Jim Wallis: Speaking to America - Democratic Weekly Radio Broadcast

[Sapphire Blue]

Friday, December 01, 2006
Jim Wallis: Speaking to America

Wednesday morning, my phone rang, and on the other end of the line was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In an unprecedented invitation, he asked if I would speak to the nation in the Democrat's weekly radio broadcast this Saturday. In the past, these addresses have been given by elected officials, but the senator thought a non-partisan religious leader could speak to the moral values our nation needs. I thanked him for the invitation, and said I'd get back to him.

Whether or not to accept was a difficult decision. I work hard to maintain my independence and non-partisanship, and didn't want to be perceived as supporting one party over the other. But it was an occasion to get our message to millions of people, so I decided to accept. Our country faces pressing issues. We are in a time like no other. This requires new ways of engaging leaders, and the Americans they represent. Forums like this one are rarely offered by either party. I thought the good faith effort by Sen. Reid in risking a new approach should be met with my willingness to act in a new way.

I have always looked for opportunities to witness to gospel values wherever possible, regardless of the political party. In the early years of the Bush administration, I publicly supported the faith-based initiative and was in several meetings with the president. At our Pentecost conference last June, senators from both parties – Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Rick Santorum – addressed the participants. Just this week, I met with key Republican staff members on Capitol Hill to discuss a bi-partisan anti-poverty caucus. So this opportunity comes as part of a long pattern. If the Republicans offered a similar venue, I would accept and deliver the same message.

It is an opportunity to move outside our usual circles and reach many new people. I had complete control of what I would say, and could speak in a non-partisan way about the values and solutions our country so desperately needs by challenging both parties. The text speaks of the need for a government with integrity that can work for the common good, the importance of bi-partisan political leadership in overcoming poverty, the moral need to extricate ourselves from Iraq, the protection of our environment, the changes needed to produce a culture that promotes healthy families, and a common ground effort to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America. All of these are part of a new politics; the kind of politics that are inspired by our deepest values and that require new leadership by both Democrats and Republicans, and (as I conclude my remarks), from "each and every one of us."

Check your local listings for broadcast times, and check this blog tomorrow for text and audio of the address. I pray that the message breaks through and truly speaks to America.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/

[1932]

1. I'll definitely listen.

[Sapphire Blue]

