Jim Wallis is a great american and a great Christian Leader

[Perky]

Liberal Evangelicals Begin Campaign

By PHILIP ELLIOTT
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Liberal evangelicals, weary of a Republican-centric image, launched a campaign Monday to promote Christian values beyond the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Red Letter Christians, a project of Sojurners/Call to Renewal, announced plans to establish a grass-roots network of 7,000 moderate and progressive clergy members.

"A debate on moral issues should be central to American politics, but how should we define religious values?" said Jim Wallis, an activist and executive director of the Christian ministry, which also publishes the liberal Sojourners Magazine.


http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RELIGION_POLITICS?SITE=CATOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-09-18-16-30-27

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Sojourners has a nice site on the web, too, if anyone wants to check it

out.

http://www.sojo.net/

[trotsky]

2. But is the answer to right-wing religious interference in government

left-wing religious interference in government?

Besides, it's not like Wallis is always on our team.

He also is quick to note his group is not an extension of the Democratic Party.

[KittyWampus]

3. I Don't Know, Let's Channel The Great MLK

[Sapphire Blue]

4. Channeling...

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

[ck4829]

64. The Christian Right really took those words and threw them out the window

[trotsky]

5. Did MLK print up voter guides?

Just curious.

[1932]

19. If he didn't, he should have.

[Perky]

6. This is not nearly so much about LW Religious influence on Govt

as it is about LWR influence in going directly after the the relgious right agenda and offering moderate religionists a fresh perspective.

[trotsky]

7. I call 'em like I see 'em as a non-believer.

I don't want right-wing OR left-wing religion entangling itself with government.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Unlike you, I'm for fighting fire with fire...

since one is already involved....doesn't hurt if the other does as well....at this point. Maybe it will balance things out, and then they can both go home, hey?

[trotsky]

10. I would prefer to fight fire (religion) with water (secularism).

While the USA and USSR were busy "balancing" each other out, think about the countries and people caught up in the mess. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. Using the bully pulpit to preach secularism

Is far more offensive than going back to the tradition of merely drawing political support from religious inspired social justice movements.

(I have yet to see a broad-based working class social justice movement arise out of middle class "secularists", but I suppose it could happen if nonreligious, affluent whites took an interest in bread and butter poverty issues and laid culture issues aside...)

If you simply meant politicians should be silent on religion, you should have suggested "Dems don't need to fight fire" or "Dems should simply state that religion is irrelevant to their liberal beliefs." Which is not true for traditional liberals.

There's a big disconnect between DLC neoliberals (socially and economically conservative, except on abortion; preach the values of the upper class) secular "culture liberals" (socially liberal, economically libertarian for the most part) and traditional liberals (culturaly conservative, economically liberal -- unlike affluent "liberals" who vote their pocketbook.)

[1932]

21. This is a five-star post.

Excellent points!

[trotsky]

23. Who said anything about "preaching" secularism?

The Constitution is secular. How about we just follow it instead of tainting it with religion?

[1932]

25. The constitution does not say:

politicians whose liberalism is founded on and influence by faith are forbidden from saying so.

[trotsky]

27. And neither do I.

Point out to me where I said they were.

[1932]

30. What do you think Wallis and people who agree with him are arguing?

[trotsky]

31. Um, that's not the point.

Using tactics like voter guides in churches should be frowned upon, not celebrated. I just don't think the wall of separation between church and state should be something that we're willing to sacrifice in order to defeat the religious right.

[1932]

36. Actually, it's a tradeoff they're allowed -- if they publish voters guides

they're no longer tax exempt.

The constitution allows them to say whatever they want about politics. The tax laws, have something else to say about whether they can still avoid taxes if they say whatever they want about politics.

Surely you believe in first amendment rights even for churches?

[trotsky]

37. Churches are not people.

Only people have rights enumerated in the Constitution. Not corporations, not institutions, not churches. The First Amendment thus does not apply to churches.

I'm all for taxing churches should they venture into politics like this. Of course, if you think it's more important that churches pay to participate in politics instead of using that money to, oh I don't know, actually HELP people, more power to ya.

[1932]

38. Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Individuals with no connect-

ion to a group get first amendment rights, but any time they're part of a community they don't?

That would pose probelms for the ACLU or for the East Harlem Neighborhood Association, don't you think?

When a priest or a member of the parish stands up and speaks to the congregation, who do you think is talking? You don't think that's an individual?

[trotsky]

39. This is actually pretty well-established law.

But hey, it's not your rights that will get trampled (this time, at least), so have fun.

[1932]

40. What well-established law?

[trotsky]

42. IRS Code, churches, freedom of speech

Pretty well established. If you want me to cite specific laws and court cases, please let me know.

[1932]

70. I'm losing track of your argument. You don't think that churches should

be involved in politics because corporations shouldn't have constitutional rights that allow them to talk about politics.

But when I ask you to cite well-established laws, you cite the tax code (which doesn't prevent churches from doing that), and you cite "churches" (which isn't a law) and "freedom of speech" which, I think, one would interpret as allowing people the freedom to speak about religion.

I am confused.

[trotsky]

73. You're making this far more complicated than it is.

And when I said this is well-established law, I'm not referring to a specific law (though there are plenty, in addition to the tax code - which is also LAW) but to established precedent - just like property rights are well-established law. That can mean laws on the books, court decisions, even things like Common Law. Understand that part?

Now, "churches" just like "corporations" are not people. The Bill of Rights, guarantees citizens - PEOPLE - certain rights. Of course corporations and churches (interesting how the line between them has gotten blurry lately) do have legal standing, and are responsible for their conduct in the social, economic, and political arenas. So to say that churches have a right to free speech, well that's not quite accurate.

I'm sorry my argument is jumping around - I'm afraid I'm trying to keep up with your disjointed questions and assertions.

Tell me that you at least acknowledge churches are NOT supposed to engage in outright political activities, and let's go from there.

[1932]

78. So what's the well-established law that makes someone like Jim Wallis

talking about progressive politics wrong?

Churches ARE allowed to engage in outright political activity. They just don't get the tax-free status if they do. It's a choice churces make. The 700 Club pays taxes so they can advocate political views.

