The righteous

Both Patrick Nielsen Hayden and tristero have noted the post-election sermonette from Jim Wallis in which he claims that Tuesday was somehow "A defeat for the religious right and the secular left."

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. ...

It is clear from the election results that moderate, and some conservative, Christians -- especially evangelicals and Catholics -- want a moral agenda that is broader than only abortion and same-sex marriage. Various exit polls showed a shift of 6 percent to 16 percent fewer evangelicals and Catholics supporting Republican candidates than in 2004. Poverty, the war in Iraq, strengthening families, and protecting the environment are all moral values. And many Americans this year voted all of their values.

Ugh. Jim's intent here seems to be his usual riff, trying to convince "conservative Christians -- especially evangelicals and Catholics" to embrace a "broader" moral agenda than the usual questions of genital politics. That's a worthy effort, and Jim has my gratitude and respect for his decades-long faithfulness in pursuit of it (although I reserve the right to disagree with his assumption that conservative Christians are right about those genital matters).

The problem here comes from his decision that this argument for a broader moral agenda would be more persuasive with a bit of Dick-Morris style triangulation, using a strawman "secular Left" as his whipping boy.

In response, let's turn to today's first Gospel reading, from Mark 9:

"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us."

Poor John. "We told him to stop, because he was not one of us." Brilliant move, that. It shows what comes of treating Jesus like a brand name -- you end up siding with the demons.

Jesus is all about driving out demons, healing the sick, feeding the poor. Yet somehow his followers, like John and Jim, tend to forget that this is what matters most. We see others doing this same work and we start defending our turf. We start acting like corporate attorneys, filing cease and desist orders to protect the brand name or to try to collect some kind of franchising fee. We see people who are "not one of us" doing good and, perversely, we tell them to stop.

Jesus isn't interested in franchise fees. He's interested in casting out demons. If someone else outside of our little clique decides to pitch in, "Do not stop him," Jesus says. "Whoever is not against us is for us."

Some might read this story, with it's refrain of works done "in my name," and decide that it still offers some defense for parochial ownership of good works. Those bogeymen of the "secular Left," after all, aren't doing good in Jesus' name, so maybe it's OK to tell them to stop.

If anybody wants to go there, I'd refer them to today's second Gospel reading, this one from Matthew 25. This is Jesus talking:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

Jesus commends "the righteous." What makes them "the righteous"? They fed the hungry, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, cared for the sick and imprisoned. And -- this is explicit -- they had no idea who this Jesus guy was. "I was hungry and you fed me," Jesus says. And the righteous say, "I'm sorry, have we met? We fed a lot of hungry people, but your face doesn't ring a bell ..."

Jim Wallis is correct that, "Poverty, the war in Iraq, strengthening families and protecting the environment are all moral values." But he's wrong to imply that only those with a particular religious brand name can legitimately hold such values.

Jim's clumsy triangulation is disingenuous. He knows better -- he has worked in ecumenical and interfaith coalitions, and in partnership with secular saints of every stripe. He has done a lot of good, working alongside others who have also done a lot of good -- people who share his commitments to peace and justice and all that stuff but who don't necessarily share his particular sectarian motivation for those commitments.

I get that this can be confusing at first for those of us who share a particular religious motivation. You set yourself to the task because the Bible Says So, or because you're trying to obey Jesus, or because you love Jesus, or because you're so filled with Jesus' love that you can't help but share it with others (that's intended as a progression). And then you find yourself working shoulder-to-shoulder with people who have never given Jesus a second thought.

"So if you don't share my particular motives," you ask your new partners, "then why are you here?"

"Funny," they say. "I was about to ask you the same question."

Confusing at first, but then exhilarating. And liberating. And empowering. There is, after all, a lot of work to do, and unexpected allies should always be welcome.

They're driving out demons. They're feeding the hungry, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick. They're good people -- "the righteous." Do not stop them. Whoever is not against us is for us.

UPDATE: The above is mainly a response to Jim's goofy triangulation -- religious progressives trying to court religious conservatives by echoing their condemnation of the supposed "secular humanist" conspiracy -- but the other premise of his piece, the supposed swing of evangelical and Catholic voters, isn't factually true either. Kevin Drum sums up the reality:

In the the overall national vote, Democrats picked up 5 percentage points compared to 2004.

