say this knowing what I know - Wallis would (and has) said worse about Bush and religion.

I think Wallis "gets it." Anyone who in interested in wooing back some of the church goers we've lost would do good to listen to Wallis.

If you're not interested in that, then, I guess you should spend your energy on other matters.

[faithnotgreed]

23. thank you wyldowlf... i agree that jim wallis is correct

he is just pointing out that we need to be authentic in our use (or if we use) references to God or religion. someone has to because the hard right sure arent authentic

and yes howard dean does misspeak on occasion and it can be a letdown mostly because we are so in need of someone who is real. and howard (and wes clark) are about as close as we get to that. im glad howard will speak about all the issues but it does matter that he gets it right if he is going to talk about it

and i also agree that you can tell right off the bat that its the writer who is inserting this as an issue between wallis and dean
he starts out saying "mouthy howard dean". how insulting. howard dean speaks up and anyone who does that is labelled as something

thank you to mr wallis and to mr dean. i think they agree on this issue and its the writer who wants to stir things up
and i wish people would recognize that is what many "journalists" do.

[KittyWampus]

43. You Mean Mediawhores Twist Words Attempting To Divide The Left AGAIN

GASP!

:)

Think you're right, Wallis was offering friendly advice.

He knows we all approach religion, faith in our own way.

[blondeatlast]

53. Excellent assessment. Always note the verbiage when the media

describes Dean.

I'm no Dean fan, but they do indeed use inflammatory rhetoric and distort his actions.

[Ian David]

14. I respect both Wallis and Dean, but I think Wallis may be half-right...

I don't think Dean is not "authentic" about his feelings on religious matters.

It's more like he's trying to apply his Doctor-style clinicality to religious doctrine and scripture and falling flat on his face.

We really don't want Dean treading in un-familiar territory, or else he'll eventually say something that will make his "confederate flag" faux pas pale in comparison.

And if they can't work it out, then I'd love to see Wallis and Dean in a wrestling match.

With Jello.

Or they could jump in a Mosh Pit.

[Eloriel]

29. Ehhhhhhh, you started out good

Real good.

Some of you people are expecting soemthing of Dean that is -- well, that is making me increasingly FURIOUS.

First, Dean is only quasi-religious himself, as I read him, anyway. He's a Congregationalist. He's not a raving evangelical/fundamentalist/whatever, ya know? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM HIM AND WHY? And what does Wallis expect of him? And who the hell CARES? OUR GOVERNMENT IS SECULAR, and we have -- or are supposed to have -- FREEDOM OF RELIGION (which also includes freedom FROM religion), which means that WHATEVER flavor of religion Dean espouses (or none), and HOWEVER he espouses it (really adeptly or not) is and should be perfectly okay.

This discussion is really making me increasingly angry.

AFAIC, Dean gets to talk about religion in precisely whatever way(s) he wants to, and everyone else should STFU. Period. And I REALLY mean it. And that includes Wallis.

[MsTryska]

31. I agree with you.....

which is why it bothers me when i see Dean stumbling on scripture.


i know my scripture, and i'm not particularly religious at all - and i do like Dean's take on Moral Values - he's absolutely right - but i don't think we should espousing evangelical language to get the evangelicals.


if they are real Christians they know what's right. if they don't, then they're lost sheep, and nothing you can do about that.

[Eloriel]

76. My POINT is, I don't think he IS "espousing evangelical language"

at all. He hasn't in the past.

Look, I've watched Dean for several years now. I've met him in person several times, I've studied the man as closely as I've ever studied any politician. It's my observation that he is constitutionally INCAPABLE of pandering, by whatever name you want to call it.

[MsTryska]

89. well i'm speaking

from going to his latest speech in my town from June.

trust me - he was spouting scripture.

[Ikonoklast]

54. Hoorah! Someone finally got it!!

Gov. Dean only needs to listen to his own thoughts on where he stands on religion. It is farce to expect him or anyone else, for that matter, to toe a line that someone else has drawn for them. That would be the height of inauthenticity on his part and would be easily discernible as such.

Each of us bring our own moral values to the table; let our actions tell the tale of our personal moral values. That is the true test.

[Eloriel]

77. Thanks. I think you said it better than I could (or did).

And I'm delighted someone could figure out what it was I actually said. :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

57. I get to talk about it any way as well. That is what America is about.

Dean is starting to make inroads now into their hypocrisy. Wallis has complimented him at times as well.

BTW off topic, but looks like you got more rain from Dennis than we did.

[Eloriel]

75. We definitely got rain.

We got 2 inches before it began good. Then another 1.7, then another 2, and so forth. Not sure we're done YET. There were some areas in the Atlanta metro region that got 9 inches. Thank heaven it wasn't us. Some flooding in the area.

Glad ya'll did okay so far. Here's hoping it lasts for the season. You've paid your dues, eh?

[mmonk]

17. Fake what?

You can't be any more fake than some of the religious people in this country.

[FrenchieCat]

21. But it would be preferable to leave the "Fake" to the other side....

Do we really want to emulate their flaws?

[mmonk]

45. That would be my preference

I still don't know how some people pretend to know who's fake and who's genuine though, especially if they hold themselves in high regard as far as religion goes.

[Guaranteed]

52. There IS no fake. Dean's totally honest, and he's right.

I don't know where any of this is coming from.

[madfloridian]

30. I think we should let right wing define religion...they are doing so well.

Dean is trying to take it away from them as a weapon, and his use of the "moral values" and Democrats is starting to take hold. And he gets made fun of for doing that.

However, overall, the right wingers are just so much better. And Dean might make mistakes....he is simply a moral person, not so much a religious one.

Thus, we need to let the right wing keep control over religious talk. They are really good at it.

Jim Wallis and Howard Dean both have a mission, they are just a little different.

I am still hurting from losing my church, and I would rather have a good, moral country than just a religious one.

[1932]

96. Wallis says we shouldn't let RW define religion.

Wallis argues in his book that, by abandoning religious frames for liberal political beliefs, the Democdrats allow the fundamentalists to completely seize religion for themselves.

He agrees that church and state should be separated, but he also thinks that if you're genuinely motivated by religion to believe in progressive politics, that, by not being honest about your inspiration, and by not telling people that that is your motivation, then you do liberals a huge disservice. You let fundamentalists totally define what it means to be religious and political.