2. Audio & transcript posted: Jim Wallis: We Need Greater Moral Leadership

Jim Wallis: We Need Greater Moral Leadership (Audio and Transcript)

~~~ Download audio of the radio address: http://www.sojo.net/special/multimedia/061201_wallis_radio_address.mp3 ~~~

(An excerpt)

At this moment in history, we need new directions.

Who is left out and left behind is always a religious and moral question. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the health of a society was measured by how it cared for its weakest and most vulnerable, and prosperity was to be shared by all. Jesus proclaimed a gospel that was "good news to the poor."

I am an evangelical Christian, and a commitment to "the least of these" is central to my personal faith and compels my public actions. It is time to lift up practical policies and effective practices that "make work work" for low-income families and challenge the increasing wealth gap between rich and poor. We must find a new moral and political will to overcome poverty that combines personal and social responsibility with a commitment to support strong families.

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

(snip)

The path of partisan division is well worn, but the road of compassionate priorities and social justice will lead us to a new America. Building that new America will require greater moral leadership from both Democrats and Republicans, and also from each and every one of us.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/12/jim-wallis-we-need-greater-moral.html

[Sapphire Blue]

3. ...

:kick:

[Crowdance]

4. Troublesome is Wallis. The LEFT is not using abortion as a wedge.

The Left is simply trying to protect women against the Right's use of abortion as a wedge.

I told myself I'd stay out of discussion of Wallis, but he distorts the truth in service to his cause, and it that truth needs to be aired. I am wary of men like Wallis who try re-frame women's right to abortion as one not worth fighting for, as something women should be willing to give up in order to enlist moderates/religionists in the effort to stop war, poverty and global disaster.

In truth, Wallis is anti-choice and has signed a public petition calling for the criminalization of abortion. You can read this here: http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/americaweseek.html.

When it comes to the issue of abortion as a wedge, Rev. Wallis is part of the problem, not the solution.
Rev. Wallis discredits himself and his movement when he disingenuously blames the Left, which is fighting to preserve women's reproductive rights, for the mess he and his cronies have made of our politics.

[bobbolink]

5. Poverty is much more important!! So, since Dems can't bring themselves

to be concerned about us poor folk, then GOOD ON JIM WALLIS for doing so!

I'm ashamed that "feminists" will now dump poor people over "choice".

Ashamed and damned angry.

So much for all the effort I put into feminism over the years--now they don't give a flying fuck whether I survive or not. SHIT!

[Crowdance]

6. What an absurd conclusion!

Perhaps your anger is getting in the way of your judgement. Your best bet for survival is a mutual survival pact, in which we all join together to protect each other. We won't be able to do that if we're willing to sacrifice one person's rights to gain those for another. It's quite simple. We ALL go forward together; or we don't go truly forward at all.

On a personal level, I'm saddened to hear that your survival is threatened by poverty, and I pray that your circumstances are improved very soon.I've been poor, and I know the fear and pain that is a daily fact of life in that.

[bobbolink]

7. Are you sleeping in your car in the snow and below zero temps????

Until you are, take your "Absurd" name-calling, and face your own self in the mirror, with your lack of heart.

Thanks for your denigration of my anger. Yet, *YOUR* anger is sacred.

Thanks, "Sister", for your concern.

It's ever so much appreciated.

:puke:

[Crowdance]

8. That I will do.

[Labors of Hercules]

32. Where are you?

If you are willing to make known where you are, I think you will see heart like you have never experienced it before...

and if you are within 100 miles of my house you won't need to sleep in your car tonight.

[newyawker99]

39. Hi Labors of Hercules!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Labors of Hercules]

40. Hi!

:toast: backatcha!

[Sapphire Blue]

10. The poor...

"The poor tells us who we are,
The prophets tell us who we could be,
So we hide the poor,
And kill the prophets"

- Phil Berrigan

[calimary]

12. "You need a permission slip from the poor to get into heaven."

- Michael Moore

And tell me, just exactly (or even roughly) how many mentions of gay marriage and abortion there are in the Bible? And how many references to the poor are there?

[bobbolink]

14. I was waiting for you and Michael Moore... ^_^

According to Jim Wallis (who, I guess is now disdained by feminists), there are..

here it comes..

ZERO references to abortion, and almost 3,000 references to poverty.

A few folks need to open their hearts and minds, and look at some of us a bit differently.

Thanks for popping in... :hi:

[calimary]

27. I've been a little distracted. Kid's sick.

But I tell ya, I can't get my mind off that DAMNED (yes, DAMNED) "christian coalition" that sent its new chairman packing because he did the unthinkable. He wanted to steer their activism toward helping the poor. So the hell with him, then. As I recall, he was told that his idea wasn't their "agenda."

These people are nailing Jesus back up on the cross all over again. After whipping him nearly to death - AGAIN.

[kiahzero]

33. So I guess we're supposed to just ignore his insults?

Just ignore his arguments that the only way to fight poverty is to have a "spiritual commitment?"

A kinder, gentler theocracy is still a theocracy. Excuse me if I don't swoon for someone that's arguing for one.

[Sapphire Blue]

9. You are using it right now as a wedge issue.

Wallis has the right to act according to his conscience, don't you think? Should he & all who have a consistent ethic of life turn away from the Democratic Party? Should they STFU about their convictions? Or should they make an effort to work on solutions? In the case of abortion, wouldn't reducing poverty lead to a reduction in the abortion rate?

What would you say to the pregnant woman who chooses abortion because she is living in poverty, because she cannot afford to raise her child, even though she may want to? Where the hell is her choice?

[bobbolink]

11. B-I-N-G-O!!

I"m sick to death of being a "them", and so are poor women who might actually LIKE and WANT to have those children, but can't because of poverty.

It's time to get out of our heads, and back to our hearts.

[Sapphire Blue]

16. "It's time to get out of our heads, and back to our hearts." I agree, bobbolink.

The way things are today, it's essentially the privileged elite who are the ones who truly have choice when it comes to abortion/parenthood. And, if infertile, they can go to the IVF clinics to get pregnant (and create all those unwanted excess embryos that get flushed down the drain rather than be used in SCR). Money can't buy love, but it can buy a child.

For the rest of us, our financial circumstances often determine our 'choice'.