If a church wanted to do that from the left, I have nothing against that. If the IRS made MLK pay taxes, I would have thought, OK, and I'd still have listened to him.

[trotsky]

80. Why the strawmen?

Can no one argue against my points, but instead only against a strawman version of them?

One last time:

I never said that Christians, or even Jim Wallis in particular, should not be allowed to talk about progressive politics. To continue to present this as my position is intellectually dishonest and, to be quite frank, absolutely despicable.

Since you have repeatedly now shown an inability or unwillingness to represent my position accurately, I'm afraid I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

[1932]

83. You're going to abandon this thread without explaining what you were

arguing?

Fine with me. But don't pretend this is anyone else's fault but yours. You have not made a clear argument and you've made a lot of silly non-sequiturs that you still haven't tide together in a coherent argument even after two or three opportunities at the end of this subthread.

[trotsky]

85. Look at how this subthread started.

Post #25, you make a statement that tries to contradict something that's not even remotely close to what I was saying. But that's my fault? Okey dokey, whatever allows you to walk away thinking I'm the bad guy. :eyes:

[1932]

100. Read your post 23 and post 18, to which 23 was responding.

Unless your post is totally non-responsive and beyond tangentially related to 18, my response to you was relevant to this subthread because it's responsive to 18.

And, nonetheless, your posts in this thread do invoke a lot of wild claims that you haven't tied together (corporate personhood? established law that forbids churches from talking about politics?). Even if we conceded that post 25 doesn't respond to 23 and 18, that's not a license to say a lot of crazy shit.

[trotsky]

105. I'm sorry that you didn't understand.

You're confusing the term "established law" with some kind of specific law, which I noted upthread. And now you're attacking me for your failure to understand the terminology. I can't help that.

On edit: Let me just add in summation - I DON'T WANT CHURCHES AND POLITICS GETTING TANGLED UP. Both will suffer, but somehow on this thread it's been made clear there are several people who feel it's OK to adopt the same abuses the right wing has been inflicting on our political process. I'm sorry but I don't, and never will, buy into the idea that the ends justify the means. So while you try to shift this back onto my phrasings and examples, the point remains unscathed: this is bad religion, bad politics, and bad for all of us.

[1932]

107. In Jim Wallis's book he says everything is political. You can't separate

politics from anything, much less the bible.

There's a band called Cornershop. The lead singer/lead guitarist is Indian, Tjinder Singh. He was interviewed in the British press about their music. The reporter asked him if his music was political. He laughed and said 'everything is political.' He's absolutely right. Wallis is absolutely right.

Read the bible. It is about politics. I forget the passage, but there's a story about a landowner who pays his workers a full day's pay whether they work a half day or a whole day. The people who work a whole day complain that they should get paid more than the people who work a half day. The landowner asks the people who work a half day why they work a half day. Those people say they want to work a whole day, but if the landowners who come around to find workers don't pick you first, you don't get to work a whole day.

If you don't think that's political, then you need to think a little harder about the world.

(And if you can't figure it out, here's my impression of that allegory: the landowner thinks it wrong that a person can't find a full day's work in a land where there is so much wealth and believes that reducing poverty at the bottom of society is the way to create a society where there will be a full day's work for everyone. Ninety percent of why I support the democratic party is wrapped up in that allegory.)

I still don't understand how you were supporting your argument with references to "established law" or the constitution.

[trotsky]

108. This isn't about his book, or even him per se.

It also isn't about the bible, which has so many conflicting passages that one can literally find something to support just about anything one wants to believe.

For instance, one can also interpret the parable of the vineyard workers to mean that you should take whatever pay your employer gives you and be grateful - i.e., be a good little worker cog, because your reward will come later. Perfect formula to keep right on exploiting the masses. The vineyard owner even plays the part of the free market Republican - "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?" What's your justification to say YOUR interpretation is the only correct one? Did god speak directly to you and let you know? What if the right-winger says the same thing? Who did god really speak to? Can you ever resolve the issue?

That's EXACTLY why the Founders were right to keep politics and religion separate. One side says, "God said this!" and the other says, "No, God said THIS!" and we get NOWHERE.

And since you don't understand what established law means, why don't you go plug "separation of church and state" into Google and read a few of the links. This one seems to be quite extensive.

[1932]

119. Yeah, the bible is ambiguous.

That's why it's important to let the right wing have the only word on it. Anyway, thanks for your interpretation -- yes, religion is political -- although I'm not sure how you got that reading out of what I wrote.

And don't you think that separation of church and state is what ALLOWS Jim Wallis to say what he says?

[1932]

122. Correct typo:

because the bible is ambiguous, it's important NOT to let RW have the last word on it, which is Wallis's point in his book God's Politics.

[Irreverend IX]

110. A weak way of thinking.

Politics is bloodless war. There are no rules in war. The enemy must be destroyed at all costs.

Well, actually, I take that first part back. When you factor in the homeless who die of exposure, the women who succumbed to botched abortions, the gay men who fell to the AIDS epidemic and so many others... politics is hardly a bloodless brand of conflict. So think of the innocent victims of Repub policies when you spout simpering ethical platitudes.

[trotsky]

111. Well, if you're going to be so nice & civil about it!

Fuck, let's just overthrow the government and institute a supreme dictator for life - you busy? - who can decide everything exactly the way you want it decided.

The issue here is, win or lose, we still have to live in the same system. Abuses allowed now with the Christian god would be violently opposed by those same Christians should Muslims become a majority and start pushing Allah into the public square, so that's why we fight them. You never know when the tables will be turned.

Don't you for a fucking minute try and suppose that I have no concept of just how radical and dangerous these people are, or just how many victims they've harmed. But if we can't work within the Constitution to defeat them, haven't we defeated our country itself? Don't we just set the stage for a band of radicals to do the exact same thing? Then what kind of stable political system are we left with?

So take your "simpering ethical platitudes" crap and stuff it. I hate Republicans and radical right Christians, but I love my country.