Among Catholics they picked up 6 points.

Among weekly churchgoers they picked up 3 points.

Among white evangelicals they picked up 3 points.

There's just no story here unless you look at individual races. Nationally, turnout among religious voters was as high as it was in 2004, and their shift toward Democrats was either the same or a bit less than the overall national shift. I'd love to be able to say that Democrats made some disproportionate inroads in this group, since it's such an important part of the GOP base, but they didn't. People need to quit saying it.

Comments

[Doctor Science]

whoever is not against us is for us.

Fascinating how rarely that's quoted properly, isn't it? "If you're not with us, you're against us" is so much more popular, not least among self-proclaimed Christians.

I shall be . . . interested to see if Wallis posts some kind of a follow-up, in which he explains how the "secular left" lost while a Socialist Senator and a Muslim Representative were being elected.

[PepperjackCandy]

Amen.

[alexela]

The other great example of right reason / wrong answer is prayer in school.

The Mine-Is-The-One-True-Religion types claim that prayer in school is an issue of freedom, and they're right. They just get the details of it wrong: Children are legally obliged to go to school, and so if you then require them to partake of prayer while they are there, then you are infringing upon their freedoms. Nodody objects to people saying prayers on their own in school buidlings, you just can't have authority figures (teachers) forcing them upon their captive audience.

my $.02

BTW, how do you get to the older archives on this blog? The discussions that happened more thana week or so ago?

[L]

Fred, I think you missed the mark here a little bit. It's not that Wallis rejects the good done by his strawman "secular Left", it's that he thinks the SL isn't doing any good. It's the Rush Limbaugh caricature of the Left, that never spends its own resources to do anything good, but imposes burdensome taxes on those who have worked hard to earn they wealth in order to redistribute it; and not primarily to do good but to expand their own power.

It's a ridiculous strawman of course and is a serious error on its own, but I just don't see him coming down on non-Christian charitable activity here.

Alexela, links to the archives are in the right hand column near the bottom of the page.

[cjmr]

alexela,

Scroll all the way down to the bottom. The archives are the bottom-most thing on the side bar.

[bulbul]

And speaking of rarely quoted passages:

VERILY, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.

Quran, 2:62 and 5:69

[David]

Well, I know this isn't your main focus, but to be fair the passage doesn't say the people have no idea who this Jesus guy is (your interpretation), but rather that they don't recall ever having fed or clothed him. The "Lord" with which they begin their question implies at least some amount of familiarity, in my opinion, but certainly nothing they say implies that they don't know who Jesus is.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall argument, I'm just not sure the passage quite stands up to the interpretation you're giving here...

[bulbul]

I'm just not sure the passage quite stands up to the interpretation you're giving here
Well, David, Fred's interpretation of Matthew 25:34-40 is exactly the same as the one given to me on one lovely Saturday afternoon in the courtyard of the Reformed church in my village back in 1986 and then again a year later in the classroom of our elementary school in the preparatory lessons before my first communion. Not to mention most (if not all) interpretations of this passage I have heard or read so far.

The "Lord" with which they begin their question implies at least some amount of familiarity
No, it doesn't. If you look closer, you will see that Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of the Judgement Day ("When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him...").

[bulbul]

The "Lord" with which they begin their question implies at least some amount of familiarity
What I said above plus the fact that the Greek κυριε does not always mean "Lord". It may simply mean "sir" or even "mister". In the description of the encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, for example (John 4:11), most major translations (KJV, RSV, NRS, NIV, NASB, NLV...) translate κυριε as "sir".

[David]

"The "Lord" with which they begin their question implies at least some amount of familiarity..."
No, it doesn't.

Right -- I added the qualifier "in my opinion" deliberately, because while that is my opinion, I'm not arguing that it is necessarily correct in this case (that is, I have no particular attachment to that interpretation, it's just how it sounds to me -- and yes, I'm aware of the verse's context. My claim was necessarily subjective, hence the qualifier). My real point was just that that saying "When did we see you hungry, and give you something to eat," etc., isn't the same thing as "I have never heard of you before." All it necessarily means is that Jesus isn't the person they thought they were feeding, clothing, and so on.

