All Comments (11)

I’d say that the first question is why you want to talk about religion. Is it to prove that you are right and that you will be saved? Is it to understand others and work together with them? Is it just curiosity? In many cases, nonverbal communication is the most important part of any meeting. You lose that on the Internet. You certainly lose it on talk radio which is mostly bombast. We all need in person meetings. It’s easy to hate people whom you see only as they roar by in their big cars.

Consider two people. A says that Israel has a right to defend itself and that we should support Israel when it acts wisely. B says that the Palestinians have a right to resist a military occupation and deserve our support when they act wisely. I say that both A & B are right and that neither Israel nor the failed Palestinian state have acted wisely or in the interest of human rights.
I respect Jim Wallis. I don’t respect George W Bush. He claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who supposedly said that the first rule was to love your neighbor. When Bush says “I will understand if Israel attacks Iran” he is saying “let the blood flow. There’s not enough dying in the world today”. I don’t resent Christianity. I resent those who claim to be Christian but act as though they follow the god of war. Humans are easily led into killing and hatred of strangers. It’s a design fault, which should not be encouraged.

Democracy is a compromise, when have you ever heard somebody willing to compromise on their faith?
As soon as religion is the driving force in a government any possibility of compromise is lost, soon followed by the loss of the democracy.

I'd like to quote Eric Hoffer for this thread: "The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do."

We already have religious tests for public office, can you imagine even the most indifferent atheist winning any seat in any government structure? if you want to be a public servant, if you want to run for office, you are *not* free to be non-religous in our country. This makes me very sad.

REAL:
Yeah, right, he missed gay people . . . and the poor, and various other oppressed/disempowered groups (although I'm not entired convinced that gay are all that oppressed/disempowered given recent stats on disposable incomes ;)) and a host of other things he could have included on the list. If we're talking about 'moral issues', gee, maybe we could include levels of consumption (impacts on fisheries, water, land availability, health, etc.) and disparities. About large wealth/landholders (churches among them though the church may be under-used and land might be used to provide housing for homeless or the disabled or seniors. . .)

I think his point was that there are a lot of not okay things going on and they have 'moral' dimensions or, at the very least, raise questions about morality. I agree.

And as for your accusations I can't comment 'cause I don't know Jim or his position/participation in these matters but I gather you must know him rather well. Regardless, I certainly concur that "hatred" of this and other kinds is unhelpful and such behavior does challenge the "LOVE THEY NEIGHBOUR" proposition I understand is pretty central to Christianity. Indeed, worth reflection by those who throw stones.

"Today, whether it be the death toll in Iraq, the culture of corruption in Washington, the growing inequality of American life, the dangers of global warming, the alarming abortion rate, the breakdown of the family, or the epidemic of violence against women..."

You forgot about gay people. Gay people are treated as less than human and people like you continue to believe that that is not a problem. Or not a problem "YOU" created. Humans like you DID create the hatred against gay people and continue to do so.

Jim Wallis,

Can you how a person is saved? From What? Or does one need to be saved at all?

What percentage of Jim's articles and posts include a self-serving recap of an incident demonstrating that the world owes him a debt of gratitude? 75%? 85%?

The premise that we need religion to have a discourse on morality is false. Morality exists quite well w/o religion.

As far as Anon's comment on the bible is concerned, the problem lies with the pick and choose yet fundamentalist type mentality that seems to be quite prevalent in its readers. People aren't supposed to take it literally but some of it is real...What? You let others dictate what part you should take literally and what you shouldn't? Sorry, there's not much rationale going on there. It's literary fiction. That doesn't mean you can't learn from it, but if you take any of literally it's a downward spiral.

Rationality has no part in religious belief. You may reason that God has to exist because you cannot conceive of how we are here but that's just corrupting reason/rationality for something it cannot handle.

You could just come out and say I "choose" to believe in such and such a god or whatnot and you'd be ahead of millions of others in admitting that it was a choice (even if it comes from far back as a childhood persuasion to believe..which you can change...) But religious people rarely admit to such a choice - as it ruins the whole effect for them.

As for people being spiritual, that's another story, one that is very personal and based solely on peronal experience and a connection to this world and does not affect others because it's more of a subtle thing. It also is not authoritarian and it doesn't meddle in politics unlike religion. Spirituality doen't need words or theories to back it up, it doesn't need teaching and it doesn't rationalize anything, it just pure experience. Now because of these qualities it isn't messing anything up, unlike religion.

So let's keep religion out of politics and government, please.

If you feel the need to convert others or blurt your beliefs out loud, chances are it isn't spirituality, it's religion talking. And then on top of that it's most likely someone else's interpretation of what to believe. That so helpfully explains a predominance of heavily religious folk being exceptionally authoritarian.

Common ground is to be found but only when you leave your religion at the door and come to the table like a mortal human being who believes in the welfare of his fellow humans and the world in which we live in. Until then, it ain't gonna happen.

Democracy is to religion as a cup is to water; it should hold the substance, while never becoming it nor spilling it.

Perhaps religion has no monopoly on the morality of those who don't believe, but the power of religion lies precisely in believing that there is a right and a wrong and that they are made known. And also that as people we are prone to both - and can come to forgiveness in ourselves and others to build upon the cornerstone of love instead of fear.

And as always, 'religion' is a terribly blunt term, as diversely defined as the people who practice dissimilar beliefs. We should be clear what we're talking about, here and everywhere.

First, the idea that "religion has been refuted by science" is incorrect; there are very few religious people who believe that the creation story in Genesis, for example, must be taken in an absolutely literal fashion. There is also no verse in the Bible that says that the entire book must be taken literally; how could there be, since when most of the books were written, there was no Bible to speak of?

Second, labeling all religion as "superstition" that is diametrically opposed to rationality is also problematic. Not only does this blatantly ignore the fact that many religious people hold their beliefs on rational grounds, but it also presumes that religious beliefs themselves are necessarily irrational, a premise that is merely asserted and never proven. Also, if by "superstition" you mean religion as a whole, your statistic is nowhere near accurate; religious individuals hold majorities in virtually every Western European country.

Since the Enlightenment superstition has been in retreat. In western Europe it has a following of about 10%.

Religious leaders in the US know this as well. So in an attempt to hold on to their power and wealth a little longer they are willing to minimize doctrinaire differences to do battle with the common threat of science and rationality.

That some religious leaders like Jim Wallis are willing to cede back the secular power that was stated in the constitution to the government is a tactical move. It is based upon self-interest in that there is always the possibility that some extreme denomination will gain political power (as happened in colonial times) and put restrictions on his denomination.

As long as religious leaders command the blind faith (and wallets) of their followers they are working against the true democratic secular principles that this nation was founded on.

Making a common front with those who support the supernatural and authoritarian religious institutions is a bad bargain. As soon as they remove the threat to their sects from the new fundamentalists they will revert to their traditional positions.

How can religion contribute anything positive to society if all it's premises have been refuted by scientific findings.
If a book claims it contains all truths, and then is proven to be wrong on many of it's claims (the earth is not flat, snakes do not eat dirt, men and women both have an equal number of ribs, etc, etc) we MUST ignore it on all other claims as well!