[Irreverend IX]

118. Ruthless politics doesn't mean tossing the Constitution.

What's happening in these churches has been happening for hundreds of years. Before the right-wing evangelical movement churches were key backers of civil rights, labor rights, abolition, and many other progressive causes. Do you think Martin Luther King might have had some influence over how his congregation voted? The current right-wing evangelical activity falls into a rather gray area of constitutional law. Up to now many liberals' response to this has been to cry foul and say that it's unconstitutional. This basically puts us in the role of the whiny kid who runs and tells the teacher whenever a fight breaks out on the playground. I think we all encountered that kid once or twice growing up, and no one ever liked him. This is true _regardless_ of whether Republican campaign activity in churches is truly unconstitutional--this is an area of human psychology into which right and wrong do not enter. So the proper response to this--the response that will win us the respect of the voters--is not to try and stop the Republicans from their religious grassroots work, but to beat them at their own game.

[trotsky]

120. Sorry, but your idea of ruthless politics does.

Count me out.

[1932]

71. I'm losing track of your argument. You don't think that churches should

be involved in politics because corporations shouldn't have constitutional rights that allow them to talk about politics.

But when I ask you to cite well-established laws, you cite the tax code (which doesn't prevent churches from doing that), and you cite "churches" (which isn't a law) and "freedom of speech" which, I think, one would interpret as allowing people the freedom to speak about religion.

I am confused.

[Sapphire Blue]

41. FYI - Sojourners is not a church

SOJOURNERS faith, politics, culture

Mission

Our mission is to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.

In response to this call, we offer a vision for faith in public life by:

publishing Sojourners magazine, SojoMail and other resources that address issues of faith, politics, and culture from a biblical perspective;
preaching, teaching, organizing, and public witness;
nurturing community by bringing together people from the various traditions and streams of the church;
hosting an annual program of voluntary service for education, ministry, and discipleship.

In our lives and in our work, we seek to be guided by the biblical principles of justice, mercy, and humility.

More @ http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.home

[trotsky]

43. That's fine, but using things like voter guides in a church

is what's wrong.

From the way I've been treated in this thread, I'm beginning to be sorry that it's so important to me. Obviously as a non-believer I'm supposed to be overjoyed that the liberal believers are now going to use the same illegal or at least Constitutionally-questionable tactics used by the right wing.

[Sapphire Blue]

44. What the IRS says on this:

Voter Education, Voter Registration and Get Out the Vote Drives

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to conduct certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) if they are carried out in a non-partisan manner. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process through voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities conducted in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates is prohibited.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html

The key is to carry out/conduct activities in a non-partisan manner. This needs to be fully enforced. No more Falwells, Robertsons, Ratzingers, or, for that matter, Wallises, telling the people how to vote.

[trotsky]

46. Non-partisan is indeed the key.

No more Falwells, Robertsons, Ratzingers, or, for that matter, Wallises, telling the people how to vote.

Exactly my point. Just because the right wing has been doing it doesn't make it OK for us to do.

[Sapphire Blue]

47. Wallis in not exactly partisan, as you noted upthread in post #2, and...

... as this article points out...

God is Not a Republican or Democrat

Jim Wallis is an evangelical Christian who confuses the religious right, who often stereotype Christians as staunch Republicans.

And despite being described by Republican pundits as leader of the faith-based left, Wallis irritates some Democratic Party loyalists.

To make matters more perplexing for those who prefer neat political categories, Wallis asserts “Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.”

(snip)

Former Nixon cohort, now Christian leader Chuck Colson mischaracterized him when he wrote that Wallis thinks “the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives.” Not so, replied Wallis in an open letter this week to Colson “I challenge Democrats on abortion, and I challenge Republicans on war and poverty.”

Continued @ http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/JimWallis1.htm

[trotsky]

48. I really don't think that matters in this case.

As noted in my post #2, I have two problems will Wallis - A) Advocating for more religious interference in government, and B) Not always being on our side. A) is because I oppose any left-wing use of churches for political purposes, B) is why I don't trust Wallis even apart from the church-state separation issues.

Falwell, Colson, Robertson also have a few differences (granted, very few, but it's happened) with the Republican party - does that make THEM non-partisan?

[Sapphire Blue]

49. IMO, this is non-partisan...

Excerpt from the VGP Action Guide for the 2006 Elections, which you can download @ http://sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=VGP_resources...

Principles and policies for Christian voters.

“Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the
poor and needy.” —Proverbs 31: 9

Christians have a moral and civic
responsibility to participate in the
political life of society. We must, however,
remember that God is not a
Republican or a Democrat, and prayerfully measure
the policies of all candidates against a range of
Christian ethics and values. Our broad set of
Christian values should inform our political decisions.
While we must be careful about translating
scripture directly into positions on public policy, the
following principles and policies provide a critical
framework to shape our perspective on public policy
and political leadership. We encourage you to use
this guide to educate yourself, then find out the positions
and priorities that candidates have taken on
these issues. You can write letters to candidates or to
your local newspaper, call radio talk shows, and ask
questions of candidates directly at forums or town
hall meetings. Think and pray about whom you
would entrust with the responsibility to lead your
community, state, and nation. While the list of issues
and things to do in this guide is by no means exhaustive,
we pray that it will provide a moral compass to
inform prudential political judgments.

Falwell, Robertson, et al, are blatantly partisan.

[trotsky]

53. Seems to be, but is that what Wallis and others want to distribute?

The original article does not say, so we just don't know.

[Sapphire Blue]

56. That is directly from what they're distributing.

Downloadable @ http://sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=VGP_resources

(On edit: The excerpt in post # 49 is on page 14 of the 'Action Guide')

[Sapphire Blue]

51. PS - you're confusing me

It seems like you expect Wallis to be non-partisan, and, at the same time, to be "on our side". How does that work?

[trotsky]

52. I'm giving two reasons why I don't trust him.

1) He wants to use churches for political purposes.

2) He has his own agenda.

This is not at all about what I "expect" him to be, it's what he is. I would oppose his use of churches even if he agreed with me on every single issue.

[Sapphire Blue]

54. I think that he wants to use churches to spread the gospel.

Much of the gospel pertains to justice. Should he be quiet because he is a Christian?

Should the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have been quiet because he was a Christian?

Should I be quiet because I'm a Christian?