Well, David, Fred's interpretation of Matthew 25:34-40 is exactly the same as the one given to me on one lovely Saturday afternoon in the courtyard of the Reformed church in my village back in 1986 and then again a year later in the classroom of our elementary school in the preparatory lessons before my first communion...

Uh... okay. Your response seems a little confrontational here, and that's not what I'm trying to do. Like I said, I'm not even disagreeing with the overall argument, just with relying on this passage for it.

I'd be more interested in why you and your teachers believe that the passage implies these people literally didn't know who Jesus was, than in the mere fact that they believe it. Obviously some people interpret it that way -- I disagree, and I hope it's clear why. If there is a way to interpret that sentence so it really does imply unfamiliarity with Jesus (or perhaps this is a verse whose translation is debated?), I'd be interested to hear it.

[little light]

Right fucking on, Fred.
The work matters more than our petty brand-naming and one-upping. The work of justice and decency and caring for our fellows always matters more.
I'd sure as hell rather have a secularist or evangelical or Hindu or Shi'ite or atheist at my back who believes that, than a coreligionist who doesn't.

[Spherical Time]

I never knew that Patrick Nielsen Hayden and his wife were Christians, although I have to say, that doesn't much surprise me. This is America after all. It's more interesting to me that you linked to him, because I submitted to Tor about two months ago, otherwise I might not have recognized the name.

It's a very small world.

Further, as an atheist, I have to say that the passage from Mark 9 is one of my favorites. I'm not one of the "new atheists" that have been reported recently that think that all religion is bad. I simply think that you have your beliefs, and I have mine, but we all need to watch out so that no one takes the beliefs too far.

I think it's a brilliant analysis. More power to you, Fred, and those like you.

[bulbul]

David,

Your response seems a little confrontational here
Sorry about that.

If there is a way to interpret that sentence so it really does imply unfamiliarity with Jesus (or perhaps this is a verse whose translation is debated?), I'd be interested to hear it.
As far as I know, the translation is not debated. The language of these verses is pretty straightforward.

My real point was just that that saying "When did we see you hungry, and give you something to eat," etc., isn't the same thing as "I have never heard of you before."
You are right, it doesn't. The key lies in the phrase "all nations". It's a phrase which not only means "all the people in the world", but it also has a specific significance to Jews (after all, Jesus was one and so were his listeners) - that is, it means 'all the people except for those with whom I made the covenant', 'all those who do not share your faith', 'Gentiles', 'foreigners' (see 1 Samuel 8:5, 1 Samuel 8:20, Psalm 118:10, Jeremiah all over the place, Ezekiel 36:24, Zechariah 12:9, Zechariah 14:2 ...). It can be therefore assumed with near certainty that when Jesus said those words, everyone around knew that he meant EVERYONE, not just Jews and definitely not just his disciples and followers.

[LL]

I feel pretty stupid because I don't get Fred's post. It's not that he doesn't explain it well, because he does, I'm just not getting it. Is it some sort of inside Christianity thing? I don't even know who Patrick Nielsen Hayden is. But if he's still beating the "values voter" dead horse, I'm sure he's just as full of it as Fred says. Everybody votes their "values." Some people vote so their taxes will be lower. That's a value. May not be a Christian value, but it's a value all the same. I know it's been observed many times before, but the implication that only Christians have values and/or that only their "values" are worth mentioning RE an election is insulting. "Values" is just another word the RNC has hijacked, changing its meaning through sheer repetition from a relatively innocuous word to something like: values = homophobia+no boobies or bad words on TV.

Or if Fred wants to heap scorn on the idea of a "secular Left," cool. WTF does "Left" mean, anyway? Does anybody know anymore? I don't mean "the Left equals Rosie O'Donnell and Howard Dean." I mean an actual definition of "Left" and where it came from. If you can't define a word, I don't think you should be able to use it. And "secular"? Fact is, most people in the US are "secular." If you're nominally Catholic (for example) but you use birth control and don't have a problem with homos, you're secular. You can call yourself Catholic all you want, but if you don't follow the rules made by the guys in dresses, as far as they're concerned, you're not one of them. Same with all the other religious bigwigs. If you don't follow their rules, you're not one of them, no matter what you call yourself. Makes you cool by me, but religious leaders have tried to turn "secular" into another dirty word (like "liberal"), as if being secular makes you some sort of scumbag. I guess if you're religious and your real goal is to increase your political power, you don't want to share it with people who aren't just like you. You don't want any contribution from them because then you wouldn't get all the credit for the success.

