‘Conservative-liberal faceoff on religion and politics.’
By on Aug 15th, 2007 at 9:45 am
‘Conservative-liberal faceoff on religion and politics.’
The Family Research Council is planning a three-day “Values Voter Summit” this fall that will include “a conservative-liberal faceoff on religion and politics.” The debate “pits Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian who edits the magazine Sojourners, against Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s government affairs arm and host of three syndicated radio programs.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Equal time for both opinions? With the history that the FRC has concerning “opposing opinions”, I won’t hold my breath.
Maybe they’ll surprise me, and actually allow opposing viewpoints to be heard in their entirety. Doubtful, but possible.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:49 amWill they be serving communion?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:54 amThe fact that there is even a debate about the intersection between religion and politics is a good sign. This helps shine the light on the issue and, hopefully, the faithful can eventually come to see that fusing religion and politics is harmful to both.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:59 amI agree PatrioticLiberal
August 15th, 2007 at 10:01 amErr… okaaay…
Having looked both of them up: They are both in favour of mixing Church and state. I fail to see how they are opposing viewpoints, in fact I would say mixing Church and State is about the one thing the two would absolutely agree upon – they both approve.
Maybe they should not go for religious figures arguing in the against column here?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:01 amOr, the faithful can eventually come to see that what they believe in is a bunch of crap.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:02 amPLC-Um, unfortunately, i don’t think they’ll promote that particular aspect of the religion/politics debate…
August 15th, 2007 at 10:02 amWill they be serving communion?
Comment by Raven
Yes, it will be a light unpretentious Claret and a sourdough puff pastry served by Teddy Boy Haggard and about 1500 defrocked Catholic priests.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:03 amPLC:
Politicans who do not make decisions based on their Christian values are dangerous for America.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:04 amJake D. is dangerous for America.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:06 amPLC:
Politicans who do not make decisions based on their Christian values are dangerous for America.
Comment by Jake D
If you believe that, then you agree that Dubya is dangerous to America; he hasn’t followed a single “Christian Value” since he was in office!
August 15th, 2007 at 10:06 amTwo men enter, Jesus leaves.
Sounds like a huckstering sham to me.
I can’t wait till they sell some snake oil from the back of a buckboard wagon.
-GSD
August 15th, 2007 at 10:06 amSo, which one of these clowns is liberal, which is conservative???????
August 15th, 2007 at 10:07 am“….based on their Christian values”
Comment by Jake D.
I have not seen many politicians, professed Christians or otherwise, who display “Christian values”
August 15th, 2007 at 10:08 am“Christian”, and/or “Family” values, in modern parlance, is a corruption of true christianic teachings.
Politicans who do not make decisions based on their Christian values are dangerous for America.
Comment by Jake D. — August 15, 2007 @ 10:04 am
You may have a point there. If politicians actually made decisions based on actual Christian values, we’d have no more needless wars, universal health care for everyone, and an economic system that looked out for the destitute in society instead of the filthy rich.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:10 amYes, it will be a light unpretentious Claret and a sourdough puff pastry served by Teddy Boy Haggard and about 1500 defrocked Catholic priests.
Comment by upside00
Maybe I’ll read about it in the papers, and wash it down with cubed Wonder bread and grape juice.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:11 ami still don’t get it. who’s the liberal?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:12 amReligious values aren’t necessarily American values. It depends on the religion, and which sect is talking.
American values are set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any other religious screed. To the extent that any religion’s “values” mirror the Constitution, those are legitimate American values. But religious fundamentalists, whether Islamic, Christian or any other, are blind to that fact, and wish to impose their “beliefs” as pre-eminate over our rights.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:13 amMaybe I’ll read about it in the papers, and wash it down with cubed Wonder bread and grape juice.
Comment by Raven
Ahhh! The good ol’ days of midwestern communions! (And it was Welch’s grape juice as I recall.)
August 15th, 2007 at 10:14 amyour religion is going to affect your decision making but if you are in public office you should go by rule of law. Otherwise, get out and help America in other ways.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:14 amOK, Jake, you get to field a challenge that I have made to others with no adequate response.
Give me just one reason, apart from a particular brand of Christian values, for denying marriage to homosexuals. If you can’t (and you won’t be able to), then give me one reason why only that particular brand of Christian values should have preference in setting secular policy.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:15 amHow about pushing for the FairTax?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:16 amPLC…it should be a state issue. The Fed Gov’t should stay out of it.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:16 amLet everyone be miserable…get married LOL
August 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am(And it was Welch’s grape juice as I recall.)
Comment by upside00
Exactly! ‘Cause it was Kosher…
August 15th, 2007 at 10:20 amtosterhead:
I already answered that in another thread — good Christians are allowed to disagree about whether the U.S. Constitution grants the FEDERAL government any powers for S-CHIP or food stamps.
PLC:
First of all, majority rules. Second, there are plenty of secular reasons why the government should not be encouraging, promoting, and sanction harmful behavior — see laws against suicide as well.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:21 amHow come I can’t post???? What oh what have I done to the TP gods? Must I make a sacrifice? Their wants are as elusive as well, any god.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:22 amI already answered that in another thread — good Christians are allowed to disagree about whether the U.S. Constitution grants the FEDERAL government any powers for S-CHIP or food stamps.
Comment by Jake D. — August 15, 2007 @ 10:21 am
This is an interesting thought experiment. So how would a Christian interpret the following:
Versus a Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Deist?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:29 amJake D.