Should MLK or Gandhi have refused to frame their feelings about racism and justice in terms other than religion?

When so many people have thought about the bible, are familiar on some level with parables, and when it's a fact that the stories of the bible provide metaphors for how people see the world (just as any other popular, compelling text does), then it's ridiculous not to talk about religion as the inspiration for thinking progressively. It really resonates with people to explain motivations like that.

I, personally, impute a great deal of importance on a politicians biography -- that bill clinton had a working mother parent who was the one thing standing between between middle class and being working poor was a big reason I felt that he understood working class concerns.

If a person sincerely believes in the teachings of the bible and that they tell that person to take care of the downtrodden, to not pursue war, to criticize American imperial empire, to create social conditions that make abortion an option fewer and fewer people choose, and to oppose the death penalty, then I think in order to resonate with the public the same way it does when a politician tells you they grew up in a family that worked for a living rather than a family that lived off capital gains and dividend checks, a politician shouldn't be afraid to tell the public about their spiritual frames for their beliefs.

As Wallis says, if more politicians do this on the left it will make people for whom religious is very important realize that Jerry Fallwell's interpretation of the bible not only isn't the only one out there, it's also probably the least accurate and most unchristian.

[madfloridian]

105. I was using some sarcasm...they have not done well.

Dean is trying to point out their hypocrisy, yet he is getting critized for not being more Christian about it.

[1932]

108. Actually, he was getting criticism for...

...pretending to be Christian about it.

I don't have Wallis's book right here, but I believe Wallis says that it's great to have non-religious politicians making moral arguments, and it's bad to have have "religious" politicians making immoral arguments.

But what would really be great is if politicians who are motivated by religion to be progressive didn't feel like they had to censor themselves for framing their motivations and character in terms of their spiritual motivations, and he says the consequence of them doing that is that spiritual voters would then realize there was in fact an alternative interpretaion of the bible to the version presented by Falwell and Robertson.

In relation to Dean, Wallis says that Dean established early that he didn't go to church and was pretty agnostic, but as the campaign went on, he incorprated religious metaphors that not only contradicted things he said earlier, but revealed that his faith might not have been that deeply felt. Wallis said that that was not good either -- that you shouldn't fake it if you don't feel it, because people can tell and will feel exploited.

Nobody is telling Dean to be anything he isn't. Wallis is just going to tell him -- as he argues in the book -- that (1) Democrats shouldn't try to censor spirtual frameworks for policies by politicians who honestly feel that way, and (2) don't fake it if you don't feel that way, because people will notice.

[madfloridian]

110. I communicated with Sojourners on this issue.

They did not really know what Dean had said. They relied on right wing media talking points when they inferred he was "faking" it.

Preachers need to stay out of politics.

[1932]

115. The didn't say he was faking it. They left it to the reader to interpret..

...the thing abot the railroad tracks and mixing up the old and new testament.

So I don't know how they could admit an error without admitting getting some facts very wrong.

Are you saying that Dean did not say that he was leaving the church partly because of a dispute over the railroad tracks? Because if that's a mistake, it would have been significant. But I can't believe that an editor wouldn't have caught that.

I have to admit I'm very skeptical of your claim (especially, since you said you didn't read the book it's not clear to me how you even would have framed your complaint to Sojourners).

[madfloridian]

118. Far deeper than a bike path.

I heard Jim Wallis laugh about Dean's comment about the bible. That was uncalled for. I would think only Republicans would do that to us or to each other.

I am very bitter about pious Christians right now. I had to leave my church, and I was called unpatriotic.

When you keep on missing my point, it makes even more bitter. I don't have to be a Christian at all to be good.

[1932]

119. I think there's also a point you're missing.

I would be surprised if his tone were much different from the book. And it's a legitimate point in the book made without nastiness.

I'd just like to reiterate my point here about seige mentality, circling the wagons, etc., rather than engaging in dialogue. What you advocated below -- denouncing right wing fundamentalists -- would result in the same behavior.

Rather than turn this into a criticism of Wallis, framed in terms of a character defect for laughing at Dean, it would probably be better to read his book and engage the argument.

(And, again, I think it's probably worth noting that I'm skeptical of this unfolding story where now there's a vague claim of hearing Wallis laugh at Dean with no supporting evidence and absolutely no context.)

[madfloridian]

126. Whoa, here.

I did not turn this into a criticism of Wallis. I am saying ALL preachers should stay out of politics.

I do not appreciate your intimation that I am making things up. It is uncalled for totally. If you do a search on my postings, you will find that I pride myself on being accurate.

He did laugh about Dean's statement....it was on C-Span months ago. We all knew it. Now he he says Dean does not understand religion.

Well, I now understand that Wallis needs to quit assuming that "his" religion is the only one to understand. As I say, I had a bitter experience with my childhood church. Your ongoing comments here are not endearing me to "my way" Christians either.

[FrenchieCat]

168. So MLK should have only spoken in churches.....

and not encouraged boycotts and marches to try to stop the social injustices that were protected in the laws made by the politicians of the time?

When I hear the speech, "I have a Dream", it is as much a political speech as it is a religious one.

MalcomX was a political figure, but he was also steeped in his religious beliefs. He died shot down in a mosque speaking about politics. Are you saying that he should have never gotten involved?

Society represents a combination of politics and religion.

I think that the problem with many Democrats; they have been conditioned to separate the two; politics and religion...in where the two never shall meet.


I find your request unreasonable. Just ask Jesus who in reality, died a political death at the hands of his political enemies.

[dsc]

161. He didn't leave his church over a bike path

but over his church's greed in expecting to be compensated for the tiny sliver of land it would have had to give up to build the bike path. Last I checked Jesus wasn't too keen on greed.

[bklyncowgirl]

34. I love Dean but I do wince when he misquotes scripture

I'm a lapsed Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school religion classes to my credit.

We're not big on Bible reading in Catholic land but I've heard Dean mangle biblical passages from time to time--although he usually has the spirit of the verse right--and once even e-mailed DNC and suggested that they spring for a Bible.

To people like evangelicals who put a great deal of stock in quoting scripture--much more than my former religionists do--this must ring pretty false.