[bulbul]

If you can't define a word, I don't think you should be able to use it.
I need a large stone. A slab of marble perhaps, a really big one. And a chisel.

[New Duane]

I feel pretty stupid because I don't get Fred's post. It's not that he doesn't explain it well, because he does, I'm just not getting it. Is it some sort of inside Christianity thing?

Yes.

Does that help?

[Jeff]

LL:
Same with all the other religious bigwigs. If you don't follow their rules, you're not one of them, no matter what you call yourself.

That could be a problem with many forms of Judaism. There is no "bigwig" other than God, and there are a LOT of ways of interpreting His rules (thus, all the different types of Judaism). There are any number of religions like this. Without a defined "bigwig", pretty much anyone who wants to can call themselves an X (Jew, Wiccan, FSMer, etc).

[cjmr's husband]

If you don't follow their rules, you're not one of them

Hmm. Actually, that only seems to apply when you're running for election, and publicly oppose their pet issue.

Or if your opponent publicly supports their pet issue, and you don't publicly support their pet issue.

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

"I don't even know who Patrick Nielsen Hayden is. But if he's still beating the 'values voter' dead horse, I'm sure he's just as full of it as Fred says."

I think you're confusing me with somebody else.

[Scott]

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

Whatever YOU did, Fred, not whatever you made OTHERS do w/ threats of jail time. When Jesus says to watch the morality of your own acts instead of obsessing over those of others (let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone, the speck vs. the board, etc), it applies just as much to liberals and my wallet as it does to conservatives and my naughty bits.

Your arguement is essentially: God is 'compassion'. Govt is 'compassion'. Therefore govt is god (they are on the side of Jeebus). Sounds suspiciously like this:

God is love
Love is blind
Stevie Wonder is blind
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God

No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me

There's a difference between someone doing "a miracle in my name" and someone simply claiming oh-so-wonderful goals for the power he or she lusts after. Jeebus didn't die for higher marginal tax rates.

[Andrew Wade]

Whatever YOU did, Fred, not whatever you made OTHERS do w/ threats of jail time. When Jesus says to watch the morality of your own acts ...

We do. Imperfectly, it is true.

... instead of obsessing over those of others (let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone, the speck vs. the board, etc), it applies just as much to liberals and my wallet as it does to conservatives and my naughty bits.

Taxes aren't stones. Not even metaphorically. I presume you're complaining about taxes? Taxes like the apostle Matthew (whose gospel contains Jesus' teaching about the speck and board) collected?

Your arguement is essentially: God is 'compassion'. Govt is 'compassion'. Therefore govt is god (they are on the side of Jeebus).

Um, that's explicitly not his argument. Unless I'm really missing something, Fred is explicitly rejecting the logic that only Christians (or God for that matter) have compassion or care about and for the destitute. As for "Govt is 'compassion'", well, I haven't heard him say anything that silly.

Jeebus didn't die for higher marginal tax rates.

Well, no. But if he died for lower taxes, it's not in the Gospels I'm familiar with.

[evagrius]

Matthew 25 is my favorite Apocalypse because it's the most frightening.

After all, the fire and brimstone, heavy on the special effects, apocalypses are more entertaining.

But Matthew's is frightening because it deals with the here and now, like NOW'S THE TIME, not later, but NOW.

So...do we feed the hungry, etc; or go on speculating about when the End Time is?

[Evan]

Really enjoyed this post Fred, thanks.

[Consumer Unit 201]

I'm assuming you're some variety of Republican, Scott? As far as I can tell, that means you're willing to trust the government with guns, tanks, nukes, prisons, and the death penalty....but not with your tax money.

Weird.

[Scott]

I'm assuming you're some variety of Republican, Scott? As far as I can tell, that means you're willing to trust the government with guns, tanks, nukes, prisons, and the death penalty....but not with your tax money.