[bobbolink]

18. "Choice" is a muddleclass concept!

This is the mantra of those in the "helping" professions... "It's your 'choice'." "You are responsible for your own choices." Most of the world has NO choices in life, and wouldn't have the vagueist idea what is meant.

It's like Andrew Young in his ad on the radio now, saying "It's not how much money you have, it's how you handle the money you do have." Right, so that means just pay workers $5 an hour, then castigate them for not "handling" their money properly.

I'm coming to the point where I believe that nothing will get through to these heartless people unless/until they walk in the shoes.

Not even the deaths of people who survived the Superdome and the Convention Center, but ended up killing themselves because they had nowhere to live and no way to survive,--not even that brought up outrage in these heartless ones. Nope, it's only when it pushes the buttons of their own sacred cows.

[Crowdance]

13. So, Wallis has the right to his conscience, and I do not?

The truth is that women die when people like Wallis succeed in outlawing abortion. The "consistent ethic of life" somehow seems to not include women. You, in this case, turn a blind eye to Wallis' lie that he is non-partisan on this issue. At least the Right comes out boldly and states its position, so that it can be clearly identified as using a wedge.

A reduction in poverty would, very likely, reduce the number of abortions. As would universal health and child care. These are all issues I work for and support, because I believe women should have EVERY avenue open to them in the event of pregnancy. Including the right to not continue a pregnancy. Women, who are fully capable of making their own moral judgements, should be afforded every opportunity to do so--whether that judgement is to deliver a child or not deliver one.

We need to identify, work with and promote leaders who are in favor of supporting every person's rights. And we need to expect those leaders to be honest about where they stand on issues. Wallis is clearly partisan on the issue of women's reproductive rights, and he needs to be honest about that.

[bobbolink]

15. If you had a conscience, you'd care about a homeless woman in the snow

You care about a political concept Not the actual people.

There's a difference.

But, don't let that stop you.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. That's not what I said. And you are continuing to use abortion as a wedge issue.

[Crowdance]

19. No. I'm viewing it as an issue--which it is thanks to folks like Wallis

and those who give him a pass.

[bobbolink]

20. Of course you're divisive.

You've "given a pass" to those who don't care about poor people.

Where is your heart???

I cordially invite you to walk in my (snow-wet) shoes....

[Sapphire Blue]

22. If you're trying to insult me by suggesting that I'm giving him a pass, it's not working.

I support Jim Wallis. He is walking the walk, and I respect him for that.

[Crowdance]

23. Not insulting at all. I do disagree with you about his integrity, however.

[Crowdance]

21. In reflection, I'd really like to hear your explaination of how

defending abortion rights is using it as a wedge issue. Specifically, what have I written that uses this issue as a wedge?

[bobbolink]

24. Simple. By throwing off the importance of poverty, which is what

this thread was mostly about, until you diverted it to abortion.

OK?

[Sapphire Blue]

25. !

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Very well said.

[Crowdance]

26. Right. thanks for playing.

[Sapphire Blue]

28. I'm not playing. Poverty isn't a game.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Choice is AN issue; it's not THE ONLY issue

unless you're so economically comfortable that you've never had to wonder where your rent money was coming from or whether the milk and cereal that are the only foods in your kitchen will last till the end of the month or how you're going to pay your doctor or dentist bills.

Single-issue voters, whether their single issue is choice or guns or whatever, are short-sighted. The question should be which candidate is better on the whole. If these were the primary candidates:

A; Pro-choice, supports free trade, supported the Iraq War, wants free-market solutions for the health care crisis, likes school vouchers, supports building a new stadium for the pro sports teams, claims that a rise in the minimum wage is undesirable because low-wage workers aren't worth it and besides, most of them are teenagers anyway

B: Anti-choice, supports bilateral trade treaties with environmental and labor protections, anti-intervenion, wants single-payer health care, wants to improve public education, not kill it, is opposed to tax-funded giveaways to private businesses, wants a rise in the minimum wage

I'd vote for B in a heartbeat, and reject A as the "yuppie candidate." And I'm a woman who had a pregnancy scare in my younger days.

I dare you to go to the welfare offices and gathering places in poor neighborhoods and ask the women there to rank their political issues. See where abortion rights rank.

[Sapphire Blue]

34. If this is in response to my post # 9, perhaps you should read it again.

Yes, there are other issues, and of course we need to evaluate candidates' stands on the various issues.

The poster to whom I responded brought up the issue of 'choice'. My point was that living in poverty often determines one's choices... as in the case of a pregnant woman who wants to give birth to & raise her child, but opts to abort because of her financial circumstances. Poverty has taken away her choice.

You dare me "to go to the welfare offices and gathering places in poor neighborhoods and ask the women there to rank their political issues"? Sorry, I don't play the dare game... especially when it comes to poverty.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. I was agreeing with you, Sapphire Blue

:shrug:

I thought I was responding to the poster who said that she had no use for Wallis due to the abortion issue.

[Sapphire Blue]

36. I agreed w/what you posted, but your post sounded like you were arguing w/my previous post, which...

... is why your post didn't make sense to me. (Did that make sense?)

:hi:

[alarimer]

29. Enough with the religion = morality bullshit

Jim Wallis can kiss my liberal, pro-choice, atheistic ass. Shove your fucking "gospel values."

[Sapphire Blue]

31. "Shove your fucking "gospel values." " Was that directed to me?

If not, perhaps you should send a letter to Wallis.

If so, a rather nasty comment.

"... fucking "gospel values." Might you be referring to caring for the least of these?

During the next Congressional budget battle, I hope you'll contact your senators & representatives on behalf of the least of these.

:hi:

[jonnyblitz]

37. we are such hypocrites if our side mixes religion and politics

after bitching about the right doing it all these years! they can tell US to STFU now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I think it's more a matter of telling evangelicals that they don't

have to be a Republican to be an evangelical and that being a Democrat or even a Socialist might be more in line with what the Bible says about society. (Read the later prophets for a counterweight to the stereotype of a "vengeful Old Testament God.")