I think he needs to talk about morality but it does seem to me that a person who is genuinely secular should lay off the religion--except of course to quote Jesus to make a point where there's a philosophical point to be made.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Godgodgodgodgodgodgodgod

That's right people, if you don't have heaping helpings of god numerous times a day, you don't belong in the public debate. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid: an aristocracy of belief.

Yeah, it's heartening to see religious lefties taking arms against a sea of troubles, but the end result will be very bad for the republic whether they win or lose: one will only be truly considered a full citizen if one is a believer.

Man, this lunacy and fantasy is tiring.

[elshiva]

80. Well, from most religious lefties I know, we want freedom of belief,

NOT a theocracy. A theocracy is just enslavement. We religious leftists want ALL people to have citizenship no matter what they believe or do not believe. Ask any Unitarian... Personally, I would LOVE to have a good atheist in office.

[More Than A Feeling]

36. Rev. Wallis, why don't you call for an end to religion being a requirement

in running for office?

Then noone would have to pretend at all.

[FrenchieCat]

41. I think that is not for Wallis to advocate.....

as a man of the cloth, he would not advocate for the end of religion in any endeavor that a man or woman might choose.

The requirement you speak of was not created by Jim Wallis.....yet he DOES speak (in his book) of the fact that many use religion when they shouldn't.

He's doing his part......

[madfloridian]

40. Actually Dean uses "moral values" now...does not mention religion much.

Wallis really does not pay a lot of attention to what Howard Dean says. Some of us have had communiques with him because he was not really aware....then he did mention his words correctly later.

People often criticize before paying attention. Here is a good example of what he has been saying:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050612/NEWS09/506120351/1001

"The former Vermont governor, whose outspokenness marked his bid for president in 2004, reiterated the essence of the controversial comments, that Democrats are more morally responsible than Republicans.

"We are going to have a positive message and we are not going to be afraid to talk about moral values," said Dean, who headlined the state party's annual awards banquet in Cedar Rapids. "In fact, if you match our moral values against their moral values, we win."

"During his remarks, Dean said almost nothing of the controversy. His only reference to it came as he implored Democrats to distinguish themselves from Republicans if they expect to win.

"We need to be blunt and clear about the things that we're going to fight for. People have criticized me for being blunt. I do that on purpose. I am tired of lying down," he said to a standing, cheering crowd of 500.

Republicans responded by blasting Dean as outside the mainstream."

[Andromeda]

42. Sounds like turf wars to me...

This might be important if everyone in the USA was religious and really CARED about who quoted scriptures correctly or not.

Each to his own I always say, but Wallis is taking himself waaaay too seriously. We don't need an evangelican spokesperson on the left censoring what other people say, especially Howard Dean.

I like what Dean says because he's genuine AND authentic. People know the difference and I give them more credit that Wallis does.

[madfloridian]

136. You make good points there.

I was religious, I am not that much right now. It is an inner thing now. Good points.

[XemaSab]

44. WHOA WHOA WHOA

TIME OUT!

I read "God's politics" last night, and Wallis had a WHOLE CHAPTER about a speech Dean gave about race in South Carolina where he had nothing but HIGH PRAISE for the Good Doctor. And this was well after Dean's primary defeat, so he could have chalked Dean off as a has-been and not mentioned him at all.

Wallas also had a few sentances about Dean's saying that his favorite book in the New Testament was Job, but he said that Dean had a good grasp of the messages in the Bible about poverty, AND THAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN REMEMBERING WHAT BOOK IN THE BIBLE WENT WHERE.

This is a shitty article from a shitty right-wing rag, and they're out to make it look like everyone hates Dean, when in reality, Wallis LIKES Dean, but just doesn't think Dean sounds authentic when trying to sound like an evangelical.

Shit, I doubt I'd sound authentic trying to sound like an evangelical either. 'Cause I'm not. Dean is UCC (same denomination as the church that was vandalized in Virginia over the weekend), which is not an evangelical denomination, so there's no reason why Dean's FAITH is not authentic, but his trying to use evangelical language rings false.

[madfloridian]

47. A whole chapter with high praise for Dean? No one else here said that.

Sounds like others have read the book, but no one thought to bring it up. Thanks for the honesty.

Was it this speech he was referring to? It was a powerful one about how the GOP used race to divide.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/68_cover_dean.html

[XemaSab]

48. THAT

would be the one.

Wallis was ALL OVER that speech. Loved it. Also, when he was listing all the people who ran in the primaries and their comfort level with religious language, Dean was first in the list, and that wasn't an accident. ;)

[madfloridian]

49. Thanks. It was a tremendous one.

It will be one that will be remembered in history one day, when the media is more sane again.

"In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way – by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people.

They called it the "Southern Strategy," and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like "racial quotas" and "welfare queens" to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America's problems.

The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us."

America can do better than this.

It's time we had a new politics in America – a politics that refuses to pander to our lowest prejudices.

Because when white people and black people and brown people vote together, that's when we make true progress in this country.

Jobs, health care, education, democracy, and opportunity. These are the issues that can unite America.

The politics of the 21st century is going to begin with our common interests.

If the President tries to divide us by race, we're going to talk about health care for every American.

If Karl Rove tries to divide us by gender, we're going to talk about better schools for all of our children.

If large corporate interests try to divide us by income, we're going to talk about better jobs and higher wages for every American."

[XemaSab]

50. Do you know where I could find that

on MP3?

[madfloridian]

55. Checking mp3, but here is the whole speech.

This site usually has audio or video as well. I will check for you.
http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Restoring_the_American_Community_7Dec_2003.htm

[XemaSab]

58. Thanks

n/t

[XemaSab]

62. Just reread his announcement speech

Good stuff, good stuff.

What might have been...

[1932]

93. I think it's fair to say Dean gets most criticism on religion of all

democrats mentioned in Wallis's book, but Wallis also gives that speech a great deal of praise in making another point (that is different than his point about Dean not getting it when it comes to religion).

He doesn't only say that Dean didn't know the old T from the new T. He notes that Dean said that he quit his church because of a difference over railroad tracks. It's obvious that Wallis is making a comment about the depth of one's spirituality if they're quitting church over RR tracks. I think what Wallis was trying to say was that Dean obviously isn't very spiritual, and when he realized that agnoticism wasn't going to get him very far, he claimed he was religious by referring to the bible, which revealed that he really didn't know very much about the bible.

Wallis does spend a long time praising Dean regarding the civil rights talk, but he's not doing it to redeem Dean on the religious issue.

