Jim Wallis: The Religious Right's Era Is Over

I hope Wallis is right because it would truly mean a whole new age, a good future for our kids. The fundamenatalist right wingers won't go down without a fight though, we can count on that much.

People like the easy list of do's and don'ts, and being able to identify the good guys and bad guys, and having someone else sort it all out for them.

they're certainly not giving up, as you say. They're raising a horde of Hitler Youth type jesus-bots bent on taking over our government and "returning the United States to a country ruled by god's law". :puke:


These people are seriously delusional. I certainly hope they DO go away but we'll never completely rid ourselves of them. More is the pity.

and Jimmy Dobson on the other.

Check the R/T forum for some few month old threads about his bigotry.

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

God's Politics: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/

I used to be an evangelical and remember his work from back then, and nothing seemed even remotely bigoted.

But Wallis doesn't have much love for nonbelievers involved in progressive causes. He prefers Christians to lead because he believes they have a more recognizable moral framework and connect better with the average American. In other words, atheists, agnostics, and humanists are free to show up on election day, but he'd prefer it if we weren't so visible in public. The thread greyl is referring to is this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=98905 .

because he believes they have a more recognizable moral framework and connect better with the average American."

This puts him in good company. Martin Luther King, Jr. seriously considered becoming a Unitarian but ultimately went back to the Baptists because he felt that in our society, more people have respect for Biblical authority than for intellectual arguments about freedom and liberty. It's a sad commentary on the average attention span of US citizens, but I think it can't be dismissed as being wholly untrue at best, or bigoted at worst. When only 40% of eligible adults even turn out to vote in elections, it points to a whole lot more people who can't be bothered to be engaged in civics through secular channels. And honestly, I'd rather have the churches working on progressive causes than right wing ones.

Christian Leaders Commit to Tackling Poverty | CCT-USA Statement on Poverty: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x233267

The people were about to starve because they put gatorade on their crops, and the guy of average intelligence from the past realizes that gatorade has salts that built up in the soil and made it sterile, so he tried to explain to them why they should use water instead. They couldn't get it and just kept repeating the ad slogans they had heard a million times over and over. Finally in frustration the average guy tells them a voice told him water would work better, and that convinces them.

If you haven't seen the movie yet, that doesn't spoil the ending.

And if MLK Jr espoused the same rhetoric as Jim Wallis, he'd be just as wrong. Atheists are tired of being told we cannot participate in politics and we are certainly getting tired of being told that we should defer to Christians as our rightful leaders.

I don't believe Jim Wallis is a bigot, but I don't have much respect for him and I definitely don't trust him. America under left wing Christian demagoguery is just as right wing demagoguery.

Wallis is one man, stating his preference for bringing about progressive social change. I can't think of one social justice movement in US history that wasn't accomplished with a strong church presence: abolition, labor laws, civil rights, women's movement, anti-war, and GLBT. But just to acknowledge that's the church is the arena he's comfortable working in does not exclude you from participating in other arenas.

:rofl:

There are certainly posters who feel Wallis is too religious. Many also disagree with his dislike of abortion laws. A few even think this combination makes him a theocrat. Naturally, there are some who don't like his rhetoric. But, I have not seen anything about bigotry. Perhaps you could help us learn more about that.

I've met Jim Wallis, spoken to him briefly, listened to him speak a few times, read a book by him, and occasionally read his blog. I agree with a lot of what he says, and disagree with some. Overall, he's a good human and is trying to make our world and country better, in my opinion.

Peace.

Yet, it's supposed to be against the rules to call names and make personal attacks.

I guess the attacks are only bad if it's the US attacking another country.

:shrug:

NT!

Yup, that's really swell of ya. Making friends and influencing people that way.

That kind of attitude is what is gaining us so many people in the Middle East.

BTW, HOW do you *know* that Jim isn't a DUer? Got proof of that?? The last time I talked with him, I mentioned some things on DU, and he said he'd check it out. For all I know, he registered.

Of course, it sounds like you would know much better than I. :sarcasm:

Good going with all that peacemaking of yours.

Unfortunately, those who make such unwarranted assertions never are willing to back their truck up.

sigh....

I'm not totally in agreement with Jim Wallis either... I suspect if you and I knew each other well, we wouldn't be in total agreement all the time.

BUt, I'm grateful for him for doing what he's doing, and being so faithful in the cause for so very many years!

If these who don't like him because he's "religious" would take on poverty issues with the same fervor as they take on peace issues, then maybe us poor folk would have more options of who to listen to!!

