Jim Wallis: Useful Idiot or Enemy Within?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 07:54:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I have no use for Jim Wallis and I begin to wonder if he really has the interests of Democrats and progressives at heart:

"When the Democrats became just the party of rights, they lost something, a moral appeal," Wallis contends. The Democratic patchwork frayed as some of its largest constituencies, particularly working-class whites, began to feel culturally estranged from the party. The breaking point was in 1972, when Republican Richard M. Nixon argued that a vote for Democrat George McGovern was a vote for "acid, amnesty and abortion." To many voters, McGovern embodied an emerging perception that liberals were outside the American mainstream.

Anyone who does not see the moral value in civil rights and liberties is not moral in my book. If Wallis does not share our Democratic values, if he prefers the imposition of his personal religious values on the country, instead of finding common ground with those who do not share his views, then he should be looking for a new party. We will not change our deeply held and cherished values, our love of the Constitution, for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Jim Wallis. It's great that he is for a progressive economic agenda but that does not mean Dems will accept his recalcitrant views on social issues.

Moreover, he is advocating stupid politics. Dems finally put the extremist label on the GOP because it is beholden to the Radical Religious Right. Wallis would throw that away. Do not listen to him Democrats. Ever. He does not believe in what we believe in. He does not even know what we believe in. He is a fool.

< Say Hello to Foreign Policy Watch | Will The Real Centrists Please Stand Up >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jim Wallis: Useful Idiot or Enemy Within? | 68 comments (68 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i'm not impressed (4.50 / 2) (#17)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:24:18 AM EST

with jim wallis. first, women do have a right to seek an abortion, just as they have a right to seek any medical treatment they deem necessary. this isn't even an issue for discussion, as far as i'm concerned. whether someone else doesn't like it is of little interest to me, it's not their business.

the same goes for same-sex marriage. that someone else finds it abhorrent interests me not at all. again, they have no standing in who i, or anyone else, decide to marry.

that said, i also believe, firmly, in the establishment clause. religion can be a wonderful thing, for many people. however, injecting its beliefs into the rest of us, by legislative or judicial fiat is not, in my opinion, what the author's of the constitution had in mind.

just because someone had a book on the nyt's best seller list doesn't automatically mean that what they had to say has value, just that a lot of people bought the book.

there was a time when many people believed that owning human beings was perfectly right and justified. they were wrong.

The consistency of life (none / 0) (#22)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:10:39 AM EST

Jim Wallis is one who lays claim to the consistency of life theme and that's the lens thru which he views abortion....thru his stance on the death penalty.

I don't. I see it as a personal/privacy issue.


The truth of your statement, cpinva,... (none / 0) (#51)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:23:13 PM EST

...where you state:

Cannot be doubted, but I would make one minor modification. That is, "... that a lot of people bought the book...".

It is well known and documented that many "think-tanks" and other entities go out and make massive purchases of a book for which they wish to draw attention. This is especially true of rightwing associations such as the American Enterprise Institute.

That makes it LOOK like a bestseller, but then the think-tanks sell them at a tremendous discount or just give them away.

Just another devious and pernicious way people use to further their agendas.


bill, i thought about that (none / 0) (#59)
by cpinva on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:04 PM EST

as well. however, i have no firm data that would suggest that to be the case here, so i wanted to refrain from speculation.


: I've "got your back" for speculation! (none / 0) (#69)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:36:45 PM EST

Misrepresentation (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by cmpnwtr on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:00:18 PM EST

This just seems like knee jerk reaction to me, of one quote. If you really want to understand (instead of just attack) the message and work of Jim Wallis I suggest you read Sojourner's Magazine regularly and read "God's Politics." Jim Wallis, whether you like him or not, is an important voice for progressive Christians. And progressive Christians are an important and powerful voice in the Democratic party. If the Dems just want to be a party of secularists, they are going to be a fringe party. There is a reason why the African American Church is a bastion of liberal politics. There is a reason why civil rights was born of the religious experience of oppression. The call to bring peace and justice to our land rises above party, and is inspired by the best spiritual traditions of our land. But the Democratic party must be inspired by it or it has no soul.

Stop (none / 0) (#7)
by aw on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:26:11 PM EST

Just stop. Please.


Stop what? (none / 0) (#11)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:24:04 AM EST

What are you wanting stopped?


Stop. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:33:56 AM EST

Blurring and erasing the separation of church and state. Theocracy by any other name, etc. etc...

Becoming rethugs. The centrist bullsh*t which is just another way of selling your soul.

Tossing principles and values out the window to simply to gain power.