Nope - I'm not a Republican. Sorry. I don't trust those idiots w/ anything. Sorry not to make this easy for you, but I hate both parties for the exact same reason: they're power-hungry SOBs who will do anything to anyone to get the power they lust after.

Taxes aren't stones. Not even metaphorically.

Genitals aren't stones (except in slang) either. In both cases, the wish is to punish people to make them act the way the wisher considers moral and claim that it's the will of Jeebus. Why is that immoral for conservatives but just peachy for liberals?

Taxes like the apostle Matthew

Jesus also ministered to prostitutes. I doubt you'd recommend that line of work to anyone.

[Scott]

As for "Govt is 'compassion'", well, I haven't heard him say anything that silly.

He did object to the use of the term 'secular' when applied to leftist social programs:

Those bogeymen of the "secular Left," after all, aren't doing good in Jesus' name, so maybe it's OK to tell them to stop.

As if voting for higher taxes makes you a "good Christian" regardless of any actual religious beliefs you happen to have.

[ako]

This is precisely what I find so offputting about the efforts to build a religious left. Not the concept, the execution.

I'm an atheist, and I try to do good. I feed (some of) the hungry, clothe those in need, and visit the sick simply because they are humans, and hungry or cold, or sick. If someone who does this out of religious motivation wants to join me or have me join them in the understanding that OUR goal is to help people, and THEIR goal is also to serve their God, then I'm fine with that. If their attitude is, "You CAN'T just give the street kids sandwiches and shoes. You MUST also help us preach the love of Jesus," then I'll look for someone else to work with. Because I won't promote what I don't believe, and I don't want to spend all my time arguing instead of helping.

Similarly, my politics are pretty much on the left. If someone wants me to work with them on environmental protection, it's not an issue for me if they think God called them to be stewards of creation. But it seems like people have started pushing the "religious left good, secular left bad," view. And I can't find a place in political groups where (for example) THE acceptable debate on gay rights is if the Bible really condemns homosexuality. Because that doesn't really matter to me.

So the whole, 'rejection of the secular left' is a rejection of ME. And organizations on the left that confuse 'moral agendas' with 'religious agendas' or decide their supporters have a duty or obligation to support religion can count me out.

[cjmr's husband]

One thing that the "Secular Left" needs to shout loudly:

SECULAR DOES NOT MEAN ATHEIST.

It just means that, having not even applied for citizenship, Jesus has no vote, and does not run our government. But he does have a First Amendment right to attend any church he sees fit.

[Daniel]

For once, I think Fred got it wrong.

Jim Wallis is not making an argument that only religious people can do good or be moral. In fact, he made exactly Fred's point with exactly the same scripture (Matthew 25) when he was on the Daily Show.

using a strawman "secular Left" as his whipping boy

No, I don't think so. I think he's simply making the point that liberals can be fundamentalists too. I think it has to be admitted that since the rise of the Religious Right, liberals have tried to push faith out of the public square altogether, and some evangelicals were able to give the impression that only conservatives could be True Believers.

My interpretation of Jim's words (consistent with the followup at his blog) is that liberals shouldn't be afraid of religion anymore. He channels progressive people of faith from the past (MLK, Charles Finney, Jimmy Carter) to promote "moral values" that are palatable to a broad range of people, both religious and "secular".

trying to convince "conservative Christians -- especially evangelicals and Catholics" to embrace a "broader" moral agenda than the usual questions of genital politics. That's a worthy effort, and Jim has my gratitude and respect for his decades-long faithfulness in pursuit of it (although I reserve the right to disagree with his assumption that conservative Christians are right about those genital matters).

Actually, I don't think he agrees that they're right either. But he fancies himself a bridge-builder; he is trying to find some common ground here.

I agree that he was imprecise with his "secular left" comment, but taken in context, I don't think he's trying to draw lines between religious and secular people.

[New Duane]

One thing that the "Secular Left" needs to shout loudly:

SECULAR DOES NOT MEAN ATHEIST.

It just means that, having not even applied for citizenship, Jesus has no vote, and does not run our government. But he does have a First Amendment right to attend any church he sees fit.