Ahem, you failed to answer PLC’s post. Also, the majority of Germans voted for the Nazi party and all that that entailed. It didn’t make it right.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:29 amI still don’t see a liberal in the debate, either. It will be an all around fun conservative/conservative debate. Woohoo
August 15th, 2007 at 10:30 amIf we got a secular humanist or athiest to represent the liberal side, there might actually be a good debate.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:32 amOf course they’re allowed to assemble and discuss politics, but when one of their anointed leaders tells them who he wouldn’t vote for they need to start paying federal taxes. I’m tired of the Theocrats pissing on the secular side of the fence. A negative endorsement is still an endorsement. If they think this should be a Chrisitian, excuse me can’t forget the Judeao, nation, prove it, get someone elected to convince the rest of the nation it’s necessary. Until STFU with the James Dobson anti-proclamation, proclamations.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:37 amJim Wallis would be the liberal here. He is a great guy, insightful and balanced. Not wacko left, not wacko right. Always great to hear him speak.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:44 amtoasterhead:
An originalist, regardless of religion, would look to the difference between private and general (public) welfare, as was intended at the time Section 8 was drafted and ratified.
Bruce Gorton:
You want me to list every secular reason? Here’s just one: productive, healthy citizens are a GOOD GOAL of government.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:54 amAn originalist, regardless of religion, would look to the difference between private and general (public) welfare, as was intended at the time Section 8 was drafted and ratified.
Comment by Jake D. — August 15, 2007 @ 10:54 am
So what you’re saying, then, is that religion really has nothing to do with making laws. Why, then, is it so important that “Christian values” be applied to politics?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:58 amJake D.
Okay, my response, despite being short and fairly civil, doesn’t seem to be appearing.
You want me to list every secular reason? Here’s just one: productive, healthy citizens are a GOOD GOAL of government.
There is nothing unhealthy about gay people, in fact gym fanatics had, up until a fairly recently a reputation for being gay.
They are frequently highly productive, working the same jobs as everyone else.
And if you mean breeding; not when you have overpopulation it isn’t.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:00 ami sure hope welton gaddy will be there…
it’s for sure he will have plenty to say about it…
i try to listen to his weekly show on AirAmericaRadio…
he is so very intelligent and enlightened and true…
and i am not a religous person…
http://www.stateofbelief.com/site/c.ioIKLLOoGlF/b.2667441/k.BD65/Home.htm
August 15th, 2007 at 11:01 amA little warning to all the heterosexuals attending the “Values Voter Summit”: Stay out of the restrooms.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:07 amsounds like both players are on the same side!
religious righties don’t care for debate – they already know the truth, so why bother?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:08 amYou guys need to get out more. Jim Wallis is an Evangelical, but he’s definitely not a member of the Religious Right. LINK
August 15th, 2007 at 11:13 amgummitch
No, but he is in favour of mixing Church and State. The problem here is that they have gotten a leftwinger to argue with a rightwinger, on a subject they both agree on.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15 amthere are plenty of secular reasons why the government should not be encouraging, promoting, and sanction harmful behavior
Comment by Jakus D. Fakus — August 15, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Okay, Jake one quick, simple question:
August 15th, 2007 at 11:15 amHow does the union of same sex couples encourage, promote, or sanction harmful behavior?
Five words for you: Separation of Church and State.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:25 amNo, but he is in favour of mixing Church and State. The problem here is that they have gotten a leftwinger to argue with a rightwinger, on a subject they both agree on.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 15, 2007 @ 11:15 am
They may not be in complete opposition, but they still have disagreement on the exact role religion should play in politics. It’s an opportunity for a rational and nuanced policy debate touching on philosophy, theology, and Constitutional law.
But then again, it’s Fox, so it will probably be a content-free shoutfest.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:37 amJake has not given me an answer. The reason? Because there isn’t one. There is no, zero, nada, zip secular reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. The only reason for the governmental (whether federal, state, or local) prohibition is to favor a particular religious view. If I started my own Christian church and wanted, as its first “minister”, to marry homosexuals I would be prohibited by law from doing so. That is governmental interference with religious practice.
And Jake, the Constitution of the U.S. is meant to protect the minority from the majority.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:43 amWhich one is the liberal?
August 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pm#46. Colmes? :-)
August 15th, 2007 at 12:36 pm… Also, the majority of Germans voted for the Nazi party and all that that entailed. …
Comment by Bruce Gorton — August 15, 2007 @ 10:29 am
The “majority of Germans” never voted for the Nazi party.
The Nazis never held a majority in the Reichstag until the opposing parties were outlawed. It might be argued the they never held any sort of majority since they dissolved the Reichstag soon after eliminating all opposition.
Hitler never won an election until after he already held absolute power and was the only candidate on the ballot.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:57 pmJim Wallis is better than Pat Robertson but he is NO liberal. If you follow the real liberal side of the Christian religion some think he may do more harm than good. This is sort of a mini FOX news con job. Put a right wing democrat on to debate a rabid republican extremist.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:04 pmJake: “Politicans who do not make decisions based on their Christian values are dangerous for America.”
The most common argument pro-slavers made against abolitionists was that slavery was a christian value.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pmTexasjuice is dead on right about Wallis. His book, God’s Politics gives great insight to progressive Christian thinking today. Land is a decent man, with less tolerance for those who don’t believe, or believe as he does. Give ‘em a chance first, before demonizing. Leave that to the right wing goons. It would be nice if someone like Randall Balmer was joining them too….CFF
August 15th, 2007 at 11:34 pmGays are the wealthiest (and most educated) segment of our population, FYI
August 16th, 2007 at 10:02 am