I suspect -- based on my reading of Wallis's book -- that he will say to Dean that Democrats should not be afraid to frame their progressive politics within their spiritual beliefs, IF THOSE BELIEFS ARE GENUINELY HELD. He will tell him that people who do have spiritual beliefs can tell when someone is just faking theirs, so if you don't really believe, don't pretend that you do. Then he will encourage dean to get dems to incorporate more people who do frame their political beliefs through spiritual beliefs involved in the Democrats public face.

[madfloridian]

95. I want both left and right preachers to butt out of politics...NOW.

If he thinks that is the real reason Dean quit his church....then he needs to do some research.

I don't want Jim Wallis examining my religion then. I very much prefer Howard Dean's form of religion right now. I left my church over the Iraq War. And if you do research, you will see that there was much more to his leaving as well...it went deeper than the bike path.

Dean's religion, my religion, are equally as good as Wallis's religion.....he has no right to critique either.

I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers on either side anymore. And I was raised Southern Baptist. They all need to butt out of politics.

[1932]

97. What do you think of Wallis's argument that Democrats, by not framing

their political beliefs in terms of their honestly-held religious beliefs, are ceding the entire duiscussion of God to the right wingers so that they can define what it means to be religious and political?

Do you disagree?

If a politicians believes that it's right to take care of the poor not just because it's good for the economy and increases happiness, but because it conforms with the morality defined by their religion, why not make ALL the arguments? Why not make the economic argument, the psychological argument AND the spiritual argument.

There are more people in America who have read and remember parables in the bible than have read Galbraith or Keynes. If you want tor really put out a message that resonates with people, then why not work it within all the cognitive frameworks people really think in, including the bible?

[madfloridian]

99. Dean is saying those things everyday. Wallis just doesn't know it.

I was more understanding of this thread last night, but now it is getting too much. I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, and I know intolerance when I see it.

Howard Dean is trying to call attention to the hypocrisy of the religious extremists, and meanwhile a preacher from the left is calling him out.

It is getting tiresome.

[1932]

100. Once you're done calling out fundamentalists,

is that the end of it? The fundamentalists will never stop telling people what they think the bible says. Will discrediting them be enough? Will it even be possible if it's only coming from a secular perspective?

I repeat my question from my previous post.

Wallis's argument is that the Democrats who are sincerely motivated by religion to promote progressive politics, by refusing to present an alternative interpretation of the bible, completely cede the ground to the fundamentalists.

If all you do is try to discredit the fundies without presenting a sincere alternative example, religious voters will just go into seige mentality. They'll circle the wagons and feel more persecuted.

Obviously, to me, the solution is to try to win the hearts and minds with a persuasive counter-argument. Don't you agree?

There are many Democrats who are Democrats largely because of spiritual feelings, and there are many many voters for who religious arguments really resonate. It seems like a waste of a powerful resource to tell those Democratic politicians that we don't even talk about religion and to not reach out to those voters with metaphorical frameworks that resonate with beliefs they feel deeply.

[madfloridian]

102. I am a fundamentalist.

I don't want preachers in politics.

[1932]

104. You said above that you read Wallis's book.

It is interesting that you would read that book and that its message for you is reduced to this argument.

Is it possible that you're in seige mentality yourself? Dean has been attacked so now you have to reject everything Wallis says?

Do you see that that is the consequence of what you're advising? Dean should attack the fundamentalists and then we'll get religion out of politics and fundamentalists will vote Democratic.

Nope.

They'll circle the wagons like you have with Dean, and they'll become even more resolute in their belief that Democrats are wrong, and conservative fundamental interpretations of the bilbe are correct.

But the alernative is to have an honest disucssion about Wallis's aarguments and Dean.

So, honestly, what did you get out of Wallis's book?

[madfloridian]

106. I did not read the book.

If you find where I said so, please show me. I admire Jim Wallis, and I am a Christian. I am as good a Christian as he is. If I said I read the book, I was wrong.

[1932]

111. I think every Democrat should read the book. Rather than let the media...

...spin this issue, and spin what Wallis is going to say to Dean, people should go straight to Wallis's book and read what Wallis will say.

It's a really interesting book and 95% of the posts here completely misinterpret what it says. No surprise there since they haven't read it and because their frame for thinking about religion is mediated by people who want religion to only work for Republicans.

America need way less mediation of information by CNN and FOX and the newspapers. DU'ers need to go right to the books and podcasts by our politicians (like Dean) and by public intellectuals like Wallis, both of whom are making arguments that HELP progressives.

[madfloridian]

114. Not my point.

I am not critical of Wallis, I just don't want preachers in politics. And yes, he did make fun of Dean's trying to talk about religion. He should not have done that.

Not every one needs to be his type of Christian.

I was raised in the church, my father helped found one, a major leader and deacon emeritus. I was church organist and pianist. My children were choir soloists for years.

I am a good Christian, and I don't think he should criticize Dean or anyone for not meeting his standards.

[1932]

117. You should read the book. That's my last post in this sub-thread. n/t

[madfloridian]

120. "Dean doesn't understand religion very much," says Jim Wallis

That is all I need to know right there. Unless you can prove to me that he did not say it, then I don't need to read the book.

One does not judge other's religious views.

[1932]

131. Congratulations.

Circling the wagon around Dean. Ignoring good advice. Great strategy there.

[madfloridian]

132. You are wrong. I don't want preachers telling me what to do.

I don't think Wallis should be saying that Dean or any of us don't "understand" religion.

I find it improper really. You apparently agree with Wallis. I have respected him a great deal until he started telling the Democrats how to play.

He is part of the DNC evangelical outreach. I am now not so sure that is a good idea at all. I think I even disagree with Dean on this. I think we should just outreach to people, not in a religious way.

I am beginning to think both are wrong. And you just judged me, and I resent it. No one judges my religion or my Christianity anymore and keeps my respect.

There is no circling the wagons here. Anyone who speaks of religion in politics in way other than moral values is just wrong also.

Do NOT judge my Christianity and my religion.

[1932]

133. Even if you disagree with Wallis, would it hurt to read his book?

I read books by people with whom I disagree before I read their books, or only after I've read their books.

[madfloridian]

135. When one is angry at one's own church for calling one unpatriotic..

There is a bitterness that takes time to heal. I don't want to read religious books right now. That is the point I am making.