Amen!

[Beth]

I think it has to be admitted that since the rise of the Religious Right, liberals have tried to push faith out of the public square altogether,

No it doesn't. I for one, won't even consider admitting such a thing until I see some evidence that the phrase, "push faith out of the public square," has any actual meaning. As far as I can tell, it's just a propaganda slogan intended to demonize defenders of the separation of church and state.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Yyyes. Those of us in the Secular Left (inasmuch as "secular" means "not an evangelical Christian and not in favor of theocracy") hear "push faith out of the public square" and automatically translate that to "insist that non-Christians not be treated like second-class citizens."

[Mazement]

One of my other favorite blogs is The Comics Curmudgeon, and interestingly enough this same subject is coming up there. We've been deconstructing the latest Mary Worth storyline.

The story thus far: An elderly woman named Ella has moved into the Charterstone complex where Mary lives. She's been giving good advice to the neighbors, possibly with the aid of some supernatural power. Mary finds herself worrying that her role of advice-giver and all-around-busybody is being usurped. We're eagerly awaiting next week's strips, when Mary and Ella finally meet face-to-face. (It seems like Mary should come to regret her jealousy, but in previous storylines Mary has always been right about everything, so we're puzzled as to how things are going to play out this time.)

Some key strips:
The story begins.
Mary is less-than-enthused.
"I don't know if I'm comfortable with her casting out demons from my neighbors."
Mary takes her gloves off.

Scott: There are two different reasons for feeding the hungry:

Christians and others think that we have a moral obligation to give charity to the less fortunate.

There are also a secular, pragmatic reasons for not wanting people to starve to death right in the middle of the sidewalk where you'll trip over them. That project needs to be funded through taxes because the private sector can't make a profit off of it.

If there aren't enough charitable donations to feed all of the hungry, then Christians and others have a moral obligation to persuade the government to cover the shortfall. (The first priority is that the hungry be fed, even if they're being fed for selfish or amoral reasons.)

Some people find both the moral and pragmatic arguments unconvincing. This isn't a problem; we let them pay taxes anyway.

[Daniel]

I think it has to be admitted that since the rise of the Religious Right, liberals have tried to push faith out of the public square altogether

No it doesn't. I for one, won't even consider admitting such a thing until I see some evidence that the phrase, "push faith out of the public square," has any actual meaning. As far as I can tell, it's just a propaganda slogan intended to demonize defenders of the separation of church and state.

I'm not going to push back too hard on that one. I believe in the separation of church and state. I think that the State [usually] does a terrible job at religion, and Religion [usually] does a terrible job at politics.

To me, though, that doesn't mean that people of faith shouldn't be able to say anything about politics, nor yet that they shouldn't be able to use the language of faith to make their arguments.

[Andrew Wade]

Nope - I'm not a Republican. Sorry. I don't trust those idiots w/ anything. Sorry not to make this easy for you, but I hate both parties for the exact same reason: they're power-hungry SOBs who will do anything to anyone to get the power they lust after.

Uh huh. Y'know, I do think politics does encourage a a-moral psychopathic approach (and that that is a problem). But I really really doubt that they're all psychopaths.

Taxes aren't stones. Not even metaphorically.

Genitals aren't stones (except in slang) either.

Relevance? I thought you were comparing taxes to punishment for sexual "sin", not to genitals themselves.

In both cases, the wish is to punish people to make them act the way the wisher considers moral and claim that it's the will of Jeebus.

No. Some taxes are punitive (the "sin taxes"), but most of them are simply about generating revenue for the government. As for "will of Jeebus", well, I'm not actually a follower of Jesus at all.

Why is that immoral for conservatives but just peachy for liberals?

Who says it's not immoral for the liberals? But the liberals (mostly) aren't doing what you say they are; you're busy demolishing a strawman.

Taxes like the apostle Matthew

Jesus also ministered to prostitutes.

I can't help but notice that Jesus spoke up against adultery. Multiple times. Athough, with the translation issues, I'm not entirely sure that injunction applies to prostitution.

Jesus is almost entirely silent on the proper role of government and on taxes. He appears to be against the temple taxes (Matt 21:12-13), and for paying civil taxes (Luke 20:22-25). I wouldn't be surprised if Paul had something to say on the subject, but I'm not terribly familiar with the contents of Paul's rants.

