A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
February 24, 2005God's PoliticsOn my personal blog, I've reviewed the new book by Jim Wallis, God's Politics. Wallis is an evangelical Christian who is quite left-wing, except on cultural issues, where he is a bit to the right of Joe Lieberman. Wallis argues that there are three major poles in American politics: conservative, liberal, and what he calls libertarian, which he defines as "liberal on cultural/moral issues and conservative on fiscal/economic and foreign policy." He proposes a fourth option, which he admits currently has no constituency, that would be traditional on moral issues, while being liberal on economic issues. In particular, Wallis states that poverty is the second most prominent theme in the Bible, after idolatry. By contrast, the key issues of the religious right, homosexuality and abortion, are not given prominent mention. Actually, I find what he calls libertarian to be more what I think of as centrist, and in Wallis, a potential leader for the "mirror-image centrism" which is conservative where we are liberal, and vice versa. I recommend the book not for its political positions, but for its original, thought-provoking nature. Posted by rickheller at February 24, 2005 05:06 PMComments
Haven't read the book, have heard him several times. I like him AND I would interested to see if his politics "overwhelms" his Christianity. We tend to think of "political Christianity" as a conservative phenomenom. There is a strong tradition of politically liberal christians (though they tend to be liberal theologically also). In both cases, its key to understand where you religious stand ends and political stand begins, otherwise you'll assume they are one in the same. I would suggest that most politically active Christians on either the left or the right lose sight of this line regularly. When that happens Christianity loses. and on top of that secular folks tend to disregard your stances because is just a "religious thing" Posted by: Chris at February 24, 2005 05:22 PMI believe that Wallis is considered orthodox and not liberal in his religious views, accepting the literal truth of the miracles described in the Bible. In his near-pacifism, he seems to be affected by the Quaker and Mennonite traditions. Here are some more articles about him: http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/022505/022505m.htm http://www.decaturdailydemocrat.com/articles/2005/02/18/news/opinion/editorial03.txt http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6994480/site/newsweek http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/107/13.0.html I listened to an interview with this gentleman on the Imus show a few weeks ago. Very interesting. I've considered buying his book but I'm holding out that I'll get it as a gift... (Hey Tully...in lieu of that certificate for sussing out the WA military vote issue...) I'm not buying into Wallis' notion that we need more, not less, religion in government. I personally think that's a major mistake. But I did find his ideas on why liberals don't "get it" pretty interesting. Posted by: carla at February 24, 2005 08:06 PMFrankly, I would prefer that clergy (whether orthodox or evangelical, liberal or conservative) have less influence rather than more in politics. I can't speak for Wallis, but my impression is that clergy at both ends of the spectrum look at politics as a moral crusade in a way that I think is dangerous. I remember William Sloan Coffin, the liberal Protestant of the sixties and seventies, as a self-righteous, pompous ass and, of course, I think the same of the right-wingers today. I'm not saying people's faith shouldn't influence their politics, but let's keep God out of it. My experience with rabbis, for example, is that they think their spiritual inclination gives them the ability to evaluate policy regardless of their knowledge of politics. I understand that this makes me seem like a horrible secular Democrat, but I feel the same toward liberal clerics as toward conservatives. Posted by: MWS at February 24, 2005 08:29 PMA good article on the subject concerning founding fathers: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen I believe this guy was on with Jon Stewart a couple of weeks ago. (?) I really appreciated some of what he had to say. Religion can serve a very valuable purpose in the political process for certain issues, but I certainly have a problem with self-designated "religious leaders" claiming to speak for God. I'm always confused as to how Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their good friends in the relgious right can whip their followers into a frenzy by deploying hatred. Their focus on mandating their moral beliefs to the rest of the country seems to have surpassed what the mission of a church should be. (At least, according to the Bible they claim to follow.) Someone who studies the life of Christ will find a life dedicated to helping the poor, ministering to the sick, and uplifting the afflicted. He rejected any political ambitions, and preached "love thy neighbor"--not "impose thy beliefs on thy neighbor." I need