God's Politics

by Gary Boatwright, Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 05:31:28 PM EST

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 . . .

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

14 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Excellent book...

My church is nearing the end of a seven-week discussion of it. There is enormous poential for common ground here.

by KTinOhio 2005-03-28 06:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Excellent book...

Yes it is. Very cool that it is generating discussions across the country. There is hope.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-28 06:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

RIGHT ON!

I'm sorry.. I know that sounded a bit strange.. but seriously.. I think that there is a lot of common ground that we could work with..

There is a very real chance that ALL of us could lose the America we ALL love if we stay on the path we are on..

I think that a lot of both Dems and Reps would rejoice in dealing with these pressing issues together..

But we need to repudiate the fear-mongers...

They are evil.. they want fascism..

by ultraworld 2005-03-28 07:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

GOD's politics..

That concept.. the concept of bringing a world to existence that supports families and children.. and Nature.. is what all religions are all about..

Mutual respect is a LOT more powerful than ugliness and fear..

It can neutralize terrorism by healing the terrorists.. seriously..

I had a pretty ugly upbringing that by all rights should have made me into a terrorist.. seriously..

But I've tried to learn from it by trying to explain my outlook and experiences..

and heal myself and others through that..

THIS is the right approach... if these people are really saying this.. its the right way to go..

But lets not lose track of the separation of church and state..

That isn't about dissing any one religion.. its about respecting all of them equally...

by ultraworld 2005-03-28 07:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: RIGHT ON!

One of the things I was trying to get the southerners to explain is why "the reverends" are immune from criticism. I ain't met nobody perfect yet. Anybody can be criticized. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not believe that the majority of people of Virginia believe that 9/11 happened because of gays, libruls, feminists and whoever else Falwell blamed. I do not believe the people of Virginia are that narrow minded and bigoted. Maybe I'm wrong.

A genuine man of the cloth cannnot be that hateful. I've been saying equally hateful things lately to make a point that we have to fight fire with fire. Talking nasty is easy. Communication is hard.

There is plenty of common ground here. Rev. Land has been willing to sit down with Jim and talk. Has Falwell been willing to do that? I don't know, but I'm curious. Falwell is either deceitful or has some personal demons he needs to get spiritual assistance dealing with.

I admire Jim Wallis and what he is doing, and freely admit that I don't have what it takes to do what he does. He's a better man than I am. He's also a guide, because I acknowledge my character defects and imperfections and am willing to work to overcome them.

That's what I don't see Falwell and Keyes and Dobson being willing to do. As far as I can tell they don't believe they live in glass houses and are way too willing to cast the first stone. I don't have the ability to communicate with people who that closed minded.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-28 07:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Ideas older than America

The fact is, some of the hatreds that drive the American response to, say, the War on Terror are much older than America itself.

There are a number of core values and ideas left over from older European culture that drive our response to 9/11, Iraq, Arabs, Islam, etc.

This is the simple confrontation of truth. Since Christianity and Islam claim to be the one truth, they inherently gird themselves for a fight.

Then there is the history of aggression between both sides. From the first arrival of Muslim soldiers in Spain during the 600s AD to the Siege of Sarajevo, Christians and Muslims have been killing each other.

A number of notions people have today are just leftover prejudices from our forefathers.

Arabs and Muslims are seen as clear opponents of us, our way of life, of who we are as people. Much the reverse is true. These conflicts are so older that the basic words of war are glorified in our language (isn't every great effort a "Crusade"?).

So, it isn't hard to whip up support for the basic act of killing Arabs. It's ingrained in our language and our nature. And, if we happen to wipe out a few other freaks (gays, for example) along the way, then boo-hoo.

History has shown that the fervor for one Crusade usually makes the fervor for other Crusades increase, too. So, once we start killing Arabs, it seems to simply follow to begin stopping gays, saving Terri Schavio, electing George Bush, etc.

Crusades often become justification unto themselves.

Once we define our way of life as Christian, conservative, defensive, capitalist, male, heterosexual, etc. it becomes very easy to stop thinking and start identifiying the enemies of Islam, liberals, attackers, commies, feminists, queers, etc.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-28 08:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ideas older than America

You're right of course. For me the test between a true religion and a false one is their respect for others, for outsiders.Virtually every religion has the element of respect for others as a major premise. The people that practice false religion find a way to diminish that fundamental religious value and use religion for hateful purposes.

Religion can appeal to the dark side of our nature or the light side of our nature. That what I like about the prophetic evangelism that Jim discusses in his book. I hope people are reading my Changing the wind link.

Another sample:

[There is] a fundamental principle--that history is most changed by social movements with a spiritual foundation. . . . Issues such as the strength of family life, the meaning of work, the health of neighborhoods, the well-being of children and the shame of child poverty, the moral tone of "entertainment", the truth telling of public officials, the quality of moral content of education, the equity of health care, the stewardship of the environment, and the consistency of foreign policy with expressed national values are all deeply held moral concerns at the heart of contemporary political issues.
. . .