Should you be quiet because you're not a Christian?

Let all of our voices be heard!

[trotsky]

55. Why turn this around into an accusation of censorship?

Fuck it, I give up. I express my strong concern about using churches to engage in political activities, and it always comes back to me supposedly wanting to censor all Christians. :eyes:

[Sapphire Blue]

58. That's not what I meant, and I'm sorry that it sounded that way.

I don't think that you want to censor all Christians or anyone else. (There's a few that I might like to muzzle, though.)

trotsky, I share your concern regarding using churches for political purposes. I just don't agree that Wallis is doing this; he is non-partisan. He is not out campaigning for any political party's candidates; he is challenging Christians, both right & left, to apply the gospels to our lives. And he is not damning anyone to hell if they don't vote a certain way... nor is he condemning anyone of other faiths or non-believers.

[Perky]

66. Maybe there is a reason for that Trotsky

If you use incendiary language and stereotype and have a predisposition against people of faith speaking out bases on their beliefs anyway how would you expect us to respond. It really does come across as you wanting us to sit on the sidelines ans keep our mouths shut.


Please note that I am not the least bit angry as I write this. I am just simply saying that ypu seem to proceed from the position that no CHristian can ever be trusted. I suspect that is because of you watching the way the fundies operate, but we really are not all alike.

[trotsky]

72. Totally disagree with your inaccurate portrayal.

But hey, you're entitled to judge me however you want.

(You're completely wrong, by the way, that I don't feel any Christian can be trusted. But I'm sure you know better than I do what I think - Christians like YOU usually claim to.)

On edit: Could you please point out exactly which words I have used in this thread that you consider "incendiary," or examples of stereotyping, or anything you accuse me of? Thanks much!

[Perky]

77. Lets be civil at least

My post was not suggesting i the last that you wer not entitled to your opinion. I was merely suggesting that you want believers to not avail themselves od their constitutional right of free speech when it come to political discours right or left.

These are your words not mine

Sort of like "Oh well, people are gonna try to use their religion to take over goverment no matter what, so what's the use in opposing it?"

Relgious political opinions are based on how one interprets the will of a supreme being. There is no objective way to say who has determined that will correctly, and there never will be. Thus it really should not have a role in deciding public policy.

I think blurring the line between church and state is evil, but it's readily apparently a lot of Christians (including liberal ones) don't agree.
I just hope the rights of non-believers and non-Christians don't get trampled in the process.

But when you figure out how to convince someone else that they're wrong about what their god thinks, let me know.

Aaaieee! That's what I'm talking about. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't want the left wing running roughshod over the Constitution any more than I wanted the right wing doing it.

And let me just put this out there: telling "members of the general polity" what they should believe is not that far from telling members of a congregation how to vote. In both cases, you're backing it up with what YOU think a supreme being wants.
Church-state separation is pretty high on my list. Not a big fan of this crap, whether the right or left is doing it


---
You seem to suggest repeatedly that Christian trying to influence oublic policy is unconstitutional (( I would suggest you read the FIrst Amendment). YOu seem perfectly willing to leave public policy to secularist and athiests but don't want people of faith at the table. Is is because our view is less relvant or because you simply do not trust us?

The price of Democracy is that everybody get a seat at the table. To disallow people of faith a seat at the table is not only undemocratic, its fascist.

[trotsky]

79. Yes, let's be civil. Why don't you start with an apology?

Not one of those quotes is "incendiary" or making use of stereotypes.

I think you owe me an apology for your decidedly un-civil accusations.

[Perky]

84. oh cmon

Do you deny that you do not want Chsistian having an active voice in public policy matters?

You think blurring the line between church and state is evil,
You don't want the left wing running roughshod over the Constitution any more than the right wing doing it.

You are making a huge leap in logic that that liberal evangelical tactices are the same as those on the right.

You are accusring lefty christinchian of wanting to run roughshod over your right. What about our rights to speak our mind basd on our belief systems.

The constitution grants me the right of Free Speech and relgion. It also says that the state shall make no law effecting religion. It is silent on the issue of religious influence on the state.

You're right are the same as mine. you are free to criticize the church in anyway you feel appropriate. I was just suggesting in my initial response to your email that the reason people think you are trying to sensor them is what what you are saying.

[trotsky]

86. No civility then, eh, Perky?

Do you deny that you do not want Chsistian having an active voice in public policy matters?

Yes, I absolutely and categorically deny it. YOU'RE WRONG.

You are making a huge leap in logic that that liberal evangelical tactices are the same as those on the right.

Voter guides are different for us than they are for them? A preacher saying "Vote for Kerry" from the pulpit is different than one saying "Vote for Bush"? Please explain.

What about our rights to speak our mind basd on our belief systems.

Didn't say anything about that - that's your distortion and misrepresentation of what I've said. I don't want the left wing using churches for political purposes any more than I want the right wing doing it. That says NOTHING about the right of Christians to speak their minds, and you know it.

I repeat: your quotes from me did not show ANY "incendiary" speech or examples of stereotyping.

Please do the "Christian" thing and APOLOGIZE for your false accusations. Show me what a good Christian can be like, instead of just unleashing further attacks.

[Perky]

87. I am more than willing to apologize if I have incorrectly

copied these posts of yours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Relgious political opinions are based on how one interprets the will of a supreme being. There is no objective way to say who has determined that will correctly, and there never will be. Thus it really should not have a role in deciding public policy."

"I think blurring the line between church and state is evil, but it's readily apparently a lot of Christians (including liberal ones) don't agree.
I just hope the rights of non-believers and non-Christians don't get trampled in the process."

But when you figure out how to convince someone else that they're wrong about what their god thinks, let me know.

Aaaieee! That's what I'm talking about. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't want the left wing running roughshod over the Constitution any more than I wanted the right wing doing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is voicing one's opinion on public policy from a liberal christian perspective running roughshod over the Constitution???? How are the rights of non-believers and non-Christians being trampled on? How does the collective expressed political view of Christians blur the line between Church and state.

Your language seems to suggest that you think Liberal evangelicals are as dominionist as the rightwing. You seem to suggest that our actions to be involved are somehow evil. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but calling our actions evil is incendiary, not supported by any fact, and grossly stereotypical.

