Progressive faith did not lose this election

[sangh0]

Progressive faith did not lose this election
by Jim Wallis

http://www.sojo.org/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041103#3

Religion was a big factor in this election, and "moral values" were named as a key issue for voters in the exit polls. On the Republican side, George W. Bush talked comfortably and frequently about his personal faith and ran on what his conservative religious base called the "moral issues." On the Democratic side, Senator John Kerry invoked the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, talked about the importance of loving our neighbors, and said that faith without works is dead - but only began talking that way at the very end of his campaign...

...Clearly, God is not a Republican or a Democrat, as we sought to point out, and the best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or loyally partisan but to maintain the moral independence to critique both the left and the right.

It is now key to remember that our vision - a progressive and prophetic vision of faith and politics - was not running in this election. John Kerry was, and he lost. Kerry did not strongly champion the poor as a religious issue and "moral value," or make the war in Iraq a clearly religious matter. In his debates with George Bush, Kerry should have challenged the war in Iraq as an unjust war, as many religious leaders did - including Evangelicals and Catholics. And John Kerry certainly did not advocate a consistent ethic of human life as we do - opposing all the ways that life is threatened in our violent world.

We didn't lose the election, John Kerry did, and the ways in which both his vision and the Democratic Party's are morally and politically incomplete should continue to be taken up by progressive people of faith....

[Malva Zebrina]

1. I do not agree with Wallis on many poiints

Kerry's reference faith without works is dead is clearly an appeal to Catholic voters. Fundamnetalists, evangelicals and those extremists far to the right, born agains do NOT believe that the combination of faith and works=salvation and disagree entirely with that precept. Faith alone is what determines salvation according to their beliefs.

[sangh0]

4. True, but IMO Wallis isn't talking just about faith

He's more about addressing values in an embracing inclusive manner, and not about changing people's specific religious beliefs. It's not so much that he wants to argue about whether it's good works or grace that gets us into heaven. It's more about concentrating on the values that all Christians should be sharing, like a concern for the poor and the environment.

[wickywom]

2. Agreed, but

They are planning our elimnination from mainstream churches.
We must start fighting back.
Their intolerance of blacks was not acceptable.
Their intolerance of homosexuals and woman who believe in a pro-choice agenda is equally unchristian.....
We progressive christians must do the fighting now.
This can not be left up to politics.
We must seperate church and state and take the battle to them.

[sui generis]

3. mixed feelings about the statement

I think it's good that he equivocates a strategy of appealing to people's instincts of what is right and wrong, but it also comes across as a bit cynical (in the realistic sense of the word).

On the other hand, I certainly don't want to encourage people to make party affiliations a religious issue first, and a governance issue second, because no matter which way you slice it you end up with religion in government.

There is a point here though. When you kill a hundred thousand civilians to "liberate" them, you are evil. If you support a war that killed 100,000 civilians, you are evil. We have to reconcile that evil with the fact that the children of our nation have done it out of duty and patriotism and even unwillingly and unknowingly, and they are coming home profoundly changed as a result of that, some for the better, and some for the worse.

We have to understand that marriage in the eyes of the government is a contractual agreement for disposition of assets and allocation of responsibility in child rearing. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with religion, morals, values, ethics, tradition, etc.

We have allowed religion to make it a religious issue in government.

It is immoral for one American to tell another American that not only can he not get married, but he may not even have a relationship in the form of a civil union, nor may he will his assets to his partner since that could be construed as a "benefit" of marriage.

It goes beyond immoral to just plain evil. Government is about the mechanics of governance, not adjudicating morality. We have laws that are quite "moral" to victims, and quite "immoral" to people on death row. Morality is subjective, and the word shouldn't even be used in the context of government, and certainly not as an excuse to take away the civil freedoms of a certain group of Americans.

[sangh0]

5. I agree, but

I don't think criticizing others values is all we need to do. We need to communicate and demonstrate the values that underlie our positions. IMO, it's not enough to say "It's immoral to kill civilians". We need to make it clear what we are FOR wrt values.

[enki23]

6. this disgusts me

if it weren't in the 'help and support' forum, i'd have a lot more to say. for now, i'll keep it short and incomplete: kerry didn't do ANYTHING wrong. kerry ran a damned good campaign, and we did our part too, and did it well. we all did.

[sangh0]

7. too bad

.

[enki23]

8. and you continue to irritate me

that, also, is "too bad."

[sangh0]

9. I'm shocked!

Shocked, I tell you.