The lack of vision in public life and the emptying out of values that visionless leadership creates lead to a politics of complaint, . . . and complaint becomes our dominant political discourse.

Ruah is the word for the wind of God in the Old Testament. . . . I am convinced that we can make key "wind changing" or pardigm shifts on a wide range of issues. . . . The truth is that most of the important issues for social change in America have been fueled by religion--progressive religion.

There are a lot of powerful and positive ideas in Jim's book. I hope people read it and discuss it and make it part of their lives.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-28 08:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Overly nice

"For me the test between a true religion and a false one is their respect for others, for outsiders.Virtually every religion has the element of respect for others as a major premise."

I have to take issue with this idea.

Why? Because it is just not there in the evidence.

The Ten Commandments pretty clearly exclude other religions. The Judeo-Christian God is a jealous God. Even the Christ supports this notion with such fine advice as "If you are not for me, then you are against me." Not exactly a beacon of tolerance.

The various churches since have done little to foster tolerance, and have in fact picked fights over shockingly stupid and unimportant things that have little if anything to do with salvation.

Islam is clearly founded in contrast to Christianity. Much of the notion of One God, Allah, is a point of clarififcation about the temporal nature of the Christ, Jesus (Isa), and the clear establishment that there is no son of God.

Western religion is inclined toward digging in against other religions. It is not tolerant, and it is not built on respect for other religions.

Aside from the Dalai Lama, no major religious institution has ever condoned the notion that other religions may also be right, or at least interoperable.

Religion tends to gravitate away from salvation and our duty to others and toward middle school hallway cliques and bullying.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-28 09:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

The Golden Rule

Perhaps making a distinction between religions and churches would be a good way to look at this problem. Every religion of any note has a variation of The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I know very little about Islam. I believe they have an expression that "if you kill a single person, it is as if you killed all of humanity. If you save a single life, it is as if you saved all of humanity." This same idea is shared with Judaism and Christianity.

I'm a wayward Presbyterian, so pardon me if the quote is not precise, but they say something like "What you do to the least of these, you also do to me. What you do for the least of these, is as if you do for me."

I heard an interesting observation about Islam on the radio. In a discussion about Islamic rules that forbid women to use the front door of mosques, a female Islamicist pointed out that is man's rule, not Islam's. In Islam's pure form, the only spiritual difference, and I believe difference in social status, between men and women is how well they achieve moral excellence or purity. (I forget the precise term of art that was used)

All major religions also have hateful expressions and ideas. I believe the hateful ideas are the ones that the early "pharisees," that all religions have, sneaked in there so they could use religion as a tool. One of the fatal flaws of mankind is the desire for power and prestige. Every culture produces power mongers. Power mongers are very adept at using the best instincts of their fellows against them.

I am not enough of a religious scholar to analyze the treatment of "the other" in different religions, but I believe you can find expressions of tolerance for all people in every religion. I prefer to believe that expressions to the contrary are the ones invented and adapted by the early pharisees and power mongers so they could use religion to manipulate others for their selfish ends.

You make an interesting observation about the Dali Lama. For whatever reason, a couple of eastern religions are the only ones that have successfully guarded against man's impulse toward violence and hate. Again, I am no expert, but I believe you could point towards a few variations of Buddhism and Taoism that are founded on the reverence towards all life that Christians claim for Christianity. The one about not even stepping on a bug seems a little extreme to me, but I have to admire the sentiment.

To paraphrase your closing sentence. Religion's best impulses steer us toward a moral and purpose driven life. The worst impulses of churches, and human nature, lead to hallway cliques and bullying.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-29 02:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Two points

1. You can't give a religion a pass just because it talks a nice game.

That is absurd. It gives a lot of things too much sanction because someone can talk nice.

2. For every nice thing you can find in the Bible or the Koran about treating others well and respecting them, you can find ten verses outlining exactly who, why, and how we should kill.

It's too easy to let religions themselves off the hook and act as if it is merely the efforts of some wayward souls.

Have you ever really read the Old Testament with an eye for the intolerance and violence in it? It's baffling the level of violence that God expects from his followers.

And in fairness, yes, the New Testament tries to rein these impulses in. However, most readers of the Bible seem to draw themselves into the Old Testament and Revelations, rather than the Book of Matthew (by far the most tolerant and forgiving book of the Bible). Even then, Christ's words are confrontational, not tolerant.

I don't think religion is allowed to get a pass, because there is more going on than just a few leaders exploiting religion.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-29 06:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Two points

Well, it depends on how strongly you feel about the literal truth of ancient texts. I believe that most or all of them started off on the right track and have been polluted over the centuries with the human defects of their translators/interpreters. I think the chances that the Bible actually represents the true word of God is in between nil and non-existent. Same for the Koran. Anyone who has played or even heard of the childs game of "telephone", where each person whispers a phrase to the next person knows how fallible people are at transferring a message.

I'm not giving religion a pass, so much as giving them the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of the literal truth of the text, the very large majority of people who practice every religion are for the most part good, kind people. At least they try. How much credit you want to give to religion itself is up to you.

