I'm going to start off with an introduction from one of my recommended diaries,
Confessions of a Dittohead: The Weak Faith of the Religious Right
Mom always said you shouldn't discuss politics or religion in polite company. While I've enjoyed the polite company I've found so far here at DailyKos, I'm moved to write about the 10 Commandments, and what I see as the motivations of the Religious Right.
Since our discussion earlier today went so well , I thought I would continue our winning streak of mixing religion and politics with the L.A. Times article, Gospel for Both Sides of the Aisle : The evangelism of the Rev. Jim Wallis defies stereotypes: He preaches a conservative morality but condemns 'pro-rich, pro-war' views.
I have read Jim's book and put together a very short type and paste diary with what I thought was the intriguing concept,
Changing the wind.
Many of us believe that by replacing one wet-fingered politician with another we can change our society. But it never really works, and when it doesn't we get disillusioned. . . . You change a society by changing the wind. Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes.
I think changing the wind is exactly what we want to accomplish in both the blue and the red states. Before we go any further, I would like to ask that the red staters and the DLCers refrain from harshing on my mellow, the way they were doing earlier today.
I am a simple farm boy from Des Moines, Iowa who moved to California to avoid the peculiar weather pheomenon they call "winter." I live in Orange County, CA, which is hardly a hotbed of librul activism.
There is no reason to accuse me of being a dirty rotten librul with "Far Far left" positions. I defended Tim Roemer during the DNC Chair battle for his pro-life position on abortion. There are very difficult moral questions that individuals can only answer for themselves, according to their own conscience. I do not and will not attempt to impose my personal beliefs on anyone else on those types of issues.
I will absolutely question the right and authority of anybody else to impose their beliefs on me.
Now, let's continue the conversation. A little about Jim Wallis:
On a recent rainy night, an evangelical Christian preacher held 900 people spellbound at a Pasadena church. He roared about evil and sexual morality. He quoted Jesus and the Hebrew prophets. He shared his story of conversion, recalling the fire-and-brimstone minister who first drew him to Christ.
But the Rev. Jim Wallis, 56, saved most of his thunder for matters not typically found in evangelical Christian sermons: poverty, environmental protection and peacemaking. To Wallis, such issues are dominant biblical mandates that deserve as much attention as abortion, gay marriage and other hot-button issues.
As far as I can tell, that is a very standard biblical interpretation. Rev. Land and Rev. Falwell may try to dispute Jim on this point. I have seen them attempt to do so. It is a losing proposition.
"What's at stake is the meaning of being evangelical," Wallis told the crowd at First Congregational Church. "The monologue of the religious right is over, and a new dialogue has begun!"
I believe that the Democratic party can and must participate in that new dialogue.
Urging common ground, he has chided the right for views that promote "pro-rich, pro-war and pro-American" policies and the left for bowing to "secular fundamentalists" who dismiss the public import of faith. In the past, his views had gained a loyal but limited following, along with criticism. But intensified national debate over faith and politics since the November election has propelled Wallis to the forefront as a possible bridge between left and right.
I linked to some of that criticism earlier today.
U.S. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) called Wallis a "breath of fresh air" for arguing for progressive policies with the language of morality. Both Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) credit Wallis with helping them shape ideas about how to talk about values, aides say.
In a March 11 Senate floor speech, Reid said the president's budget was ignoring the Gospel story of the rich man who suffered in hell for failing to help the diseased beggar Lazarus. Using one of Wallis' trademark ideas, Reid vowed to "turn this budget into a moral document.... "
How we spend our money and on whom is absolutely a moral question. It is silly for anyone to dispute that. How that moral question is framed and how different people and groups choose to inform their decision is a different question.
"There is great concern about the differences between red and blue," she said, referring to Republican and Democratic states. "Jim Wallis, in a way, speaks purple."
It wouldn't hurt any of us to try speaking a little purple.
Wallis said he aims to reach all sides and promote practical solutions. On abortion, for instance, he argues that adoption reform or more financial and emotional safety nets for pregnant women could reduce abortions more significantly than arguing about the legal right to them. He supports restrictions on abortion -- among them parental notification for most minors -- but opposes criminalizing the procedure, in part for fear that it would force women into risky back-alley abortions.
There will certainly be very robust arguments over how this idea is implemented, but if offers common ground for discussion among the reasonable majority.
Of marriage, the preacher writes that the long-standing concept of it as a bond between man and woman should not be changed. However, he opposes a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, and he emphasizes that he supports civil unions for gay couples.
Wallis cites the prophet Isaiah's vision of a good life -- enough housing, food and work for all -- to argue for more government spending for the needy. He supported President Bush's initiatives to give faith-based groups public funds to help the poor but criticizes his tax cuts as skewing toward the wealthy.
Nothing particularly radical there, at least within the Democratic party. If that paragraph strikes you as extremism, then you are in the wrong party. Period.
Wallis said he supports the church-state wall, including bans on state-sanctioned prayer in public school, but said faith-based values should inform public policy and action. Where would America be, he asks, if the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his faith to himself?
"God is personal but never private," he said. "The Bible reveals a public God."
That gets to the crux of the issue. We have a bitter fight ahead with the theocons. If you don't like that expression, get over it. There is a minority group of religious fascists that wish to use the tyranny of the government to impose their religious views on the lives of every American. Among those people are Alan Keyes, Jerry Falwell and Dr. Dobson. They are our common enemy. I would like to suggest that anyone who does not agree should consider whether or not they are in the correct party.
Our tent will never be large enough to encompass the religious fascists who those three represent, and it should not be. In spite of their attempts to portray themselves as mainstream religious leaders, they are too filled with hatred and contempt for those who disagree with them to even be considered good Christians, let alone good Americans.
I will defend that paragraph to the bitter end.
For now, I am going home. I had a small project that I had to stay late at work to finish up. I will re-join the conversation when I get home.
Let the conversation continue . . .