The direct quote from Wallis says Dean does not understand religion. Well, then, that tells me I don't need to read that book right now.

Churches here are splitting over this stuff, and I am not in a mood for it now.

[1932]

139. Wallis is anti-war and writes extensively about it. Reading the book...

...would arm you with good frames for that discussion.

You sound like you're exactly the right audience for the book.

If you're this angry, you're obvioulsy not over the issue. So read the book.

[madfloridian]

141. I don't want to read it right now.

I am not over it. I am not over the fact that Wallis said Dean did not "understand" religion. Maybe I will find that he thinks that I don't "understand" religion either.

Each of us should be permitted to understand religion in our own terms.

[1932]

157. It is so contradictory for someone to post at DU -- ie, to show a willing-

ness to engage in the issues -- yet refuse to engage with the most articulate, sensible forms of the other side's opinion as represented by book-length arguments by public intellectuals, academics and politicians.

Why spend the time posting here about this if you don't want to confront head-on the best version of the argument?

I think that if people have time to post here, then they have time to get informed -- they have the time to read the full versions of the arguments.

[madfloridian]

158. My issue is not about his book.

I have said over and over in this thread that I very much respect Jim Wallis. I do not think he has a right to say how I or anyone else interprets religion.

Perhaps it was an innocent remark by Wallis:

"Dean doesn't understand religion very much," says Jim Wallis

Perhaps he meant to say something else. Perhaps he did not mean it that way. There is too much starting now with both sides trying to claim the proper way to be religious.

I read Sojourners, I read articles by other Christian alliance groups. I choose not to read this particular book at this time. It is my choice, and I should not be criticized or judged for it.

Do you question my views of religion? Do you agree with Wallis's statement that I bolded? Is that what you are trying to say.

I respect Jim Wallis, but he was wrong to say that. He does a lot of good for people, and he is a fine man.

You are judging my credibility, and I do not appreciate it. You have no idea of research background, no idea at all. You are being judgemental, I believe.

[1932]

159. His book is about "understanding religion"!

The fact that you think he was commenting on Dean's personal spirtuality rather than about the issue of how the Demcoratic Party (for which Dean is the chairman) talks about religion suggests that you would really benefit from reading his book. In other words, you're misunderstanding the argument he's trying to make.

No surprise because you're relying on soundbites. He's written a book-length argument about this issue, and it just seems to me we'd all benefit by having as many people as possible familiar with the full argument.

[madfloridian]

160. I do understand religion.

I do not need to read a book by a pastor to understand religion. I don't understand why you are so upset with me about this. I have my faith.

I don't want my politicians talking religion. Just that simple.

[1932]

164. You say that you don't want ANYONE talking about the bible

and politics together.

That's the opposite argument Wallis makes. So you two have come to very different conclusions.

You seem very content that you are right. You won't even consider the book-length version of the argument that challenges your view.

You're conflating "understand the role of religion in politics" and "understand religion on a spiritual level" -- I'm sure that's very useful to you in your desire to firm yourself to the idea that you can ignore Wallis, but you're verging on deliberately misreading Wallis's intentions merely to feel better, and you'd probably be better off if you just opened your mind a litte bit and read the book.

If you're so sure that you're right, then reading the best version of the counterargument should only help you figure out the best arguments why people like Wallis are wrong.

A lot of other people are going to be reading Wallis and building his arguments and by not reading him, you're going to put yourself in a very difficult position winning these arguments.

[madfloridian]

165. I am not trying to win an argument.

I am simply saying that I have a feeling that since Wallis is already wanting Dean to understand religion his way, that there is going to be more of this coming.

I have heard Wallis speak, I have stuff he has written. He is a good and moral man. I am a good and moral person. I don't think he really meant to be critical, but he was.

Dean has made it clear he does not want to discuss religion at all. He has said so many times. He is not comfortable with it, but there are those in the party who are insisting that we must appeal to those who are.

I don't feel uncomfortable when he speaks of moral values like telling the truth to the people before going to war, and such as that. I don't think he should be pressured to talk about religion, but there are those in the party who are doing this.

The Cornell Belcher poll was heavy on religious and moral values, and that is who Dean is using as the official pollster. So he is listening and he is trying.

It does not help when you feel you must talk religion, but you feel uncomfortable with it. I think the pressure is there.

Perhaps we should have chosen an evangelical leader of the party. They would not be criticized for trying. Is there someone who is a southern fundamentalist who would not be picked out for trying? Maybe they would have been better. Dean is Dean, he is who he is.

A whole lot of us resent that his brand of religion is not acceptable to so many. It should not even be an issue. The fact that you are almost demanding that I read a book by about religion to build up my arguments is making me nervous.

I am not after points here, but I am quite capable of thinking for myself. I prefer not to have Wallis do it for me, as you suggest. I respect him, but I don't want to read the book right now.

[1932]

166. Yes you are. Two of them, by my count, so far.

You had a difference of opinion with your own church over the war. That was debate about which Wallis has some very interesting things to say.

You have an opinion on the role of religion and it's very different from many other people, including Wallis.

You obviously have very deeply held convictions about both these issues and you take the time to type them up here on DU when you see that someone else says something they believe which is the opposite.

That's an argument, and don't kind me that you don't care that your opinion carries weight with readers. If that were true, I doubt you'd spend any time posting it.

I appreciate that the post to which I'm responding is so thoughtful, but I still think that you've misinterpreted Wallis's argument to a degree that warrants reading his book so that at least you're counterarguing his actual points rather than a "strawman."

[1932]

113. I mixed up you and ChemaSab.

i presumed that you had replied to the message I was addressing because you wrote it. My error.

[XemaSab]

137. My point is that

a lot of people are reading this RW tidbit as Wallis bashing Dean universally, and jumping into the fray to bash Wallis or Dean, without understanding that Wallis meant it as constructive criticism, not bashing.

[1932]

140. That's a good point. People here shouldn't let media tell you what Wallis

and Dean think. They should go straight to the sources: Wallis's book.

[shance]

46. With Wallis, it appears you are either with him or not.

I have heard Wallis speak and for the most party I liked him very much, however his perception and outlook is pretty dogmatic in his own right, which is apparently is the by product of his fundamentalist Christian views. And, if true, for him to solo out Governor Dean, I believe says much more about Jim Wallis than it does about Governor Dean.