:hug:

:hi: :hug:

I've met plenty of christians who were true followers of that peaceful loving guy they named their religion after... I can only hope they'll end up taking charge of their religion as soon as possible.

I don't like the negative image religion has with a number of people. I don't like the way that some people think Christians are all unkind people, just because of a few nasty ones.

I call myself a New Age Christian, because I believe in God Jesus Christ, but I'm also interested in New Age spiritual stuff. I'm practicing astral projection (which is where we leave our bodies and go onto the astral plane. We all do this in our sleep, and I'm trying to learn how to do it consciously.)

I also want to learn how to talk to dead people. Some of the people I'd talk to are Maurice Gibb (one of the Bee Gees - I LOVE the Bee Gees; they're an absolutely amazing group, and they're wonderful people too), Andy Gibb (the Bee Gees' younger brother) and Steve Irwin. There are numerous others as well.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:hi: :hi: :hi:

How you treat others is how they will treat you. Its the golden rule. Its also human nature. We are a learning species. What one does others see and internalize. We even have neurons specifically setup for this function.

So how you treat people that do not agree with your beliefs, that is how they will treat you. If you embrace them as an equal and respect their beliefs they will treat you as an equal and respect your beliefs.

Glad you're here! I sometimes make mental lists of who I'd like to talk to if I could connect with the other side.

I'd like to go find John Lennon, and of course also, George Harrison and try to get to know them - and thank them for their music.

I'd ask John F. Kennedy who killed him (since he surely knows by now). I'd ask the same of Dr. King.

I'd find the late great Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and get to know him (now that he's fully off drugs).

I'd look up Molly Ivins and tell her how much I enjoyed her columns.

I'd track down Groucho Marx and his brothers, and Mae West, Ernie Kovaks, and John Belushi for some great laughs.

I'd visit Timothy Leary to see what he's brewing up this time.

I'd search for George Gershwin to find out what he's been working on lately, and whether he's offering piano lessons.

I'd find Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo and offer to clean their paint brushes if only they'd let me hang around in their studios.

I'd seek out the Mahatma for advice and wisdom on how to control my temper.

I'd look for Pope John the XXIII, AND Pope John Paul the First, to help me understand my misguided Church.

I'd find my dad and ask him why he kept all those secrets from me.

I'd find my mom and ask her to talk more fully about her great anger.

I'd look up my biological blood lines, and get to know them, since I'm adopted.

And most of all, I'd search for Christ Himself (if He'd have me), and ask Him if this is REALLY what He had in mind, and what we can do about it. Then, I'd enlist everybody I met, to intercede with Him, and plead for his help to rectify the wrongs down here.

Hey, try it sometime. It's a fun exercise!

Thank you to everyone who has welcomed me.

I love the Beatles too, and would definitely try to contact John and George. The Beatles and the Bee Gees are my two favourite groups. I've always thought the Bee Gees are "up there" with artists such as the Beatles. Some people view the Bee Gees (unfairly and inaccurately) as nothing more than a "disco group" and nothing could be further from the truth. I love disco music, and I love their disco songs, but only a very, very small number of their songs were actually disco songs. Barry, Robin and Maurice Gibb (RIP Maurice) have been famous since 1967, and they actually released their first single in March 1963 (at that time, they were living in Australia, having emigrated there from England in 1958.) In March 1963, Barry was 16 and Robin and Maurice were 13. They're extremely talented (as was their younger brother Andy Gibb, who pursued a solo career) and, like I said, they're some of the loveliest people you could meet.

I think Maurice would have got along with Steve Irwin if they'd met. I like to think that he's helping Steve rescue crocodiles in his spare time.

And the same Church just had a showing of Gore's Inconvenient Truth. This "movement" appears to be growing?

:toast:

...and it's been so long since I've had hope or optimism, or since I've felt that with regard to the public face of American Christianity.

He's a good man.

Thanks again. :hug:

Hekate

from what I heard, it comes from the fact that some bibles have the words spoken by Jesus written in red text, and therefore the 'red letter christians' are the ones who follow the words of Jesus, not the interpretations of the people who put the bible together. :)

I'm sure their doom has been predicted before - with Pat Robertson's failed attempt to get the GOP nomination, with the scandals of Swaggart & Bakker, etc.

I'm sure he's just as correct here.

I'm sorry, don't mean to be so dismissive of him. I actually do have some respect for Wallis but I think he isn't the most astute person. I met him when I had a job opportunity with Sojourners back in the '90s. He and his staff all seemed a bit narrow in their worldview (and I don't mean what Jesus called "straight and narrow"...they seemed to live very insular, evangelical lives while trying to project this image of themselves engaged in the larger world "fighting the good fight".

