Welcome to Planet Preterist
Search Site:     
Submit an article | Submit a link
3258 articles; 634 encyclopedia terms
 Submit  Links  Exclusives  Forum  Downloads  RSS Feeds New Account
Planet Preterist Blogs
Tools & Links
Login
Nickname

Password

Please create a free account to post in the forums, submit articles, links...etc.
Funny Stuff
God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself...He was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God even.
-- Kenneth Copeland, "Following the Faith of Abraham," tape 01-3001, n.d.
Our Columnists
Catalog Items
News: Hearts & Minds - We must never claim that those who disagree with our judgements are not people of real faith
Posted on Wednesday, June 29 @ 13:05:12 PDT by Virgil

Society by Jim Wallis
As I’ve traveled the country this spring - 82 events, 48 cities, and hundreds of media interviews since January - I’ve witnessed a new movement of moderate and progressive religious voices challenging the monologue of the Religious Right. An extremely narrow and aggressively partisan expression of right-wing Republican religion has controlled the debate on faith and politics in the public square for years. But that is no longer true.

At packed book events around the country these days, I often make an announcement that elicits a tumultuous response: "The monologue of the Religious Right is finally over, and a new dialogue has begun!" Smiles light up the faces of thousands of people as they break out in thunderous applause.

That new dialogue was visible in mid-May at Calvin College. Karl Rove, seeking a friendly venue for a commencement speech in Michigan, approached Calvin and offered President Bush as the speaker. The college, which had already invited Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale to deliver the speech, hastily disinvited him and welcomed the president. But the White House apparently was not counting on the reaction of students and faculty. Rove expected the evangelical Christian college in the dependable "red" area of western Michigan to be a safe place. He was wrong.

The day the president was to speak, an ad featuring a letter signed by one-third of Calvin’s faculty and staff ran in the Grand Rapids Press. Noting that "we seek open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best expressed in the political sphere," the letter said that "we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration."

The letter asserted that the administration has "launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq," "taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor," "harmed creation and [has] not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment," and "fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees." It concluded: "Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy...." One faculty member told a reporter, "We are not Lynchburg. We are not right wing; we’re not left wing. We think our faith trumps political ideology."

On commencement day, according to news reports, about a quarter of the 900 graduates wore "God is not a Republican or a Democrat" buttons pinned to their gowns.

THE EVENTS AT CALVIN, along with the growing crowds at our events around the country, are visible signs that the Religious Right does not speak for all Christians, even all evangelical Christians. Yet, other stories this spring told of their escalating attempts to claim that mantle.

In April, Religious Right leaders held what they called "Justice Sunday - Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith" in support of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Speakers as much as said that those who opposed their political views were not people of faith.

Then, at a small Baptist church in North Carolina, nine members had their membership revoked because they had supported John Kerry. According to news reports, the nine walked out of a church meeting when their pastor asked them to sign documents agreeing with his political views. When the controversy gained national attention, the pastor resigned, and the expelled members rejoined the church.

Click here to read the entire article


 
Related Links
· More about Society
· News by Virgil


Most read story about Society:
Login

Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


Options
   ^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF View PDF -   Subscribe -   Comments RSS

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 66 comments
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
You are not logged in! Login to post comments:

Nickname:
Password:
[ Lost your password? | Create New Account ]
Re: Hearts & Minds - We must never claim that those who disagree with our judgements (Score: 1)
by Ed on Wednesday, June 29 @ 14:58:07 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
It is all fine and good that Wallis points out the excesses of the Religious Right, but honestly, the Religious Left (or as he euphemistically calls them, Progressives) has been doing this garbage for years. Is brother Jim honestly expecting me to feel sorry for the "progressives" who have been persecuting people of faith who disagree with them for decades? (Think of the countless times men like Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, et al, were seen in pulpits across America, forcing the members of those churches to sit through their leftist propaganda).

I am a moderate, and I am angry that men like Wallis have the audacity to "speak for me". Where does HE get the right? I didn't vote for him. If he chooses to speak for himself, that's fine, but he'd better shut his trap. His propaganda is every bit as judgmental and biased as that of the Religious Right.

The whole "God is not a Republican or a Democrat" campaign is a scam. Every single person who wears that button (gee, only 25% of Calvin's students) voted Democrat (or Green) in the last election. Why did they do that if God is not a Democrat?

One last point: you don't have to be a conservative to support the war. You also don't have to be a liberal to oppose it.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Hearts & Minds - We must never claim that those who disagree with our judgements (Score: 1)
by kfiech on Wednesday, June 29 @ 16:53:09 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
"Rove expected the evangelical Christian college in the dependable "red" area of western Michigan to be a safe place. He was wrong."

"...an ad featuring a letter signed by one-third of Calvin’s faculty and staff ran in the Grand Rapids Press...[that said in part] that the administration has....."taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor," "harmed creation and [has] not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment," and "fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees."


Politicians and "Christian" higher learning institutions have become quite clueless, haven't they?



[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: God and Country (Score: 1)
by chrisliv on Wednesday, June 29 @ 18:45:45 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Well,

There's a Hanna Rosen article that is objective, yet full of inuendo, regarding rightist Patrick Henry Christian College and a Karl Rove from there.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050627fa_fact

I don't like to side with statists on the Left or Right, even if they're religious. Though I just skimmed the Rosen article, it seemed full of dry humor and , which I'm kind of a sucker for.

So, people (Jim Wallis ?) are making similar observations, lately.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

faith trumping political ideology (Score: 1)
by Parker on Wednesday, June 29 @ 21:44:15 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I thought this paragraph was particularly revealing...

The letter asserted that the administration has "launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq," "taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor," "harmed creation and [has] not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment," and "fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees." It concluded: "Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you...We are not right wing; we’re not left wing. We think our faith trumps political ideology."

So, am I to believe that this statement is really an example of "faith trumping political ideology"? C'mon.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Liberal Vs Conservative (Score: 1)
by EWMI on Wednesday, June 29 @ 22:49:14 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I just don't get how this works. It seems, for example, that a conservative remains that way until he opposes the administration. He then becomes a "leftie" or a "liberal". So what is the standard (not the loathsome Anne Coulter I hope)? At the moment there is a rising tide of anti war conservatives. When will they be rebadged?

It seems that, in the Clinton era, a liberal who opposed him on Kosovo or abortion was "developing a moral compass" but in the Bush era a Conservative who opposes him on Iraq or the privatisation of Social security is a "Liberal" or "Leftie".

Another way to pose the question would be by way of example.

John Hopkins Researcher Les F. Roberts determined that 1.7 million people had died in the Congo over a 22 month period leading up to the year 2000. “Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,” according to Roberts. Both the United Nations and the State Department have cited Roberts and acted on his data at other times as well.

However

The same man using similar metholodogy concluded that 100,000 people may have died in Iraq during the invasion. (Roberts did say that in his opinion the numbers could be as low as 8000 or as high as 195,000.) So called Pro Life Conservatives just plain hit the roof at the mention that so many people could be killed. Anyone who suggests that this may be so is called a "lefty" or a "liberal". Instead of saying "well, let's investigate" they slur the research as Liberal.

So back to the question: What is the standard?


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]


Web site powered by Planetpreterist.com Apache Web ServerPHP Scripting Language

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
The comments are property of their posters, all original content © 2008 by Planetpreterist.com
You can syndicate our articles using our RSS Feeds