to stop...if you get my started on this topic, I could go on forever. Religion mixed with politics has the potential for a dangerous formula. Posted by: ufrh4 at February 24, 2005 10:16 PMalways confused as to how Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their good friends in the relgious right can whip their followers into a frenzy by deploying hatred. FYI, interesting article in "Christianity Today" that looks at Christian "leaders". Article asks the rhetorical question who are the "leading" Christians and who "appoints" them. Survey by Barna (he regularly does surveys of Christians) reveal that neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson are held in particularly high esteem by the "average" Christian. It seems that they just get more press. Article suggests that one reason is that they're always available to the press to present the "evangelical Christian viewpoint" but no one "authorized" them to speak for all evangelicals. Personally, I've yet to speak to a Christian who speaks highly of Jerry Falwell and I've yet to speak to one who regularly watches Pat Robertson's show. Posted by: Chris at February 25, 2005 09:49 AMInteresting that when the subject of 'men of the cloth' in politics comes up, lefty demagogues like the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson seem to vanish down the memory hole. Posted by: Achillea at February 25, 2005 10:05 AM"Interesting that when the subject of 'men of the cloth' in politics comes up, lefty demagogues like the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson seem to vanish down the memory hole." I think that's in part because the right-wing is ascendent. What influence does Jesse Jackson have now? But I agree with you; I nearly voted for Bush in 2000 because I was so disgusted with the Dem's cowtowing to Sharpton. Also, I'm not sure you could really call Jackson and Sharpton "men of the cloth" even though they call themselves Rev. in the way you can Falwell and Robertson. These guys wrap themselves in religion and explicitly claim to be speaking for God. Plus, their agenda is explicitly religiously-oriented. For all their faults, Sharpton and Jackson never did this. They are much more secular scum than religious scum. Military Intelligence I'm about halfway through the book myself. I'm reading it as a part of a Lenten Book study at church. It's a great platform for discussion and we're having some spirited meeting depite the fact that the group mixes both Republican and Democratic parishoners. A very helpful way to get into dialog for a segment of the population that shares a faith and a set of values but differs on political affiliation. Posted by: Jay Dean at February 25, 2005 08:07 PMJohn, your apparent gist as a list of oxymorons is amusing. But, I wonder how you'd fit Jimmy Carter into your world view. He is, by definition, an evangelical... and he is definitely left-wing. Posted by: Kevin at February 26, 2005 12:20 PMMilitary Intelligence Jumbo Shrimp Evangelical Left-WingerSpeaking as an evangelical, this hits on my concern exactly. There is nothing inherently political about being "evangelical". Unfortunately, because a vocal, politically conservative group of evangelicals has consistently grabbed our attention we've come to redefine the term politically. The sad part is that many folks hear the term and immediately tune out because they figure they've "got you pegged". They never hear the part of the message that is truly "evangelical". Posted by: Chris at February 26, 2005 12:39 PM Let's not forget the avowedly communist/socialist factions in the Catholic Church. Anyone who's spent any time studying modern Central and South American politics knows exactly what I mean. And how 'bout them Quakers? Can't get much more rightie than that, eh? And yes, I've heard plenty of explicitly political preachin' from Reverends Jesse and Al. The point being, the association of religion in politics with the right wing is largely the result of noisy televangelists and the media attention they garner. It focuses on one small segment of religion in politics, and ignores the rest. You can assign your own motivations for that. As far as keeping religion out of government, I note that atheism is also a religion by 2.5 of the three non-archaic definitions in Merriam/Webster. That would seem to imply to me that agnosticism should be the government's attitude and practice. Otherwise it's reduced to the role of both referee and prize in theocratic warfare over which is the True Faith. When referencing the Bible for analysis of political justifications, I find it quite helpful to seperate the New and Old Testaments, and the Gospels from the rest of the New Testament. I've always found it odd that so many "Christian" groups place more emphasis on rather bloody and ancient Judaic history or on Paulism than on the Gospels themselves. It's certainly helped keep me a fervent agnostic. Posted by: Tully at February 26, 2005 04:48 PMJust bought the book, really enjoying it so far. Check it out! Posted by: Javish at March 7, 2005 08:51 PMmortgage car loans |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