[trotsky]

88. And you still have yet to show how any of those are

"incendiary" OR show stereotyping. Repeatedly posting them doesn't do it.

Apologize, Perky. It won't kill you, and it might just go a long way toward making peace.

[Perky]

91. Implying that christian involvemnet in politics is evil is incendiary

in my book. Because you are basically saying that my family's involvement is social justice and civil rights going back to the sixties which included marches on DC and voter registration efforts in the south; which involved spending a year building houses for the poor with Habitat and lobbying members of congress and county commissioners; Which involved protesting our involvement in Central America and getting arrested in Groton for protesting about naming a trident sub the USS Corpus Christi.

How else am I to interpret a view that these activities apparently blur the lines that you establish and are thus evil solely because it emanated out of my belief in Jesus Christ?

[trotsky]

92. Oh, so it's not what I *said*, it's what you are reading INTO what I said.

To wit, I said:

I think blurring the line between church and state is evil

But somehow you think this means I think any and all "Christian involvement in politics" is evil.

Well, you're wrong. Those statements are NOT equivalent, nor do I believe the latter.

Still waiting for that apology, though. Show me what "good" Christians act like, Perky.

[Perky]

93. It is incendiary Trotsky

AT any rate. Since it apparently not in tepreted correctly by me I am actually very sorry for making a false accusation..

So let me ask you where do you draw the line? My voter registration efforts emanate out of a desire to see the poor enfanchised so that inner city schoold can be improved, but I am spurred to social and political activism because of my faith.

I don't tell people how they should vote. I don't think that is the Church's role. As an individual I am certainly entitled to my opinion. but what if I started a Christians for Hilary website and did meet-ups would pamphleted my church community espousing the benefits of an HRC presidency under my Vhristians for Hilary banner...is that crossing the line?

[trotsky]

94. Thank you for your apology, Perky.

Even though it's kind of back-handed, with you STILL insisting the statement was something it wasn't. But I guess that's the best I'll get.

I draw the line right where you do, if you don't mind me moving your sentences together:

I don't think that (it) is the Church's role (to) tell people how they should vote

Distributing voter guides as part of church operations, that begins to tell people how they should vote. That's beginning to blur the line, don't you think?

[Perky]

95. I think it is inappropriate for a church to do that

but I think it is inappropriate because Churches ought to be accomodating of a variety of views for internal ecclesiatical and external evangelical reasons. I don't think there is a Constitutional issue involved.

A Church or group of churches has a Constitutional right to express its view on candidates. I think it is stupid to do so because it undercuts the ability to attract new believers which is the reason the Church is supposed to exist in the first place. But there is no prohibition in the constitution in letter or spirit.

[trotsky]

96. You're beginning to worry me.

But there is no prohibition in the constitution in letter or spirit.

Letter, certainly not. There's also no mention of the right to privacy in the Constitution, either. But spirit? Absolutely for both - as can be seen in the other writings of the Constitution's writers as well as Supreme Court cases that have been decided over the past couple of centuries.

You're using some of the same terminology and reasoning that the right wing does when they argue that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Is that what you're saying, too?

[Perky]

97. My Gosh no.

I think there is a very clear mandate that the state can not set up a relgion or favor a religion Or ultimately give money to a religion, the establishment clause was meant to protect the church from state sanction or interference). But it also says there is a basic right of Freedom of Religion and of speech.

And in that respect I think that a Church is within its rights to say what it wants to (not that is should)

[trotsky]

98. It sounds like you view it as more of a "one-way" wall, then.

Government has to leave churches alone (allowing them to discriminate, maybe?), but churches are free to horn in on governmental functions and influence governmental policy?

Another frighteningly common meme among the right-wing fundies. How does your position differ from theirs? Do you support Bush's faith-based initiatives?

[Perky]

99. Actually no I don't

because I think it is a way for the GOP to solidify its religious base.

I understand your point. but I think it is a one-way wall from a strict constructionist view. The people have the right to assemble (in an grouping they want,secular or not) to petition for redress of grievance (or lobby) anyway they want. They have the right to free speech and they have the right to freely exercise their religion.

You and I are probably eqally concerned about the fundies though from different perspectives. You don't like thier power and I don't like that they have traded in the power of the Gospel message for the ballot box and a pharasaical view of scripture.

I think where we differ is that you want to relegate all religious folks to the sidelines based in large measure on what you have seen the fundies do. But you have to consider content and context as well.

I am politcally active because of my faith in Christ and because I want the fundies to remember why they are here. They have pushed people away from the Gospel message by being mean-spirited and ugly and political. Right wing politics has never saved a single soul.

Do I wish they would shut up and sit down. Of course. But to me that is a theological and ecclesiastical issue to confront them on and not a constitutional one.

[trotsky]

104. Absolutely wrong.

I think where we differ is that you want to relegate all religious folks to the sidelines

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you you're wrong. Quit making up crap about what I think, won't you please?

Right wing politics has never saved a single soul.

Of course the right wingers will swear the opposite of you, and since neither of you can produce god to settle the debate once and for all, there will never be resolution to this. Which is why that kind of religious posturing and judgmentalism has no place in politics.

[Perky]

106. Actually the argument stops them dead in their tracks

Lure a Christo Fascist into a discussion and they just walk away in silence when you tell them that what they are doing is all about politcal power and cultural relvance and not aout Jesus.


At any rate. I am sorry I offended you again by presupposing your view. SO what is your view?

[trotsky]

109. Right.

Which is why the religious right continues to be one of the most powerful forces in right-wing politics. Gosh, it's so simple, why haven't you personally defeated them yet? Just walk up and tell them what you just said. Easy as that.

Sorry Perky, that has not been my experience nor do I think that will ever work. They'll just tell you the same thing, and be equally justified, because neither of you can say with absolute certainty what your god wants. (And if you can, then you're a dangerous religious fanatic.)

I've made my view clear in the posts above. I'm not going to go through it again.

[Perky]

112. I do precisely all that time

And I have not met one yet who disagreed with me. And i am talking about about probably fifty people in three states I have lived in the last 8 years.