I don't know how you compare the good that religion has done with the evil that has been done in the name of religion. That's an analysis that's above my pay grade.

Christ is confrontational, but only to make a point and only to confront evil or sin or human frailty, take your pick. I don't know how much literal truth the parables contain. Maybe like all good fish stories, they have improved with the telling. They still contain powerful kernels of fundamental truth about human nature and the human experience.

I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but I guess I do give religion a pass. Responsibility for the evil that has been done in the name of, or under the color of religion, is more fairly placed on the individuals who perpetuate it than the religion they happened to take inspiration from. I don't expect religion to completely conquer man's baser nature and I don't think that any religion itself claims that miraculous ability.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-29 08:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Actually, texts tend to be accurate

One of the bigger reasons the Dead Sea Scrolls were such a find is that they show most of the Bible has been very well translated from Hebrew to Latin to English.

Most historians and anthropologists would argue the reason for this is that people aren't inclined to tinker too much with the word of God. Even non-believers and charlatans often seem to just get the willies when it comes to revamping religious texts.

And then we see the dual achievements of the Reformation. One is the affirmation of the Bible as a separate entity from the Church. Two is the effort to bring the Bible from the church to the individual.

Much of this centers around concern for the fact that the Catholic Church was acting as a gatekeeper to the word of God, and thereby depriving individuals of the ability to have an honest relationship with God.

There is a very strong impulse among all religious human beings to not get too involved in redefining the word of God. Most modern religions, given a fair chance, seek to render a rather accurate version of old texts, and tend toward handing those texts to believers intact and in a comprehensible format.

by jcjcjc 2005-03-29 08:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Great Diary

Good stuff JB. I hadn't heard of Wallis before your introduction in the other thread and it's good to read about a Christian minister appearing in the media arguing for liberal ideas. I don't agree with him on every point listed in the article but his heart seems to be in the right place.

I also appreciated the link to Confessions of a Dittohead: The Weak Faith of the Religious Right. That was a particularly good entry from that series. This passage from Confessions describes the theocratic mindset very nicely:

The central point around which religious conservatives rotate is the public acknowledgement of their faith. Bear in mind, this is not their conception of their `core belief,' it's just the unintended consequence of their position on a variety of issues. It's not enough that they have faith themselves, or that they're good people, or that they tithe to their church. It goes beyond that. The public has to admit that they are right. Every issue radiates out from this: Prayer in schools, overturn Roe v. Wade, 10 Commandments in court, evolution stickers, gay marriage. We're right, you're wrong, legislate accordingly.

The problem is, this drive to force constant acknowledgement of their faith conflicts with the United States Constitution and the tradition of Separation of Church and State. They quite blatantly want to enact an establishment of religion.

In stark contrast, liberal ministers such as Wallis are concerning themselves more with the politics of helping people and their families attend to their human needs as they proceed through their lives. Consider the possibilities for expanding the party seen in this passage from the LA Times article linked in the diary:

Martin Yuson, a 35-year-old Pasadena political independent and physical therapist, explained Wallis' appeal. "A lot of evangelicals and Catholic Christians are tired of the right-left dichotomy," Yuson said. "I myself can't seem to fit in either side. I'm anti-war but pro-life. Jim Wallis bridges that divide."

Harry Reid is mentioned as having credited Wallis with giving him new ideas on talking about values. I did a diary a while back on a little-noticed statement by Senator Reid on the budget. In the statement, Reid casts President Bush's budget as fundamentally immoral in the way it allocates money. His rhetoric is really well done and shows someone in his organization, if not Reid himself, is making a very conscious effort to sway voters by placing in biblical context the decisions made in the budget which ignore our health and take from working Americans while giving to corporations. From his statement:

Mr. President, earlier this week, I met with a group of Ministers from a host of Protestant denominations. They were very concerned about the budget, and shared with me a story from the Gospel of Luke about a rich man and the poor man who lived at his gates named Lazarus. In life, the rich man lived a grand life and paid no attention to the poor man, refusing to come to his aid. But in death, it was Lazarus who went to Heaven and the rich men who suffered in Hell.

Their purpose in telling me the story was to point out the immorality of turning a blind eye to economic injustice. And they wanted to make a larger point about the Bush 2006 Budget, which, as they put it, has "much for the rich man and Little for Lazarus."

And when you examine the Bush budget through a moral lens, as these ministers have done, you can clearly see the injustice and the lack of values in it.

Democrats such as Rev. Wallis and Senator Harry Reid should help to dispel the image of the Democratic Party held by some voters that it is too secular to relate to religious Christians. That's bunk of course, but it will take more of the same to undo all the damage done to our image with many voters in that important demographic.

by Curt Matlock 2005-03-28 08:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Great Diary

Thanks man. I'll have to check your links tomorrow. It's been a long day. Democrats just have to learn to speak the language of the heart. They've allowed themselves to become conditioned to avoiding speaking either their minds or their hearts. They just get all policy wonkish and talk issues with no human connection to people's lives.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-28 09:10PM | 0 recs