I think his/their voice is important, but I don't look to them for any kind of significant analysis of the world or effective ways (religious or not) to improve it.

... I believed, and still do, in a level playing field for faith-based organizations who ought to be eligible for public funding if they obey federal law and guidelines, and not use social service funding for explicitly religious purposes. "Fund results, not religion" as Dilulio used to say. But I said to President Bush early on that partnerships with faith-based organizations should never become a substitute for sound domestic policies aimed at serious poverty reduction. And that’s exactly what happened. Then political manipulation of religion only compounded the crime of political neglect of the poor.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/jim-wallis-insider-reveals-faith-based.html

:eyes:

Back in 2001 through Laura Flanders' old show on KWAB, I told him he was incredibly naive to support Bush's faith-based lies. I also told him that Bush was manipulating him.

Good to see he finally sees it, though.

wants to try to get something accomplished, must play the game, whatever the game is.

Although I've had that particular fight over and over again -- generally taking the position I think you're standing for, namely: playing along only gives them cover, and we won't get anything real by doing so -- in fact, it's just an ugly reality of national politics.

Either you really organize to fight back at the grassroots, or you play Beltway Baseball -- you can't do both

to power, not going along to get along. It's the difference between what Cornel West calls "Constantinian Christians" and "prophetic Christians," imo.

I agree with you that the choice comes down to fighting the good fight or playing the game...As Jesus said, you can't serve two masters.

:hi:

A man of faith and common sense.

:kick:

:hi:

Even "spiritual but not religious" is going to fight back when people sue to get "under God" out of the pledge or "in God we trust" off the money or "moment of silence" out of schools etc. There's only so far they are willing to be pushed before they push back legislatively. -- until we get rid of the "no faith is a good faith" crowd then we are going to have a battle between the two.

Progress occurs. Society is constantly striving to move forward. Each new thing learned informs new social reforms. The problem is that society is not some monolithic entity that moves in lock step. While some people take to the new ideas readily others reject them because they are incompatible with their beliefs. The social struggle is based on the pressure to overwhelm the resistance or the impetus to move forward.

Yes there are going to be many people that reject various social reforms. But the struggle to bring them forward is constant. And while the resistance may sometimes rise up and threaten to push all progress back, it can only maintain that position for a limited time.

The reason is that because we have learned how older traditional ideas are mistaken the understanding slowly but surely eats into the fabric of even the most conservative minds. Add to this the fact that as more and more progressively minded people adopt the new positions it becomes increasingly antisocial to hold to the old positions. So younger generations grow up in an environment that does not actively promote the older methods of understanding. Thus as time goes on resistance ebbs.

This is what causes the pendulum like sway of America's political landscape. Progress pushes until the resistance accumulates enough force to resist. Then the resistance pushes back until it weakens enough for progress to begin its forward motion once again. Over time Progress wins.

I don't follow your meaning.

"Get rid of" is a very, very strong phrase.

:hi: Thanks for the K&R, DeepModem Mom!

This is indeed great news! Change at all levels, too. Evangelicals saw the hypocrisy of their own Repuke Congresspeople on ethics, and helped to sweep in Senators like Webb in Virginia and McCaskill in Missouri.

:hi:

I'm weary of the far right wing fundamentalists where I live.

K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x233221#236631

:hi: Thank you for the K&R, BlackVelvet04!

this is great: Believing that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, we want to unite Christians who are concerned about what is happening in America. We are evangelicals who are troubled by what is happening to poor people in America; who are disturbed over environmental policies that are contributing to global warming; who are dismayed over the increasing arrogance of power shown in our country’s militarism; who are outraged because government funding is being reduced for schools where students, often from impoverished and dysfunctional homes, are testing poorly; who are upset with the fact that of the 22 industrialized nations America is next to last in the proportion of its national budget (less than two-tenths of 1 percent) that is designated to help the poor of third-world countries; and who are broken-hearted over discrimination against women, people of color, and those who suffer because of their sexual orientation.

I *like* that statement--thanks for posting it! :hi: :thumbsup:

Thanks for this thread, Sapphire Blue, but I wouldn't for a single instant take it as the last word. We must not EVER take this too much to heart and drop our guard. These people have had their taste of power, and gone to bed with bush and cheney and rove in the Lincoln Bedroom and many other places. They won't step down quietly - OR willingly. Nor will their many sheep.