Actually I don't think you have been clear at all...but whatever.

[trotsky]

113. Oh, so all those people instantly saw the error of their ways

and became Democrats? Stopped supporting their conservative churches? Perky, I know you're not that naïve.

And I've been at least as clear as you have. There's a big, big difference between someone whose personal politics are grounded in their faith, and someone using their faith to gain political power. Tell me you at least understand that difference.

[Perky]

67. Self delete (dupe)

[Perky]

68. Self delete (dupe)

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. Yes, MLK was outspoken about religion.

1. He was outspoken about separation of church and state because he didn't want religion to be used as a tool of state repression, which is the same attitude many people in the early church took.

2. He was outspoken about people who already claimed to be Christian should follow the tenets of their faith and act accordingly. He never told people who to vote for; hell, he told them to throw a wrench in the system, which was after all rapidly evolving into a war machine centered around securing access to steel, oil and asphalt.

The day "left wing" religious leaders tell congregants who to vote for is the day they've sold out, precisely because you shouldn't trust any politician. Government has always been inherently corrupt, at least, in some Christian tradition. The best folks can do is try to persuade other "Christians" to commit themselves to social justice and let the attendant pressure on government work its way upwards. Appealing directly to the "Christian piety" of people at the top of the ladder, will not work. Politicians are users, and will manipulate religion (or anything else, any ideology) to acquire more power.

[Sapphire Blue]

60. In MLK's own words (also posted upthread):

"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

[1932]

123. Excellent quote.

[SidDithers]

69. You're not alone, trotsky...

I feel the same way.



Sid

[fishwax]

90. I think you need both

Having left-of-center religious voices does not amount to entangling government with religion. (Which is part of why his comment that they aren't part of the democratic party is a good one.) Rather, it gives religious voters--who will continue to exist and continue to vote whether groups like this exist or not--an alternate view on how religious/moral convictions intersect with the political decisions they make.

Secularism is a good idea, and a must for government, but that doesn't mean that those represented by and in charge of electing the government can or will (or even should) vote without considering their own moral convictions, which for many voters will continue to be influenced by religious considerations. If we continue to cede that debate to the right-wing blowhards, then the result will be a government that is much less secular. :scared:

[ulysses]

9. fair enough, but we've heard a lot about "why don't liberal Christians

speak up more often, if Christianity itself isn't so horrible?" I don't want religious entanglement with government either, but people being people, it's not all that cut and dried.

Careful what you wish for, I guess.

[trotsky]

11. The use of the right wing's tactics is what bothers me.

Voter guides?

Sure, speak up and take your religion back, but let's not stomp all over church-state separation in the process.

[ulysses]

12. do voter guides breach the wall?

Maybe more to the point - do they breach it any more than it's always been breached?

I guess that suggesting to members of a particular congregation (who can always go to another place of worship) that they should vote in a certain way doesn't bother me nearly as much as telling the members of the general polity that they should believe in a certain way. It's not the same kind of beast.

[trotsky]

13. "do they breach it any more than it's always been breached?"

Aaaieee! That's what I'm talking about. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't want the left wing running roughshod over the Constitution any more than I wanted the right wing doing it.

And let me just put this out there: telling "members of the general polity" what they should believe is not that far from telling members of a congregation how to vote. In both cases, you're backing it up with what YOU think a supreme being wants.

[ulysses]

14. running roughshod

I don't want the left wing running roughshod over the Constitution any more than I wanted the right wing doing it.

Neither do I. Fact is, though, that unless you erase religion or ban people of faith from public life, there is no perfect separation of church and state. Imperfect, yes. But not perfect.

And let me just put this out there: telling "members of the general polity" what they should believe is not that far from telling members of a congregation how to vote. In both cases, you're backing it up with what YOU think a supreme being wants.

And in a place of worship, that's fine. In Congress, it's not.

[trotsky]

15. Sorry.

Church-state separation is pretty high on my list. Not a big fan of this crap, whether the right or left is doing it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Hmm.. on second thought, don't churches, social clubs, "nonpartisan"

issue action groups and other free assemblies, have the right to preach to each other on who to vote for?? Maybe not explicitly, but...

We may not like it when Dominionists do it, but that's only because their beliefs are so creepy.

I think libearls have been going at this all wrong, come to think of it: Religious liberals have a right to go into the same realm (sermons, voter guides) and challenge what these other pastors are saying on the basis that their motives are evil.

Evil is something atheists and Christians can agree on, right?

[trotsky]

28. There's a key difference.

Relgious political opinions are based on how one interprets the will of a supreme being. There is no objective way to say who has determined that will correctly, and there never will be. Thus it really should not have a role in deciding public policy.

I think blurring the line between church and state is evil, but it's readily apparently a lot of Christians (including liberal ones) don't agree.

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. If different churches in the same denomination say different things

about politics, there's not too much problem.

It is the churches that are relatively unified on political/economic issues that should be circumspect about speaking out, because that leads to sectarianism.

People who are part of liberal religious denominations that have held their tongues for years on big issues like war and peace should at least have the opportunity to point out that double standard when dealing with groups like the Southern Baptist Coalition (a state-sponsored product of the Confederacy IMO.)

I don't think there's a risk of liberal pastors saying separation of church and state is no longer needed because their attendance levels are up. My understanding is that separation of church and state is a core tenet of most mainstream churches in the US, they can cite religious and practical justification for upholding the Constitution and not changing it in that regard.

That being said, I'm a bit of a left-libertarian who happens to be religious, so I see these issues differently...

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Besides, my experience is in a church that spent 100% of its time

Fighting City Hall, yuppies, warmongers in general, and defending the rights of the homeless. It is possible to use religion for nonpartisan issue advocacy. In fact that is how Christianity should be used.

[trotsky]

35. We are simply going to disagree, then.

I just hope the rights of non-believers and non-Christians don't get trampled in the process.

But when you figure out how to convince someone else that they're wrong about what their god thinks, let me know.