The black and white mentality is indicative of most evangelical ministers, no matter what they "side" they claim. It's fine to a degree, however, I think the title of Wallis's book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, why is a good indication that everyone is apparently wrong to Jim Wallis but Jim Wallis. Ministers have to watch becoming a delusion in their own mind as well. How in the world does Mr. Wallis know how much Governor Dean knows about religion? Is this solely according to Mr. Wallis's patriarchal, conservative/liberal*, evangelical beliefs? You tell me who's more narrow minded?


So for whatever reason it appears Governor Dean is not towing the Wallis line as much as he 'should be'. Mr. Wallis has no copyright or authority over people's personal and/or religious beliefs. However because he has written a book it appears he thinks he does. His book also derides from the absolutist base that Christianity is the only legitimate religion and/or basis for authority. I think it is Mr. Wallis who needs to expand both his horizons and mind when it comes to being narrowly visioned. The fact a preacher claims one side versus talking about the division of creating sides themselves, is telling enough actually.

[Cha]

67. That seems like a good

analysis, shance. Thanks!

[ProudDad]

56. an Atheist for President

As a card carrying, Buddhist-Atheist, I'm damn sick and tired of this crap about the President having to be a Christian.

I think it's time all of us good people band together and state clearly that a person's religion has zip/nada/nothing to do with being Pres. of the U.S.

Screw all religions and none when it comes to being in a political office. The only important thing is whether the person will exhibit reasoned, ethical behavior. People of all religions and none can do that (although few do).

[msongs]

59. wallis has books to sell. n/t

[rc lewis]

60. I agree

nm

[LittleClarkie]

61. Just in case the US News is trying to play us

by dividing us, I found an article from Christianity Today from Feb, 2005 that might put his quotes more in context.

Even so, I think he's reading Dean wrong. Over at DailyKos, I and others were accused of taking a couple of quotes and deciding that Wallis was slamming Dean just based on that.

I would submit that Wallis is doing just that TO Dean in that, even before he's had a chance to meet him, he's taking a couple of Dean's quotes and deciding that he can assume something about Dean that isn't necessarily true.

There is also talk on my Kos thread that Dean sounds somewhat fake when he talks about religion. Well, that doesn't mean Dean isn't being genuine. It may just mean he's unaccustomed to speaking about such thing in public. Bush can sound quite sincere, and yet many of us doubt his faith is real.

If Dean is being himself, wouldn't the fakery come more from NOT being himself, ie not bringing up these things if he wants to?

Anyway, here's the article I found. Let's see if it sheds any more light.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/106/54.0.html

Jim Wallis, convener of Call to Renewal, has been calling on Christians to see political involvement beyond the perennial issues of abortion and gay rights. Wallis, a registered Democrat, is an evangelical leader in the faith-based Left and a frequent critic of George W. Bush. His profile has been raised as national Democrats have started to talk to him about how they can better reach out to values voters in the wake of Republican victories on November 2. The Democratic National Committee is meeting today in Washington to plot strategy. Wallis's new book, God's Politics, is on the New York Times bestseller list. Wallis spoke with Stan Guthrie, CT's senior associate news editor.

It appears that Howard Dean will be the new head of the DNC. Is he someone you can support, given his evident lack of familiarity with evangelical issues?

Well, I don't get involved in supporting candidates for the DNC, one way or the other. I work with whoever's there. I've got meetings on the Hill with Democrats and Republicans, at their instigation. I'll go and talk to them. So, if Dean's there I'll work with him.

Regarding Dean, I've said time and time again, the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith. So if Democrats are people of faith they should speak as such. If they're not, they shouldn't. Same with Republicans. Some are and some aren't. So, Howard Dean shouldn't make the mistake again of saying his favorite book in the New Testament is Job. And if he's not religious, he should say, "I'm not very religious, but I respect those in the Democratic Party who are." And their concerns should be taken seriously.

(more at link)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. Mysteeeeeerious whisper....

[Raiden]

64. He's not a REAL Christian - He's a Unitarian

Geez I hate people who judge other people's religion (or lack thereof)... Dean is more of a real Christian than any politician this side of Jimmy Carter.

[elshiva]

81. Isn't Dean a Congregationslist? Just asking, not that it really

matters. I can't stand this judgementalism of people's belief either!

[Raiden]

83. Come to think of it...

You may be right!

[XemaSab]

85. United Church of Christ

and Unitarians are totally seperate.

[Stray Roots]

65. Personally I think the Wispers colmnists

falsely interpreted advise to Howard Dean to not fake being an evangelical as telling Dean to "shut up about religion" I have read Jim Wallis a long time and I can't picture him saying that. Sorry.

[candy331]

72. I personally I don't know why any human would think that they have the

qualifier that leads to the divine himself. From reading the Bible I see that even the arch enemy of God(Satan) was able to quote scripture correctly and yet did that make him a friend of God? I simply say that each person has to work out this religion thing for themselves. Follow no man because the road he travels is paved simply for him alone,each person must carve out their own path as they each will have to answer for their one road and no one's else. Wallis can answer ultimately for no one but himself so everything he and the rest of the so called God ordained is nothing but overly sweetened koolaid for people who don't want the responsibility to think but let others do their thinking. Religious leaders are the greatest way to avoid accountability, just let them tell you what? where? when? how? how much? and you can sleep happily knowing that they have taken your money you paid for expensive wine and they gave you nothing but cheap inferior rot gut.

[union_maid]

74. Jim Wallis is one kind of Christian

I like him. I like a lot of what he's saying. But like a lot of evangelicals, he doesn't seem to understand that that's not the only type of religion there is. Dean on religion is a lot closer to the kind of Christianity I was brought up with than Wallis is. Evangelicalism was way out of the mainstream in my neck of the woods back in the day.

[madfloridian]

79. I was raised evangelical, but now we are different.

My husband and I are thinking of the Unitarian church, which is quite a ways from Southern Baptist...the way I was raised.

I guess that happens a lot as people see the hypocrisy. I hate what has happened to the churches here.

[AX10]

124. I'm sorry to hear this. I though that Wallis was really on our side.

So he only wants to see the Evangelical point of view then?!? I'll take the progressive Jesuits and UCC anyday then.