We have a LONG way to go before these people are fully vanquished - if indeed that day can ever even dawn.

You are so right, calimary!

They may be beaten back, but never far enough.

But we don't need a religious left either. I'm not saying religious people have no place in the Democratic Party. If you look at progressive history, from Abolitionists, to William Jennings Bryan, to Martin Luther King jr., you can see how the two forces worked together. There are plenty of more examples.

I'm just personally sick of those that say you can only be moral, and only be for family values if your religious. Embracing the dogmas of religion does not give you a monopoly on values. Channeling Kos' remarks the other day, one can get their values from honorable service in the military, working on a farm, reading world philosophy etc....

What Mr. Wallis wants to do is to simply flip the religious right into the religious left. And although the agenda of the religious left is comprable to progressive agenda, telling people they need to vote a certain because of their religion, flies in the face of the reason and rationality of our founding fathers. These were men who questioned, who debated, that adhered to REASON. I don't want a religious person to vote Republican solely because the leaders of their faith say they have to vote for some obscure notion of "family values." I don't want a religious person to vote Democratic solely because the leaders of their faith say "Big Brother in the Sky" wants you to care about poverty. Its just not democratic and is a slippery slope to a Taliban worldview.

If religion is the source of your morality, thats great. But it isn't the only source..

... for those who are religious? Why do you have to post comments like "Big Brother in the Sky"? I certainly wouldn't post a comparable comment ridiculing Atheists.

I thought I made that clear. Also, the point about "Big Brother in the Sky" is not an insult since it is actually a reference to Jim Wallis' own book, God's Politics. I was merely citing his own words about God's relationship to politics.

:spank: I interpreted your comment "Big Brother in the Sky" as ridicule. Thanks for letting me know the origin of the comment. Methinks I need to lighten up!

We're not a homogenous group with some sort of religious affiliation; all we share in common is a lack of belief in gods and thus a lack of any religion.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to be offensive.

I am respectful of the right of people to believe what ever they believe.

I don't care.

Why should I care?

Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, agnostic, atheist, no matter to me.

On the other hand, I reserve the right to be disdainful and critical of religious leaders and their followers, who cross the line from faith as a personal spiritual matter to faith as a political tool.

I am not fully aware of all of Mr. Wallis' views, but I am wary when I go right to the link to his web site and it says: God's Politics a Blog by Jim Wallis and Friends.

God has politics? Really?! And God's politics are found on a blog? really?

For example on the blog: "The divinely intended purposes of sexual intimacy are of course very sacred and deeply satisfying in the context of committed relationships."

Who is to say what the divinely intended use of anything is for me?

Why should I believe, no, actually, why should I accept Mr. Wallis' opinion of what is divinely intended?

Why should I buy into this comment:
"Are Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives our reigning cultural paradigms now when it comes to sexuality?"

Not really?

They are both one of many TV shows. that's it. they reign over nothing. sex in the city is off the air.

Why should I not counter with all of the shows on TV that hold out cultural paradigms about making plans for weddings, cooking shows that espouse the virtues of staying at home and providing sustenance to ones own self and loved one? Home improvement shows with couples manically nesting and rehabbing their home?

All the TV movies and other movies that glorify marriage and family?

Citing Sex in the City and Desperate Housewives is a facile cheap shot at another cultural paradigm, this on the right, that Hollywood is lefty and bad for our morality. It's pandering to the right.

"Or is the reconnection of sexual intimacy with commitment a future worth fighting for?"

If you watched Sex in the City you would know that most of the show is about the search for intimacy.
The show could have easily been called: Four women looking for intimacy in the city.

Now, Mr. Wallis may come from the more moderate side of the religious debate,or not, and I might agree with him on somethings, or not, but what do I care what some human being tells me is my divine purpose and that of my sexuality? that's where it becomes a slippery slope.

Your right to your faith and belief is your and if we were friends and shared intimate personal thoughts you might want to share them with me and I might want to know them. That is what I respect a person right to believe. I don't however respect one person/groups determination to have others share that journey via heavy duty political activism, fund raising, church's campaigning for candidates from the pulpit.

For example ( this reply is not about the topic of abortion that is just the example in this case)

I once saw a bumper sticker: Catholics don't vote for Catholics who support abortion.

That was the Kerry era 2004 campaign.

I would rather see no bumper stickers and walking the walk: Catholics teach their kids that abortion is wrong. If they do then they will know who to vote for.