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. Fair enough. I'm waiting for most of the non-church liberals to wake up

And do something about the continued war on the poor and ethnic cleansing of our inner cities. I'll be happy to notify when the affluent, secular liberals of my town (many of whom are my friends, hell, Trotsky's family used to live in the area) start banging on church doors and institution doors and criticizing them for their lack of commitment to social justice, instead of simply calling for churches (and their attendant hospitals, etc. which mostly serve the poor) to be torn down and replaced by luxury "mixed-income" housing for the "creative class". Of course, church liberals are no better off, these days: many churches that used to concentrate on social justice have been taken over by affluent "liberals" who don't take religion (or politics) seriously in public or private life.

[ulysses]

74. well sure.

Relgious political opinions are based on how one interprets the will of a supreme being. There is no objective way to say who has determined that will correctly, and there never will be.

Sure, but how many decisions that people make in life are based on any kind of objective truth? People who make decisions on their interpretation of their faith are going to vote based on same - there is no way to stop that unless you disenfranchise the faithful somehow.

Thus it really should not have a role in deciding public policy.

Again, unless you disenfranchise the faithful...

I think blurring the line between church and state is evil, but it's readily apparently a lot of Christians (including liberal ones) don't agree.

For my part as a liberal agnostic, it's just a matter of accepting that politics is a human endeavor, and not subject to strict lines of demarcation.

[trotsky]

75. Your attitude strikes me as somewhat defeatist.

Sort of like "Oh well, people are gonna try to use their religion to take over goverment no matter what, so what's the use in opposing it?"

For the record, I don't think you have to "disenfranchise the faithful" to keep religion from having a role in deciding public policy. Personally deciding who to vote for, or (if you're an elected representative) which bills to vote for, is always going to be a decision that is going to involve religion for a religious believer, and there is no way in hell anyone should take what I'm saying as some kind of prohibition against that.

But of course people do, because it's much easier to attack that strawman evil atheist than it is to confront the real problems of religion and politics.

[ulysses]

76. no - it's actually my take on being humanist.

Sort of like "Oh well, people are gonna try to use their religion to take over goverment no matter what, so what's the use in opposing it?"

More like, "Faith is an integral part of how many people view themselves, and as long as it's doing no one any harm, I have no reason to oppose it." Maybe that's not part of the official definition of "humanist", but it's what I mean by it. I don't see a church-distributed voter guide as an attempt to take over the government through religion.

For the record, I don't think you have to "disenfranchise the faithful" to keep religion from having a role in deciding public policy. Personally deciding who to vote for, or (if you're an elected representative) which bills to vote for, is always going to be a decision that is going to involve religion for a religious believer, and there is no way in hell anyone should take what I'm saying as some kind of prohibition against that.

I wasn't trying to attack you, but I guess I'm not sure what it is that you want to have happen in this regard.

[trotsky]

81. "as long as it's doing no one any harm"

You and I have different ideas of harm, I guess.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Well, I agree with that. n/t

[Ex Lion Tamer]

16. I subscribe to Sojourners, and it's a great magazine.

It does NOT advocate replacing right-wing Christian dominance with left-wing Christian dominance. It is a strong proponent of the separation of Church and state.

But that does not mean that faith has no place in public dialogue.

[Cha]

24. And the Left wing Christians

believe like Jesus did.. in Peace. So I don't think it's wrong to get their voices in government to counteract the devil worshippers.

[Zhade]

101. But here's the problem - no Christian KNOWS this to be true.

No one, and I mean no one, knows for a fact that this alleged Jesus guy believed as you claim. You believe he did, but between the lack of evidence outside the bible and the fact that that bible has been hacked and rewritten dozens of times, you can't possibly know. (That's why it's called faith, right?)

That's the problem trotsky has been attempting to discuss, in between bullshit lies about what he's actually saying and false whining about him wanting to ban believers from participating in politics (another lie, it's not close to what he said at all): since no organized faith knows for certain what their alleged supreme being actually feels/felt or believes/believed about an issue, it's dangerous to allow them to engage in politics using those unsupported feelings and beliefs as justification for support of policies, no matter how wonderful those policies might be.

Like it or not, there IS a separation of church and state in this country, and organized religious groups are not allowed to advocate in partisan politics and retain their tax-exempt status.

And when you get a group with enough suckers to feed it money - like the 700 Club - they ditch the tax exemption and go for an all-out assault on secular politics, and wind up doing things like encouraging the assassination of world leaders.

[Sapphire Blue]

103. Please see post 44 re IRS & 49 re the actual voter guide being distributed

It is not partisan.

[trotsky]

114. Actually SB, the original article didn't say anything about which guide.

You found an example of a Sojourner voter guide, but there is nothing in the original news item to suggest that's actually the one. We don't know.

[Sapphire Blue]

115. Perhaps you should take that up w/the article's author, though it's not...

... very difficult to find the referenced voter's guide.

Red Letter Christians is a project of Sojourners/Call to Renewal.

Red Letter Christians: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.redletterchristians

Sojourners: http://www.sojo.net/

Call to Renewal: http://www.calltorenewal.com/

Voter's Guide: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=VGP_resources (btw, it's not "an example"; it is the voter's guide being distributed.)

[trotsky]

116. Um...

there's nothing to take up with the author. I'm just noting that you're making an unsupported conclusion, that's all.

[Sapphire Blue]

117. Since the specific information wasn't provided by the author...

... that would be something to take up with him.

My conclusion is supported by facts provided by Jim Wallis/Red Letter Christians/Sojourners/Call to Renewal... subjects of the referenced article.

[trotsky]

121. You're making an assumption, not a conclusion.

Sorry, but that's the plain truth here.

[Sapphire Blue]

124. Have you even gone to any of the links I've posted, or is the OP article..

... the only thing that you consider to be valid?

Do you ever go beyond an article to find further information which may not have been included in the article? If something doesn't exist in the actual article, does it not then exist at all?

trotsky, I am a Sojourners subscriber, so I really do know what I'm talking about. You can accept that or not, and you can believe whatever you want to be true.

[trotsky]

126. I am not doubting your knowledge of Sojourners one bit.

And it's entirely likely that the guides you referenced are the ones that were going to be distributed.

But the article does not say that. You are assuming, not concluding.

I'm confused as to why this became such an issue for you.