I doubt you'd recommend that line of work to anyone.

No I would not. As it happens, I don't think prostitutes are committing sin. But of course we are discussing Jesus, not me.

As for "Govt is 'compassion'", well, I haven't heard him say anything that silly.

He did object to the use of the term 'secular' when applied to leftist social programs:

Those bogeymen of the "secular Left," after all, aren't doing good in Jesus' name, so maybe it's OK to tell them to stop.

Um, there's a world of difference between doing good, and being compassion.

As if voting for higher taxes makes you a "good Christian" regardless of any actual religious beliefs you happen to have.

Wha? Fred's not claiming they're good Christians any more than Jesus claimed the Good Samaritan was a good Jew. It's not the point.

[ako]

Daniel, I agree with you that people of faith should be able to speak about politics in the language of faith. I think people of all types should be able to speak about politics in whatever language they like. And if I saw evidence that religious people were being silenced or suppressed, or that there was even an organized effort to insist the major political parties excluded all discussion of religion, then I'd oppose it. I'm not aware of any such thing, but I'll keep my eyes open.

What I mainly see in US politics is Republicans justifying their policies with "God wants us to do this." And it worries me a bit when people say that the Democratic party needs to respond with, "No, God wants us to do that, instead." If both major parties start approaching matters from that perspective, it leaves mainstream politics without anyone asking the question, "Should we really base or national policy on who's best at convincing people they can read the mind of an unmeasurable, unproven being? Or should we as a nation look at the agreed-upon facts, and leave people to choose their own theology?"

[daniel]

ako, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't think that setting up a Religious Left would solve anyone's problems.

[Beth]

To me, though, that doesn't mean that people of faith shouldn't be able to say anything about politics, nor yet that they shouldn't be able to use the language of faith to make their arguments.

I hope you're not suggesting that liberals believe people of faith shouldn't be able to talk about politics. But if you weren't, then I still don't understand what you meant by, "liberals have tried to push faith out of the public square altogether."

[cjmr's husband]

I don't think the religious shouldn't be able to use the language of religion to make their arguments.

I just think that any bill that is justified by purely religious arguments ought to be laughed out of committee.

[Mouse]

I hope you send your critique to Jim, Fred. Normally I like Jim Wallis but this time he was seriously off the mark.

[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]

If Jim Wallis is speaking from the heart, how come he's incapable of using normal human language to do it?

Daniel: I think it has to be admitted that since the rise of the Religious Right, liberals have tried to push faith out of the public square altogether

NFW. That's a calumny. Liberals have done no such thing. Furthermore, that statement implicitly sets "liberals" and "faith" in opposition, which is absolutely not true. Does Jim Wallis imagine that he can bring forth good works by telling lies? And if he's such a swell guy, why is he parroting standard right-wing talking points?

Consumer Unit 201, Scott's not some variety of 'publican. See the phrase "threats of jail time" appearing in the same short paragraph as "my wallet"? Scott's some variety of libertarian, one of the kinds that submerge themselves in fear and resentment at the thought that the government might take some of THEIR MONEY.

Yo, Scott? You have your reward. I honestly hope it makes you happy.

[LL]

RE Patrick Nielsen Hayden: Oops, sorry, my bad, I meant Jim Wallis. Don't know who he is, either.

[Alexela]

If I can say this, there's 2 debates happening here at once. There's the Wallis argument that Religion doesn't say what the 'religious right' says it does, but instead argues for helping the weak, and other 'left' issues. The sub debate is the slightly othogonal one of whether you can have morality without being religious (a claim I've seen explicitly made by some talking heads).

So here's my total flip on the last one: I think the non-thiest reasons for moral behaviour are more compelling than the thiest ones. If there's no higher power, then it's down to us to look after each other. Look after others, because it could so easily be you who are suffering. To paraphrase Sauls, a truly fair society is one you would agree to be a part of without first knowing which role you were going to get in it. This is a standard of fairness that I'm pretty sure Jesus himself would endorse, and if the reason that you want to behave this way is just because "Jeebus told me to," well... er, good. I guess. From my (admitedly skewed athiest) point of view, then, Jesus is my ally because he motivates people to behave in a moral manner, no matter how weird their proximal reason for doing so. You can get lost in the various ins and outs of whether he condemmed prostitution, or a particular tax, etc, or you can just ask: "Are we helping those who need it, and making the world a more pleasant place for all to live in."