When people of faith cross the line from spirituality to politicking then it exceeds religious tolerance and respect and they get treated like politicians.

side of their imaginary skygod

Why do you have to post comments like "their imaginary skygod"? I certainly wouldn't post a comparable comment ridiculing Atheists. Perhaps you could be a bit more civil to those who don't hold the same beliefs that you do.

tax shortfall)

they know that the radical religious right isn't going to go away any time soon--in fact, they will go underground for a few years, build up their strength and then come back later with a ferocity that we haven't heard for awhile. It's like they have a surge every other decade or so, and get mean and nastier in each subsequent appearance.

Wallis might not be seeing this trend as a minister himself, but for many of us who can actually see the threat proffered by the RRR, it's as damning as the nose on their collective face. Each generation continues to get nastier and nuttier as they come, and we see this in their aggressive stance on such things on marriage, sex, violence, choice, war, Judaism, Islam, and more, where compromise is never a possibility and only extreme solutions are even considered.

As we are already aware, giving in to small things slowly builds to a point where there are no longer any small things to give in to, only big issues, and we can no longer trust them to walk away with satisfaction. Too many times in the past they have circumvented the rules of negotiation and gotten exactly what they wanted, regardless of how wrong it was.

As someone who fully and irrecoverably supports ALL separation of church and state, I cannot allow them to gain even an inch any longer--these people in the RRR have gained many miles from their original "inch" and it is long past time to stop them dead in their tracks.

What we are witnessing right now may be a death rattle of certain fundamentalist positions. If you examine history you will find that there has been continuous progress over the last 500 years. It is punctuated by occassional backlashes of conservative movements. But these are eventually overcome.

In fact if you examine closely enough you will find that former conservative movements eventually embrace and eventually claim as their own concepts that were once opposed. At one point the idea of basic human rights was absolutely opposed. Innocent until proven guilty was once a revolutionary idea that was strongly resisted.

Fundamentalist Christians have become increasingly marginalized in this society. Make no mistake, we have been winning. The views of fundamentalists have been pressed into the corners of society. They found themself with little choice of abandoning their beliefs or fighting back. As is expected large numbers of them have decided to fight back.

But the thing of it is as they fight they expose their views to the public eye. And as progress is spread throughout the society such behaviour is increasingly viewed with contempt. This rejection is spread to new generations with increasing frequency. This in turn weakens the conservative resistance to accepting change.

This is what produces the pendulum like swing in politics from right to left and back again. But always with the balance eventually favoring progress. This is because knowledge accumulates. What we learn to be right or wrong based on reason is difficult to get rid of. Tradition does not fare well against such things over time.

The Fundamentalists are fighting for their lives. This is what gives them the focus and drive in these times. Meanwhile progressive ideals are stagnated at this time due to the society attempting to assimilate the progress we have made in recent times. Eventually balance will be achieved and progress will continue. And the fundamentalists will eventually find ways to incorporate these new advances into their rational or they will fade away.

because too many times I have seen practicality, common sense and reality disappear when a discussion with a fundie takes place.

My ex-best friend makes it sound like fundies are being persecuted like Jews in Germany nowadays. I find that allegation hard to swallow, considering how many people are showing their stupidity and lack of intelligence by proclaiming they believe in such poppycock as creationism/ID instead of evolution, or an upcoming apocalypse. And with the neocons all latent fundies in their own way, the middle east crisis is right up their alley when it comes to achieving their ends of the "end of the world."

As long as there are fundies who procreate, there will always be loonytoons on the religious right who will keep various notions and sensibilities in the middle ages. While they try to destroy the world, we have to keep trying to keep that from happening.

the Right in droves?

He reported that Karl Rove and other Bushistas in the White House used the conservative Christians for their own political gain:

Book says Bush just using Christians
‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003

(excerpt)
He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

MSNBC

In reality, BushCo considered fundamentalist Christian conservatives as "chumps" to be used. I don't think the "chumps" are going to forget this...

I just don't see how the next GOP candidate for POTUS will address this. What's he/she going to say? I really, really, REALLY value your work...really! So vote for me...really, 'cause I really, really, REALLY value your work...really!!!

... their influence will never be finished. Anyone that thinks that fundies won't be a serious influence over politics in their lifetime is seriously deceiving themselves.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves.

It's about time some "evangelicals" actually read the NT.

Some "evangelicals" are reading the NT; see Post 32:

32. Meet the 'Red Letter Christians': http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=233221&mesg_id=236631

Did you see "Is God Green"? ONe of Bill MOyers.

What's ironic, as I keep saying, is that the evangelicals are going to be getting more and more poor folk, as they embrace poverty issues.