[Sapphire Blue]

127. "But the article does not say that." Is the article the truth, the whole..

... truth, and nothing but the truth?

Did the author of the article provide complete details of everything mentioned in the article? Is everything outside of the article subject to skepticism even if it's the actual source of the article?

You've more than once suggested that the voter guide links that I provided may or may not be the same voter guides mentioned in the article, since the author did not provide you w/this exact information. These are the actual voter guides, yet you say that I'm assuming.

trotsky, believe or disbelieve whatever you want, but please don't suggest that I am presenting information that may or may not be true. The truth is most certainly an issue for me. If you're confused about that, I really don't know what more to say.

Hope we meet again under friendlier circumstances!

[trotsky]

129. I think your anger is unjustified.

I am not in any way saying that your information is false, only that we cannot know from the content of the original article that what you say is true. There is a difference, and if you don't understand it, *I* really don't know what more to say.

[Bridget Burke]

61. Some here will think you disqualified to speak....

Because you actually know something about the subject!

Jim Wallis appeared on The Daily Show to promote his book. www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=special.display&item=050111_godspolitics

Jon & he got along well.

[sweetheart]

17. true to his clan

Liberty and Freedom from fear and oppression, wallace are the outsiders,
the uncounted masses, interesting entymology...

http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans/blclanwallace.htm

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. McCuallogh! McCuallogh!! ;-)

--Leo (direct descendant of Robert the Bruce, according to family legend)

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. I recently saw a British Docu' on PBS (Roots of Faith?)

By a reporter basically trying to figure out "what had happened" insofar as most churches in Britain preached tolerance, embraced the poor and poverty on the part of clerics, while American churches had embraced the "business model" of "megachurches" and "Jesus died so we could become rich!" It was not so much scary as sad.

If anyone's wondering why Americans have gotten so conservative, look no further than the (IMHO driven by racist and anti-union campaigns in rural areas) movement of evangelical, charismatic churches from the far left (in 1900) into the far right today, joining the churches that were always ultraconservatiuve (fundamentalists and dominionists and Calvinists) largely driven by fear of "communism", "hippies" and in many cases, fear of blacks. (And Black evangelicals did the same, turned inwards and became economically conservative...) If Lenin hadnt been an atheist, 20th century history would have been different. (this is not a slight on atheism, just a point of reference which was used to bludgeon evangelical leftists in places like Appalachia.)

[Bill McBlueState]

33. i'm wary of this group

I'm all for religious leaders speaking up about the ethics of war. But it's very easy to cross the line from "my religious beliefs motivate my position" to "I think the invisible man in the sky wants everyone else to take this position, too." The first arises from freedom of religion; the second is an attack on the secular society guaranteed by the Constitution.

And more specifically, "Wallis said Christian conservatives have limited the discussion to abortion and same-sex marriage, two fears that mobilized voters in 2004, and that voters care about more than two the issues." Nowhere in the article do we discover whether Wallis is on our side with regard to reproductive choice or marriage equality.

[Perky]

45. Is it not ok to be personally or morally opposed to abortion

and still take the position that we have free will and that such a decision is between a woman and her doctor?

I think the CHurch has the right to oppose abortion and speak out against it. but when they seek to push thier prpspective on the masses it crosses a line.

[Zhade]

102. Of course it's okay. Please show where Bill said otherwise.

(You can't. He didn't. So please stop mischaracterizing others' positions. Thank you.)

[Crowdance]

62. Wallis is on the record as being opposed to abortion

In 1996 he signed "A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern" http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/americaweseek.html.
The statement claims there is no right to abortion, and calls for legal and social changes to end it. He shares that signature space with the great humanitarians Gary Bauer, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, William Kristol and Ralph Reed, among others.



Here's a good exploration that tries to piece together Wallis' closely-held views on a woman's right to choose, including sharp analysis by Frances Kissling :
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/11/33033/1340

[trotsky]

63. Excellent article.

Thanks for the link.

A quote in the article from Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice:

Wallis' views are hard to pin down. Attempts by interviewers to get Wallis to go beyond his well-rehearsed and often-repeated sound bites on the issue are met with politician-like repetitions of homespun theology.
...
In his attempts to seek "common ground" with others, Wallis focuses on the "too many abortions" argument. But his common ground is very shaky. It does not, for example, include contraception. Wallis has said he is in favor of contraception, but after a fairly extensive review of his writing and transcripts of speeches and sermons, I can find no reference to contraception as a common-ground means of reducing abortion rates.

Pretty much what I was afraid of.

[Crowdance]

65. I found it thoughtfully prepared, too. n/t

[Pastiche423]

50. Separation of Church and State

Says it all!

Keep the religious talk in the churches, not in politics!

[JerseygirlCT]

82. Forgive me, but that response shows you do not

understand the role that religion plays in people's lives.

We can and should keep churches out of government and the reverse. But individuals will always be guided by their own morals -- and for many Americans, those beliefs are shaped by their religion. Ignoring that only cedes the ground to the right-wing nuts.

As others have pointed out, religious leaders have played positive roles in the shaping of our country -- the fight for the end of slavery and for civil rights comes to mind.

It's not smart to write off all religious voices.

[Sugarcoated]

125. Extreme views a la fundie-athiests likeTrotsky

will hurt, and have hurt the Democratic party. And side tracking DU'ers with hostile and continuous arguing is gratuitous and flame bait. Some will try to justify it, but trying to "discuss" with extreme one-issue people is pointless, it leads nowhere.

[LeftishBrit]

89. Speaking as an atheist...

I applaud this effort. Whatever one's religious views (or lack of them) the Bible does not say that Jesus was a Republican, and the attempts of the Christian Right to hijack religion to keep the right-wingers in power are disgusting.

Although some people have attempted to use religion in this way in the UK, they are far fewer here. Indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury was strongly against the war (as was the late Pope).

[Greyhound]

128. Religious followers involved in politics, regardless of which "side" they

are on, make me nervous.

From their assumptive claim of "morality", to directing votes from the pulpit, is antithetical to our ideals and should be grounds to negate their tax-exempt status, IMO.

BTW; According to the greyhound pack, religion and faith have little, if anything, to do with one another.