Meet the "new faith adviser" for Democrats

[CyberAnt]

Well .. the silmy media is not that powerful anymore and they cannot get away with the same stuff they used on Thomas and Powell. Besides, Rice has been well received in Europe and so the dems may have to back off.

[kcvl]

Wallis:

I think religion must talk about the environment as God's creation to protect and be good stewards of. And the issues of war and peace are fundamentally theological religious issues as well. [Religion must help us talk about] how we resolve our inevitable human conflicts and how we deal with the problems of terrorism and tyranny without resorting to the terrible cost and consequence of war, which often creates new problems while trying to solve other problems.

So issues like war and peace and the environment should be discussed in more religious terms?
Yes, because they are religious issues. I think the religious community's got to say: yes, abortion and family marriage are important issues, but those aren't the only issues. And then the political people, Democrats and Republicans, must have a much better and deeper conversation about this, so that we're voting all our values and not just one or two. Republicans are more comfortable with the language of faith and values, but they often narrow it to one or two issues. Democrats are less comfortable with the language. They often seem like they want to keep faith and values in the private sphere.

Whoever wins the values conversation will shape the future of American politics. So I'm challenging the Democrats to start with values and then go to policies—to put policy issues like economic security and health care in a moral context. This is critical.

Democrats are really reassessing. They're in conversation with lots of people, with each other, with religious leaders. And I don't think it's a matter of left, right, and center; those are political categories. It's more going to the heart of the moral questions. For example, I don't think to start really talking about poor families and how low-income families are just under terrible pressure, how they're working hard full-time and falling behind, not making it—that's not going to the left, that's talking about what's right and wrong. When CEOs are getting multimillion dollar packages and severance pay and bonuses and their workers are just struggling to survive, that's not left or right; that's right and wrong. When half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day—that's a fundamental issue close to the heart of God, and so we have to deal with those questions.

I've spent part of my life fighting religious fundamentalists, but there are also secular fundamentalists, people who disdain faith and values and spirituality and want no mention of those in the public square. I believe in the separation of church and state—I really do. It's important. But it doesn't mean banishing faith and values from public life. The founders wanted to separate church and state, not to make religion less influential in society, but to make it more influential. Most every social reform movement in American history has been fueled and driven in part by religion, by faith—the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and child labor law reform, and most famously, civil rights. As you can see in the book, I believe that social movements are what change history, and the best ones are the ones that have a spiritual foundation.

"Left" is a political term, and I don't think religion fits neatly in the political category. The religious right is not critical enough of the political right and the Republican Party, and likewise people who are more progressive need to be very critical of—when need be—the left and the Democratic party. Religion shouldn't be ideologically predictable, nor loyally partisan. It should have the capacity to critique both sides. I like the word "prophetic" best of all. "Progressive" is OK, but it still sounds kind of like a substitute for "liberal."

I probably line up with the left on some issues. If the left is against war in Iraq, I'm against the war in Iraq too. But for theological reasons, I'm not with the left on other things. I'm an evangelical, my theology is quite biblical, I'm even conservative and pro-family, pro-marriage. I can be pro-family and still support gay rights, but I talk more about families and kids and marriage and cultural values and cultural pollution. The left doesn't talk much about that. I talk covenantal sexuality as opposed to recreational sexuality. The culture is preaching recreational sexuality; I believe sexuality is tied to covenant-loving relationships. Well, that's not usually a left-wing opinion either.

I'm not sure there are plans for 2008, but there certainly is more conversation, more collaboration, more coordination between progressive religious groups and people than I've ever seen before. During the campaign, that became more and more the case, and since then there have been meetings and conversations. Among Evangelicals, Catholics, the Black church, mainline Protestants, Jews, Muslims, I think there is more conversation now among progressives. Not that we all say the same thing on every issue, but conversation, coordination, mobilizing around issues of biblical justice and peace in particular, these are happening. I think that's a very positive thing.

The right won't be the only voice. I think that era is over. I give examples of this in the book, but even my book tour is going to be really a movement tour. It's not just about a book but about a whole progressive faith movement that is growing and coming together and having more public face and public voice, and will join in serious debate, serious dialogue with the religious right.

[hosepipe]

[ Jim Wallis is editor and founder of the liberal evangelical magazine Sojourners. ]

Sojourners = "fellow travelers"... this guy is a watermelon.. or maybe a tomato..

[hinckley buzzard]

Wallis is a run-of-the-mill UCC-type egotist who has been kicking around the liberal ruins for decades.

He is another of those who will use "values" as a meaningless chant to say whatever he wants to say. This is another example of why Conservatives should eschew the term "values" now and begin to speak directly about personal "Virtues."

Bill Bennett had it right all along, you can justify anything by calling it a "value" but to speak of virtue is to speak of right and wrong. The 'rats can't do that--if they try they will turn into pumpkins and disappear in a puff of smoke.

[hinckley buzzard]

"something's put a bug up his wazoo. He was rude, interupting, agressive, accusatory."

He's a liberal--totally incapable of handling his own aggressive drive effectively.

[XEHRpa]

> Their philosophy IS their religion.

There's a great book, "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" that lays out the facts to support your thesis, covering a span of hundreds of years since socialism's inception. The Author is Joshua Muravchik, a former 4th-gen socialist.

A particularly glaring example was in the mid 1800's, there were socialist churches that held services on Sundays. They sung "worker hymns", the preachers were not God-fearing, but instead preached social justice. The modern liberal church is exactly these jokers, but now masquerading under the banner of God, since they failed to oust Him in their prior direct confrontation.

[hinckley buzzard]

Donations to any religious nonprofit are tax deductible, even if they play fast and loose with the "non-partisan" rule.

[Matchett-PI]

Hillary's Marxist mentor (the one about whom she wrote her college thesis at Wellesley), Saul Alinsky wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971).

.....Rules for Radicals teaches the organizer that he must give a moral appearance: “All effective action requires the passport of morality.”

The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends states “that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments ... Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

*

Sojourners Magazine March/April 2000 issue - Jim Wallis Editor

"Saul Alinsky Goes to Church"

Faith-based community organizing is taking off---with benefits for both community and church. by Helene Slessarev

The origins of community organizing are generally traced to the pioneering work of Saul Alinsky, who built the first community organizing effort in Chicago’s Back of the Yards neighborhood in the 1930s. Alinsky created the early community-based efforts by organizing existing groups into collective action around particular issues.

Today many communities are much less cohesive, so it is necessary to build relationships first and then take on issues that grow out of those stronger bonds. In poorer communities, churches are often experiencing the same loss of cohesiveness as they struggle to survive in an increasingly barren environment. Thus, organizing becomes a means for such congregations to reconnect with their own members and with the broader community around them. ... [snip]
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=Soj0003&article=000311

*

A MUST READ BOOK: The Religious Left - Who they are and what they believe - by Dr. Ronald H. Nash, PhD.

http://www.kfuo.org/ie_main.htm has the audio of an interview with Ron Nash. On right side of page, click on October 2004 Scroll down to October 11.

263 posted on 02/07/2005 12:53:40 PM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1337649/posts?page=263#263

[hinckley buzzard]

I notice that he does not reference God at all--only a cliche about how living on $2 a day is "an issue close to God's heart."

No mention of Jesus Christ--obviously an embarrassment.

No mention of anything being sacred--nothing is--only "issues."

Yup, he's a liberal all right.