Too bad the Dems don't "get it" about that!! :(

I sure hope so. We do need to return to your roots and help the poor/working poor.

Thanks, mzmolly, and I would hope so.

However, I quite doubt it.

It's just not seen as anything important to Dems, with the exception of John Edwards.

As you've seen right here on DU, Dems don't consider us poor folk "important" enough. :( :cry: :(

As a matter of fact, there are still plenty here who want to say that old crap that "poor folk don't vote".

Not true, of course, but it somehow makes them feel better. :(

Thanks for the thought, and I hope you will start to push this with Dems. We poor folk need help from friends like you!!

:hug:

Granted I'm "richer" as an adult than I was as a child, but I grew up in poverty myself. I was raised by a single mom who was on welfare, and was mentally ill. Granted my Mother did marry my step-dad who was a construction worker/laborer 7 years after she divorced my biological father, but I was still no stranger to poverty. In fact, I lived in poverty until I was in my mid-twenties frankly.

I have deep compassion for those who need a way out of poverty. And, you can bet your arse that I'll continue to advocate for measures that help the poor. Not sure I have much say in the matter, ;) but in all honesty the issue of helping those who have less, is why I'm a democrat.

Peace bobbolink :hi:

I invite you to help us with trying to get action against these coming cuts! It's NOT what Dems want to talk about, and I know that last year, when Sapphire Blue was trying to get people to call and write about the cuts to Medicaid and her posts kept sinking like rocks, I was very discouraged.

It hurt.

We would really appreciate your help with that!

Peace to you, mzmolly! :hi: :bounce:

:hi:

Poverty just isn't as "sexy" as war, etc.

Thanks! :applause:

Also, here is another thread for your consideration... some good news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x243076

that corroberates his assertions. the religious right is just as powerful and dangerous as ever.

Wallis overrates the role of religion in social justice movements. I'm guessing he's never really given credit to the structure of religions as allowing for a natural support system for political agitation, versus the idea that we somehow need religion or even spirituality in order to do good. I mean, there are more believers than non, so DUH, of course they're more heavily represented.

I sure don't need such things to do good, and I'm hardly unique in that fact.

Do we as a people really need something or something to hate?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have tremendous respect for you, Sapphire Blue. I also have tremendous respect for Christians who work for progressive causes. But I must say that Wallis' rhetoric scares the crap out of me and I just wish he'd stop using loaded terms like revival.

Jim Wallis' use of the term revival has a specific meaning in Christianity: winning souls for Christ. What happens when my soul cannot be won? Do I get relegated back to the status of second class citizen where I've pretty much been all my life? Are my children going to be asked to leave the room whenever someone decides that a prayer needs to be spoken at a public gathering? Will my rights only be protected when Christians decide that they are not too frivolous to interfere with their politically hegemony?

Sorry, but Jim Wallis may be good at helping poor people, but he is diametrically opposed to those of us who are not Christians from exercising our rights as citizens of this country to fully participate in the political realm. He may make progressive Christians feel good about what they do, but he is just as frightening as Jerry Falwell to nonbelievers.

--"a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious.""

I'm really glad that a prominent religious leader has finally asserted that people who do spirituality and ethics without faith are an equal part of the scene.

For the good of the US and the world.


I don't imagine them giving up without a good fight though. :-(

No matter what some on "the left" would like, the atheists aren't going back to the back of the bus.

I have to deal with religious dominist on my local forum, its me against them all the time. They would like for me to just "shut up" so I have to remind them that THIS IS NOT NOR WILL IT EVER BE A XTIAN THEOCRACY! If they want one nation under gawd then they can move to Iran.

to other peoples ruminations about their own faith and it's relevance to the world at large and the faith, or lack there of, others.

Keep faith private and talk about principles that can be non-divisive and universal.

http://selzlab.blogspot.com/2006/12/cycles-of-history.html

Western society shifts back and forth between spiritualism/romanticism and rationalism/classicism in an 80 year long cycle. We are at the end of a spiritualist phase that started in the mid 1960s and are entering a rationalist phase (the last rational period was from 1929 to 1964). My generation, the people who were born since 1982, will, like the GI Generation who came of age during the Depression and WW2, tend strongly toward rationalism, unlike the Baby Boomers, who lean towards spiritualism.

...The only way for society to truely grow and progress is to ditch the dogma, 100%. It can no be allowed to flourish as it has been, its dangerous and whelds no benefits. Religion has ran it course and people need to let it go.