Thanks Edger (none / 0) (#15)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:55:49 AM EST

That's pretty much what I meant. Plus the soulless Democrats thing.


I was guessing... (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:15:07 AM EST

...and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, aw, but I felt from the tone and substance of things you say here that that was how you felt.


: You spoke for me very well, Edger (none / 0) (#28)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:49:29 AM EST

Just get me a f-ing faith-based thing, got it?"
-Karl Rove quoted by David Kuo
A perfect illustration of using religion for political gain. When will these people learn? Soulless Democrats, indeed.

Re: Misrepresentation (none / 0) (#26)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:29:51 AM EST

You don't need to read `Sojourners' regularly to get a feel for the message. You get it right away. Personally, I wasn't all that impressed with his book. Mr. Wallis has been an important voice for progressive Christians. However, he has not been nor is he the only voice.

Whether or not aw, Edger or others "approve", progressive Christians (specifically Catholics) are and have been within the Democratic party, and have certainly been on the leftist spectrum of politics. Dorothy Day & Peter Maurin are two early examples. There is no denying the role of certain religious traditions and the call for social justice.

You do, however, go overboard with these two comments: {If the Dems just want to be a party of secularists, they are going to be a fringe party......But the Democratic party must be inspired by it or it has no soul} because there's no basis for it.


We aren't (4.66 / 3) (#32)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:14:18 AM EST

"approving" or disapproving progressive Christians in the Democratic party. Speaking for myself, I am tired of having religion shoved into every debate. First the religious right, now the religious left.

Here's something that makes me think you should redirect your progressive religious mission to someplace other than the Democratic party.

The problem doesn't just lie in the contradictions of fundamentalist teaching about Stonewall Jackson. It recurs now, today, in the Pentagon. Sharlet sees "a joyous disregard for democracy."
The most striking example is a short video on faith and diplomacy made in the aftermath of September 11,2001, by Christian Embassy, a behind-the-scenes ministry for government and military elites. It almost seems to endorse deliberate negligence of duty, Dan Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans' affairs, announces that his weekly prayer sessions are "more important than doing the job." Major General Jack Catton says that he sees his position as an adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a "wonderful opportunity" to evangelize men and women setting defense policy. "My first priority is my faith," he says. "I think it's a huge impact.... You have many men and women who are seeking God's counsel and wisdom as they advise the Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the Secretary of Defense." Brigadier General Bob Caslen puts it in sensual terms: "We're the aroma of Jesus Christ." There's a joyous disregard for democracy in these sentiments, for its demands and its compromises, that in its darkest manifestation becomes the overlooked piety at the heart of the old logic of Vietnam, lately applied to Iraq: In order to save the village, we must destroy it.

That's some scary s**t and a good reason to distrust all mixing of politics and religion. To me "progressive" Christians are the mirror image of these people.


Clarification (none / 0) (#34)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:23:33 AM EST

I should make it clear that I mean "progressive" Christians who want to inject their religious beliefs into politics.


Okay - don't mischaracterize what I said (none / 0) (#37)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:38:11 AM EST

This is what I said:

"progressive Christians....are and have been within the Democratic party....AND will continue to be. YOU just don't see it or them because of what you say here:

Speaking for myself, I am tired of having religion shoved into every debate.

So am I, and so are plenty of others.


You're misinterpreting progressive (none / 0) (#40)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:47:14 AM EST

Here's something that makes me think you should redirect your progressive religious mission to someplace other than the Democratic party........Here's something that makes me think you should redirect your progressive religious mission to someplace other than the Democratic party.

That's not what being a progressive in the christian tradition is about in reference to your link. You're way off - way off.


I did say (none / 0) (#43)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:27:35 PM EST

Religious individuals or groups, left or progressive, who seek political power are mirror images of those depicted in the linked article. Maybe I should have said they have the potential to be. In my view, it's better to prevent this from happening by keeping politics and religion separate.

For me it's not enough to say we're not like that. It could be like that.


: Oh for crissakes (none / 0) (#44)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:31:52 PM EST

Anthing could be.
We're chasing tails here.
Besides I'm over my 'morning limit' for my computer time and am in danger of having my butt fall asleep.

I have nothing agaist progressive Christians, Kitt (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:09:24 AM EST

Many Christians, if not most are progressive. You for example, and all 'true' Christians.

Christians, and people of other faiths, have issues they are just as concerned about as anyone else.

My feeling is that they should be approached on that basis, that there are common issues that people are concerned about and want addressed, regardless of personal religious beliefs.