[xxqqqzme]

84. Dean has spoken directly to this

issue. I have never detected any thing but sincerity from Howard. It isn't his job to 'understand religion' or wear it on his sleeve.

[stickdog]

87. Yeah, Dean definitely needs to learn a lot about whoring out Jesus.

You know, like all of the war mongering, sex abusing money grubbing, power mad theocrats manage so easily.

I can't help but wonder exactly what kind of religion it is that Wallace is talking about here.

[1932]

94. Read his book and you'll learn.

[CWebster]

90. To be a good christian

It isn't necessary to indentify yourself as one.

[MsTryska]

138. ding ding ding.

damn straight.

[leesa]

91. Misleading headline, I presume. Wallis is right, don't fake anything

INCLUDING religion. However, can you fake it? You bet your balls you can! Bush, Fallwell, Roberttson, Graham I and II, LeHaye, etc. The list goes on and on of those who have successfully faked religion.

[Debi]

98. Thank God someone is here to tell us how to be Christians

I've only been doing it for 37 years and I just feel like I've been doing it wrong.

Now I can be taught the 'right' way to be a Christian instead of how I've been raised.

Sheesh...

[madfloridian]

101. I agree with Dean's comments on Jesus Christ and bike paths.

I don't want preachers defining politics anymore. Dean spoke for himself in this article...Wallis is a good man, but he is not a politician.

"Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind," Dean said. "He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything . . . He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it."

"Religion was a private matter for Dean growing up. "My father used to tell us how much strength he got from religion, but we didn't have Bible readings. There are traditions where people do that. We didn't," he said. "People in the Northeast don't talk about their religion. It's a very personal private matter, and that's the tradition I was brought up in."

And on separation of church and state:
" `Render unto God those things that are God's but unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's,' " a reference to Jesus's admonition that the secular and religious remain separate."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/25/seeking_a_new_emphasis_dean_touts_his_christianity/

And here is a website that discusses a lot about Dean and religion.

http://www.illuminated.co.uk/blog/archives/2003/12/29/deanreligion


"Dean: Churches are institutions that are about doing the work of God on earth, and I didn't think was very Godlike and thought it was hypocritical of me to be a member of such an institution.

Remember, the Church, when deciding whether to favour a community-spirited bike path, or to object to it on privacy grounds along with a number of other wealthy property owners who were eyeing up the railway track for commercial development, sided with the rich guys. Howard Dean didn't want to be a member of a church like that, and I can't say I can blame him."

And I admire that as well.

[DemBones DemBones]

112. I wonder how anyone amasses the amount of money

than Dean has without ever siding with the rich guys? I don't think it's possible for anyone and suspect he may well have had other reasons for leaving the Episcopal Church than the much-told story of the bike path he wanted.

I did like his performance on The Daily Show recently, though he was preaching to the choir there. Nothing wrong with that but I hope he starts getting on shows watched by people who've been known to vote GOP and talks up the same issues he talked up with Jon Stewart. Funny how the media loved him in 2004 -- too bad they don't love him as much/ cover him as much now. Now they cover him negatively more than positively, don't they? That's my impression.

[madfloridian]

116. Why does it matter? Why does Dean's religion matter at all?

Why does my religion matter? It should not even matter. Everyone sides with the rich at times.

Your point makes no sense.

[DemBones DemBones]

122. Because religion matters to many people. It shouldn't,

just like looks, height, age, and sex shouldn't matter, and you know damned well they matter big time! Height=Power and Male=Power.

My point was that I don't believe Dean is as much of a crusader for the little guy as he would have us believe. I know you won't agree with that point at all but it was my point nonetheless.

And sure, everyone sides with the rich at times. But those who get rich have at some point sided with the rich a lot.

[madfloridian]

125. He never pretended to be a crusader for the "little guy,"

That was media hype. He is trying to get the "people" back in the party again instead of just corporations.

Apparently the "people" on the whole are tired of the mixing of the two. Even here in our conservative area people were outraged about government interference in the Schiavo case.

I think if anyone does not see that Dean is trying to point out hypocrites on the other side, then they are not paying much attention.

As I said, basically I think the article was done on purpose to divide. It did. I already knew that Jim Wallis said Howard Dean did not "understand" religion well. However, I would have let it slide by. I addressed to the Sojourners site privately.

But since someone posted about it, it was a not a good thing for Wallis to say at all. My religion, Dean's religion, anyone's religion, does not have to be like that of Wallis to be meaningful.

[dsc]

162. He got his wealth by being a good doctor in Vermont

and some from a gift from his mother. The fact is that there is hardly any of his net worth that isn't from either the practice he and his wife own, or his house, or his income from the practice. (His mother's gift allowed him to buy the house outright)

[DemBones DemBones]

107. I'm remembering Dean in a black church, practically

dancing in the aisles. I can understand feeling like dancing along with everyone but it looks phony when it's not your church, when you're white in a black church, when you're definitely not a charismatic or Pentecostal Christian.

Clinton MIGHT be able to pull it off but probably wouldn't try it, knowing that it can look patronizing. Bush knows better, too, though he can be phony (cough). Clinton is so charismatic (but not Pentecostal) that even when you know he's bullshitting, it sounds good and you want to believe him.

Dean was very good on The Daily Show recently. High marks for that.

But he needs to buy more clues about religion (not just Episcopal, Congregational, and Jewish that are familiar to him) and about the South (not just Confederate flags and pick-up trucks.)

[madfloridian]

109. All politiicians should stay out of churches...always.

We have a chairman who is not afraid to point out their hypocrisy, those in the White House....and a preacher on the left goes after him.

This is not about Dean, this is about the left trying to take over religiously now.

[DemBones DemBones]

121. Are you opposed to the religious left

standing up and being vocal? I'm just unclear what you meant in your last sentence.

I think politicians visiting churches is fine as long as they and the church break no laws regarding separation of church and state. (I really oppose religion being mentioned in the presidential debates, though I suppose it was one of Kerry's few chances to assert that he was a believer and churchgoer.)

Most churchgoers vote so it's a good way for politicians to address a lot of actual voters who might not turn out for a rally.

Dean will be a better politician if he learns more about religion and is able to relate to people of other backgrounds better. Anyone would be.

[madfloridian]

123. I am opposed to religion in politics.

Dean usually speaks of moral values, and that is good. If you read what I just posted, he, like MANY people do not feel comfortable talking about their religion.