[Jesurgislac]

Alexela: I think the non-thiest reasons for moral behaviour are more compelling than the thiest ones. If there's no higher power, then it's down to us to look after each other. Look after others, because it could so easily be you who are suffering.

Agreed. Further, this works whichever religion you profess. I have lost track of how many religions have some equivalent of "Do unto others as you would be done by" - "Love thy neighbor as thyself" - but this has always seemed to me the key test of how you believe any system of belief or ethics: how does it inspire you to behave towards other people? Any religion or unreligion can and has inspired people to behave well: and most have also inspired people to behave badly.

To paraphrase Sauls, a truly fair society is one you would agree to be a part of without first knowing which role you were going to get in it.

Totally agree.

There's a British folk tale about an old and very rich man, with much land and other property, and three sons. He wanted to divide the inheritance fairly between them (the story is old enough that it likely predates the Norman custom of primogeniture, but the story does not relate that he had any daughters). He summoned his sons before him, and told them that the oldest son was to choose a portion to inherit from the man's property; and then the second son was to choose a second portion. The third portion was to be whatever was left. And the third son was then to decide which son was to receive which portion.

[Jeff]

re recommending prostitution to anyone:

One could make a case for XXX movie performers being a legal subset of prostitutes (they are being paid for sexual services), and there are several people who put their proclivities to service to make quite a few bucks. Nina Hartley was a nice Jewish girl who loved swingers parties. She was able to make a good living from her films, and still attends her local synagogue. I'm sure there are others.

When sexual services are regarded as valued contributions, I would certainly recommend that those who enjoy performing those acts in a controlled environment feel free. From what I understand, the denizens of the Bunny Ranch are valued members of their community.

Did this make any sense?

[Jesurgislac]

Teresa: Scott's some variety of libertarian, one of the kinds that submerge themselves in fear and resentment at the thought that the government might take some of THEIR MONEY.

We're pretty much agreed over here that Scott's some variety of troll, actually.

[Doctor Science]

The problem with people who "use the language of faith" to support their political views is that they expect to be taken seriously by people who don't share their faith. They can use that language all they like, but they should not expect it to be universally persuasive.

IMHO, this is what is meant by "the left has taken religion out of the public square". What we have done is point out that the presumption that all Americans are Protestant Christians is not true, and that it is foolish (also lazy, ignorant, parochial, and discriminatory) to try to persuade everybody in language only Protestants share.

So for instance, I have heard it said in the "public square" -- the Letters to the Editor column of various newspapers -- that same-sex marriage should be forbidden because it goes against the Bible. On what possible basis should I find this persuasive, if I don't share the writer's reading of the Bible? I will tolerate this person, but why should I respect them or take them seriously, when they're so unaware of the world outside their own religious bubble?

[Hagsrus]

It's THEIST and ATHEIST
(from Greek Theos, God)
not Thiest and Athiest

[cjmr]

Why the rant? Exactly one person spelled it wrong.

[Hopea]

There is one aspect of libertarian thought that truly mystifies me. Why is it, that property rights are considered to be so much above other rights? It is almost as though libertarians still believe in the ancient notion of property being somehow natural, preexisting before society is formed. And that they therefore have some sort of moral primacy?

To me at least it seems obvious that property has no meaning outside organized society and that property rights are just one more service that society provides. Sure, you can argue that for pragmatic reasons property rights should be given preference in many cases, the “it just works” argument. But there seems to be something else going one here. Scott and others I have come across react with moral outrage to the very notion of social spending. That does not seem to spring exclusively from practical arguments.

To me the ethical basis for social spending is pretty simple. Those who have more property/income receive more from society. It is not unreasonable that those of us, who are lucky enough to be in that position, pay more because we benefit more. Property and income being consequences of the way our societies are organized.

If you own more, then you receive more of the service called ownership, that is a social construct, no?