My feeling also is that trying to win faith based communities over to the Democrats through inviting them to base governing policy on religioes dogma is wrong, self defeating, and leads to erasure of the separation of church and state and to theocratic government, and is exactly what Bush and the GOP have been doing for years. It is selling the soul to gain power, IMO.

I'm not expressing this well, I feel, but I think you'll get my drift here. Unless I misread you I think this is what you advocate also, no?


Correction (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:13:43 AM EST

I think this is what you THINK also, no?


To be perfectly honest, Edger (none / 0) (#35)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:24:16 AM EST

I would never expect anyone to use me as the example of a christian, let alone "a good christian." Maya Angelou is credited with this response to someone's statement that they were a christian - "Already?"

Yep, you're right on here.

My feeling also is that trying to win faith based communities over to the Democrats through inviting them to base governing policy on religious dogma is wrong, self defeating, and leads to erasure of the separation of church and state and to theocratic government, and is exactly what Bush and the GOP have been doing for years. It is selling the soul to gain power, IMO

Well... :-) (none / 0) (#36)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:27:32 AM EST

I would never expect anyone to use me as the example of a christian

I was referring to this, only...

I'm Catholic with a post-graduate degree in religious studies


Ah....well.... (none / 0) (#38)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:40:40 AM EST

that just defines the religious 'tradition' and that I'm educated.

Don't use me as an example of practicing christian principles especially in those dealing with others because it doesn't happen enough.


: Oh, well... (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:43:29 AM EST

That's probably a good thing. And not something people like Wallis would agree with you on, I think. They know they are perfect. ;-) That's the problem.

: BUT... (none / 0) (#41)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:05:53 PM EST

I do see you as trying to practice 'principles' that many so-called 'christians' only pay lip service to.

Big Tent, Small Mind (1.00 / 3) (#14)
by theologicus on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:20:29 AM EST

BTD is wrong again. No sense for nuance or subtlety.

Wallis is a longstanding progressive. Foolish to attack him on false charges and obtuse reading of his comments.

Do we really need this guy's posts at TalkLeft? He takes up a lot of air time -- with hot air.

Big Tent's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:58:25 AM EST

Posts often begin some interesting conversations here. If you don't like his posts, don't read them.


: Right (1.00 / 2) (#18)
by theologicus on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:08:04 AM EST

I usually don't.

Uncalled for Insult (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:29:43 AM EST

Theologis, please don't insult the writers or commenters here. Just state your disagreement.

Your snipe at BTD was uncalled for and violates the comment policy of the site.


I suppose it's okay (none / 0) (#61)
by theologicus on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:32:34 AM EST

to call Jim Wallis a fool.


You suppose correctly (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:37:30 PM EST

Do you not understand the distinction between those of us engaged in discussion here and those public figures being discussed?

I am told you are bright. If that is true, then you must understand that. And id you do then you are being disingenuous in your comment.


Let me get this straight. (1.00 / 1) (#66)
by theologicus on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:51:45 PM EST

It's okay for you to call Jim Wallis a fool, because he's a public figure.

But it's not okay for me to retort that your comments are inane ("smallness of mind:" Metaphor), because you're engaged in a discussion here? Give me a break.


: Give you a break? (none / 0) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:56:16 PM EST

Apparently you do not understand the distinction.
Civil discussion is the point.
Jim Wallis is not commenting at Talk Left nor writing here.
And let me be clear, these are not my rules. I love free give and take, with strong spicy language.
Instead of pointing out your breaking of the rules, I would have referred to let you have it with both barrels.
But then I would be violating the site rules BECAUSE you are theoretically engaged in discussion here.
You seem the one person who does not understand this. Should give you pause.

This comment should be deleted (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:29:49 AM EST

It is an ad hominem attack.


It's a comment in the inanity of your argument. (1.00 / 2) (#62)
by theologicus on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:33:18 AM EST

Much better (none / 0) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:34:34 PM EST

What I like about this is it demonstrates beyond doubt that you are a sanctimonious hypocrite who decries "lack of civility" while feeling free to insult all who disagree with you.

As for the alleged inanity of my argument, your saying so does not make it so. You may be a legend in your own mind, but you are not in mine.

I made this very point about you before - you think that you can make declarations without providing a stitch of an argument because you believe we should just accept your declaration from on high - very much like Jim Wallis by the way.

I can't say whether your argument is full of crap as you fail to present an argument.

Jeralyn asked that I be civil and I have avoided commenting for the most part. I have said that I will only point out to rude attacks on me like yours.

You show no sign of understanding what you did. Your supreme arrogance excuses you of all faults and expects that all bow to your conclusions.