I don't think there should be mixing of the two. The faith-based initiatives by Bush are giving a huge influx of money to some churches now, and I worry about that. State money is going to private religous schools here in Florida right now. They expect over 200,000 to be served in private religious schools with state money in the new Pre-K program here. It is unconstitutional, but that does not seem to matter.

[Iamthewinner]

127. I think religion helps elect a person to Presidency

Think about it, every single president since George Washington is religious. I doubt an athiest or faker will make it to the white house anytime soon.

People want to see a President who knows there is a higher power.

[madfloridian]

128. Your higher power may not be like my higher power.

You need to think about that.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. That's why I don't try to. nt

[TayTay]

130. So What?

Gov. Dean has formed a Dem Committee to bettercommunicate with moderate and liberal religious leaders. I don't trust the MSM to report on how this is going. Wallis had good stuff in his book and Dean is doing the right kind of outreach. The snippy comments thing is silly and overplayed.

Dean is doing a good job and Wallis is, likewise, doing a good job. I don't let the Media do my thinking for me or try to drive a wedge between people I like.

[LittleClarkie]

134. Deciding Dean is faking it without actually talking to him

is like diagnosing a patient from a videotape.

Right or wrong about Dean, I personally think he should have kept his yap shut until he'd actually met the man. Otherwise he's just reaction to media spin.

[KTM]

142. Excellent book - good to read if you are in a Red state

I work in a 99% Red company in the south. I had a VERY hard time discussing any issue for which the right has a religious argument, because I work with some very single-minded religious people. Jim Wallis's book has been wonderful in showing me some strategies for having honest, engaging, and fruitful discussions with these people.

[tishaLA]

143. It is a great book

It's a shame we have people mad at him for speaking his mind. Apparently that is something available to only a few. It's sad. So sad.

[madfloridian]

144. Don't know about the others. I am not "mad at him."

I am angry and frustrated because I no longer have a church home. And then I see this statement:

"Dean doesn't understand religion very much," says Jim Wallis."

I also remember his other jibes at Dean. I take it personally because I no longer understand religion, not the way it is now. I don't think he has a right to say that someone, whoever, does not understand religion.

I don't understand religion right now, and I am very angry at how both sides are seeking to control politics. I also don't think Dean should discuss religion, just moral values.

I have admired Wallis, I still do. He does a lot of good. However he does not have the right to determine whether someone else "understands" religion. He simply does not have that right.

[tishaLA]

145. Yes, because saying what's on your mind

Is only available to a select few. The rest should STFU even though they have said many important things that are designed to help the Democratic party. It's just so sad.

God help me, but I think 1932 got it correct far upthread. Those who have read his book would understand.

[madfloridian]

146. I am a Christian, and I read what I choose. I will not STFU.

I think I have made my points well. I don't think this is about Howard Dean or Jim Wallis, anymore than it is about Bush and the religious right.

It is about those in religious circles being critical of others who do not share their views on religion. If you will notice, I said I respect Wallis greatly.

I will not STFU, and what kind of Christian says that to another one.

[tishaLA]

148. I'm not a Xtian

thanks for assuming and I didn't say anything about how you practice your faith or what you read NOR did I tell *you* to STFU: it was a sarcastic swipe at those who want to silence Wallis. Read whatever the fuck you want. 1932 had this right from the get-go.

This is about Wallis speaking his mind for the good of the party. That's something I will always support.

[madfloridian]

150. Wallis has a right to speak his mind. Please don't do this.

Wallis does not have a right, anymore than right wing, unliberal pastors, to criticize party leaders for not understanding religion.

I have read a lot of what Wallis says, and I love the Sojourners site.

Wallis has a job to do, politicians have a job to do. I don't think they should start blending together so much.

I have tried to be fair, and since I am speaking as a Christian without a home right now......I did not think there would be offense.

Wallis does a lot of good for humanity. He is a good man. However, he does not have the right to decide whether anyone else "understand" religion.

[tishaLA]

152. Of COURSE he has a right to criticize Democratic leaders

In fact, I welcome it. He offers great advice to those who choose to follow it. The goal is to find certain parameters with which one is comfortable and work from there. He doesn't advocate anything like the theocratic bullshit george does--far from it. It's about engaging in a dialog and fostering a religious left, that's all.

I'm not terribly religious, at any rate, but I worry about my fellow Jews leaving the party not because their ideals have shifted but because we no longer speak to them. It's important to do that; it's even more important that we speak effectively, as Wallis suggests.

[madfloridian]

154. He has a right to "criticize", but not to determine their understanding...

of religion. There is a difference, a huge one. I have read some of his stuff that is just great, and he is a good man.

But when he used the word "understand", it hurt. Not just because he said it about Dean, but because it reflects on my views right now.

No one can "interpret" another's understanding of religion. My views have changed significantly in two years from what they used to be.

He also should be very understanding of the fact that Judy Dean is Jewish, and so are their kids.

[1932]

156. Cheers. Thanks for the support, tisha.

[Cha]

149. Dean gets it from the left, right, and

the middle..all sides and upways from Sunday..And he's still out there in the Grassroots Working his Democratic ass off.

Takes his lickin's and keeps on tickin'!

Dean's not perfect but he keeps an open mind and I think his capacity for love and understanding is enormous.

[madfloridian]

151. Exactly. I understand the "religious" lickings...I was nearly shunned.

When I questioned this war in 2003 early on, when I talked to my Southern Baptist leaders here.... I was called unpatriotic. They were appalled I did not think it was a holy war. No one questioned it, or they got jumped and attacked.

I have had my share of lickings from the church....they judged me because of the war. I won't allow them close enough to do that again. Many childhood friends, so righteous and pious, still do not speak to me.

[Cha]

153. That's really Sad..

madfloridian.

It's unfathomable to me for a religion to want to blindly go to war.

Even the head of bush's Methodist Church was against the War On Iraq..but, of course, he didn't get much play, did he?

[laureloak]

147. I agree with Wallis because

inauthentic is not a word - it doesn't exist.

And it's true that the worst thing people could do is "not exist".

LOL

[qanda]

163. He is sooooo RIGHT!!!!

Some people's religious beliefs are personal AND private. If you are not used to openly displaying or talking about your religion then you shouldn't act like you are.