In an interview with Christianity Today, progressive evangelical Jim Wallis — who has argued for many years that religious fundamentalists have too much influence in the Republican Party and secular fundamentalists have too much influence in the Democratic Party — advises Democratic leaders to reclaim the political high ground of drawing policies from underlying values and principles.
Specifically, Wallis advises the leadership to build bridges with pro-life Democrats to devote more resources to preventing unwanted pregnancy, rather than simply defending the tragic last resort of abortion.
Wallis:
The pope opposed John Kerry on abortion and opposed George Bush on the war in Iraq. The truth is, President George Bush defied the Holy Father on the war in Iraq. I’d like the media to report that, too. I like the Catholic bishops’ stance, a consistent ethic of life, a seamless garment, so there isn’t only one issue. Some of the most brutal dictators in the world have been against abortion. Some of the most horrific, rightwing political leaders have been against abortion. You can’t run the economy into the ground, ignore the poor, carry out unilateral pre-emptive wars and be okay as long as you’re just against abortion.
To be a single-issue voter is not the most responsible kind of Christian citizenship. I was at Notre Dame this spring with a room full of students and faculty. Most of them were very committed to the poor. They were against the war in Iraq, very pro-environment and pro-life. And they struggled with the Democrats on abortion. One young woman stood up and said, "Four thousand unborn lives were lost today. How can I vote on any other issue than abortion?" I let the question linger a bit, and then another student stood up and said, 9,000 lives were lost today to HIV/AIDS; that’s a pro-life issue, too." Another student stood up and said, "Thirty thousand children died today because of hunger and disease related to hunger." It’s what I call the "silent tsunami." How do we deal with that as a pro-life issue?
At the end of the conversation, these Catholics agreed that there was no consistent ethic-of-life candidate running in this election, neither George Bush nor John Kerry. George Bush is an ardent supporter of capital punishment, he fought a war in Iraq that the Catholic Church opposed, his stance on poverty is under a lot of criticism by Christians who care about poverty, and the budget [he has proposed] is going to make it much worse—and yet he opposes abortion. John Kerry could say nothing more about abortion than to again reiterate his commitment to a woman’s right to choose.
Interesting how he avoids any looking at gay issues. He mentions gay marriage and then lets it pass. On the abortion issue, I feel Wallis is totally disconected from the reality of the prochoice position. He just does not seem to understand that ethical and religious people can be pro choice.
Where does Wallis stand on gay issues? My understanding is that he is generally unfriendly to us. But, am not really sure.
Wallis personally believes (or used to believe) homosexual behavior is a sin but he generally opposes discrimination.
He also believes homosexuality is greatly overrated, as a threat to church and society, by special interests. He objects to both the secular left and religious right for finger-pointing at scapegoats when they ought to be living and voicing true moral values.
Thanks Mike, appreciate this. My understanding had been that Wallis was not signifigantly different on gay issues from most fundagelical groups. The main difference was he did not make much of a fuss about it.
But I do not see how the Democrats gain when they join with those whose program is forced and mandatory pregnancies. This still mystifies me.
Wallis amongst other evangelicals, see a common ground that both left and right, and Democrat and Republican can agree upon. One of the biggest causes (and effects) of abortion is poverty. By working together to alleviate poverty, the resultant abortions that no one wants whether pro-choice or pro-life can be minimized. Hillary Clinton seems to be moving in that direction. I have a blog entry showing that evangelicals might be willing to meet her halfway.
See https://www.blinne.org/blog/2005/01/the_new_york_ti.html
“Interesting how he avoids any looking at gay issues. He mentions gay marriage and then lets it pass. On the abortion issue, I feel Wallis is totally disconected from the reality of the prochoice position. He just does not seem to understand that ethical and religious people can be pro choice.”
How can you be pro-choice and religious? I just can’t see it. But then again I also can’t see how you can be both pro-homosexual and religious – look at the Bible.
Tschuess,
Paul
Paul, are you just searching the site for old threads with hot-button issues to comment on? This isn’t the place for you to aimlessly air your prejudices. Whether you can or cannot imagine someone holding concurrent beliefs outside your world view is not germane, even to this old post.