It does not work that way, at least not with me.

Try making an argument next time. I'll refer this exchange to Jeralyn so that she can judge this regarding the standards of this site.


Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by theologicus on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:47:53 PM EST

My time for commenting on these threads is limited, and I don't think your posts are worth it. But I think I'm entitled to register an objection.


: Sorry (none / 0) (#68)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:00:06 PM EST

You disingenuousness is a constant.
Register your objection all you like. Do not attack me personally. IF that is too much to ask, then do not comment.
Or better yet, lobby Jeralyn to relax her rules because I would prefer you be able to write what you id and then get it back from me.
We tried that once before and you coplained when I shot back. It was YOUR complaint that led me to stop commenting except to point out personal attacks.
You are a person who likes to dish it out but can not take it. Your being admonsihed here in this thread is a direct result of your comlaints about being allegedly badly treated by me. YOU decided that you did not like it. You decided to complain.
Now you have to live with it.

Do we really need your responses? (none / 0) (#21)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:05:29 AM EST

The same could be said about you.

There are a number here with whom it's doubtful I'll agree with often or ever - so what?


Generalizations (1.00 / 1) (#55)
by atlanta lawyer on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:01:17 PM EST

I'm don't see how you can so adamantly state that the GENERALIZATION that democrats are antireligious is so off base as to be called a lie. Just look at those here who have already posted and suggested that anyone who does not have a high wall between their religious and political beliefs are dangerous fanatics who have no place in the public forum. And Franlky, BTD's post itself offered little more than an ad hominem attack and his critism of Thelogis was both warranted and hypocrital.

: If you are going to... (none / 0) (#56)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:18:34 PM EST

...make generalizations, it might help your case to back them up with enough specific examples to support them. Otherwise you lose your case before you start. Extrapolating from general to specific often is valid. The other way 'round more often than not, is not.

: I pointed out that (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:44:47 PM EST

Theologicus had engaged in ad hominem attack.
That was objectively true.
Whether I did on Wallis is not so cut and dried. And even if I did, Theologicus' attack on me violated the site's comment policy. My post did not.

There is no shortage of fools (none / 0) (#1)
by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 09:26:27 PM EST

How and why did you pick this one to expound on? I've never heard of him.

Does this guy cliam to be a Democrat, or claim to know something everyone else doesn't?

Why is he here? Is there someone who cares what he thinks?

Many do (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 09:29:04 PM EST

Did you click the link? You need to understand that because you have not heard of someone does not mean they are not worth talking about.


'if' (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:26:37 PM EST

I don't know about Repack, and my eyes are older than the rest of me, maybe from seeing nearly everything worth looking at, but I didn't think there was a link in your post Big Tent, and I had a hard time finding it even after I knew it was there somehwhere, because 'if' is a small word.

Anyway:

as Wallis recalls, he came to believe that the leftist activist creeds did not speak to the spiritual.

This guy has become so immersed in his own smallminded worldview that he cannot see that there is a world outside it, much less one that might have value to others equal to what his has for him.

There will never be any rational discussion with him that does not begin with absolute acceptance of and submission to his ingrown little world. He lives in a place made of fear and insecurity.


: To be clear... (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:34:51 AM EST

...I meant Wallis.

What link? (none / 0) (#8)
by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:32:16 PM EST

Just because I haven't heard of the guy does not mean his opinion matters. If you are going to comment on an obscure individual, you owe it to us to explain why you care what he says or why we should.

If you want me to click a link, give me one to click.


Wait, I found it (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 11:40:54 PM EST

The link was the word "if" (misused, since you meant "whether").

Short answer to your question: now that I know who the guy is, I still don't care what he thinks, and his intentions for the Democratic party are moot.

You brought this to our attention...why? So we know the world hasn't run out of fools?


: The link wasn't BIG enough (none / 0) (#27)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:34:34 AM EST

Though I don't necessarily agree with you here, this is hilarious:
You brought this to our attention...why? So we know the world hasn't run out of fools?
I gotta start keeping track of things like this to use when the need arises.

I think he is a friend (none / 0) (#4)
by timber on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:31:33 PM EST

More Religious people voted for Democrats in 2006 than 2004.

The head of Christian Coalition wanted to put poverty and environment as top issues but refused by members so he resigned.

I think because of Wallis talks all around the nation, he reminded people that morality is not about abortion and gay marriage but uppermost is social justice, love of neighbor, peacemaking, helping the poor, etc. .

I do agree with him on certain rights such as when NARAL framed abortion as Right to Abortion instead of dont recriminalize abortion, we estranged religious people and make them cringe because that framing dont recognize that for the religious, abortion is infanticide. In framing an issue it has to be done respecting other beliefs. In fact, the frame--govt should not interfere with my body or health is much more acceptable to religious because you are not saying that Abortion is fine.

: NARAL (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 10:40:14 PM EST

did not frame it as a right to abortion.
Jim Wallis lied about that and many other things.
He did and does nothing for Democrats.
What this election proved is that gettable religious voters are gettab le because of OTHER issues, not by pretending to be GOP Lite.
Wallis is harmful to Democrats.

Let me ask you something, BTD (none / 0) (#10)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:22:25 AM EST

You say:

Is it simply because of this article? Or do you actually know who Jim Wallis is and because of that exposure to him, you have no use for him?

I know who he is. But I'm Catholic with a post-graduate degree in religious studies and have been reading 'Sojourners Magazine' for years.

His body of work (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:30:20 AM EST

HE is consistently awful.


He is consistently awful at what? (none / 0) (#23)
by Kitt on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:12:50 AM EST

Could ya just be a bit clearer? And - explain how so while you're at it.


Better yet (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:14:05 AM EST

I will present a full indictment of Jim Wallis in a subsequent post with evidence and links.

But the basics are this - He says Democrats are hostile to religion. That is a lie.

It is a Republican lie.

Thus he is either a useful idiot or an enemy within.


Excactly. (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:18:24 AM EST

He says Democrats are hostile to religion. That is a lie.


I'm sorry, but I find this trolling... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:13:13 PM EST

...by paperhead to be deliberately insulting and not geared towards engendering reasoned debate and intelligent conversation.

Anyone else in agreement?


theocrat? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by squeaky on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:16:50 PM EST

Liberals have been undermining religion in this country for decades from abortion to euthinasia to same-sex marriage, you name it, they have tried to destroy it.

First off church and state are seperate in this country. I am not up on all the theocracies out there but I am sure you can find a suitable one out there, as America is obviously not for you.

Second, religion must have little to offer if Liberals can as you say "undermine" it.

Iraq needs some more crusaders, why not join up? Between you and your friends you are certain to turn it into a christian theocracy. You won't be missed at TL.


What? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Peaches on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:22:14 PM EST

I thought we supported abortion, same-sex marraige and euthanasia.

Whatever, Yes Bill he's a troll.


Fair warning, paperhead, that trolling... (none / 0) (#52)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:30:42 PM EST

...is prohibited here, and this is the second time you have been warned. Should you post such rude, contentious, and arrogant posts again, I shall respectfully request that you be banned as a troll.

If you have something interesting to contribute, PLEASE DO, but kindly do so with a gentle respect for other commenters here.

Thank you.


I found out quite by accident (none / 0) (#53)
by aw on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:50:47 PM EST

that if you rate a post as zero, it will hide it. But as the guidelines say, it's a responsibility.

But you did give fair warning.


: It does... (none / 0) (#54)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:57:55 PM EST

It hides it from commenters who can only rate down to 1. Anyone who can rate down to 0 can still see it, with good reason. It allows for review of hidden comments.

Show me one example... (none / 0) (#47)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:41:56 PM EST

...of where liberals/democrats have been supportive of religion.

You didn't even read the thread, obviously.

They jes' don't make trolls like they used to, I guess. ;-)


he always seems a bit (none / 0) (#42)
by Jen M on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 12:15:00 PM EST

full of himself.

Every time I read one of his articles it seems less about "what we should do" and more "look what I did"

Just the opinion of a preacher's kid. I've heard all kinds.

Rev. Wallis is right about many things, but very annoying.


Concerned abt attacks on Obama & Wallis (none / 0) (#45)
by MSS on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:28:23 PM EST

I'm not super-religious, but think we should talk with people who are, and seek their support.

Thus, I'm not opposed to evangelicals like Wallis, and to politicos like Obama, who seek to reach out to those constituences.

Rather than attacking them for their errors (as we all have errors), I hope we can spend some energy looking for the commonalities we share with them -- and appreciate their efforts to reach out to people that some of us may not ordinarily talk with.

Less attacks on our own, please.

and Wallis's position was (none / 0) (#57)
by atlanta lawyer on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:37:41 PM EST

that some Democrats are hostile to religion, as a generalization, not all, or Democrats in general. I suppose you could say its a lie, even as BTD said, a Republican lie, that Demorcrats in general are hostile to religion.

: I would. (none / 0) (#58)
by Edger on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:03:00 PM EST

I do, in fact. I think I have in this thread.