Jim Wallis speaks of "hysterical comments from the Left this week"

[madfloridian]

He must be speaking of those of us who feel the Stupak amendment went too far.

Rev. Wallis is in love with the term "secular fundamentalist", and he uses it in this apparent defense of Stupak's amendment.

This article by him sounds like we are supposed to just quit fussing and keep our "eyes on the prize."

In other words those who are speaking loudly need to be cautious lest he refer to us again as "secular fundamentalists.

As hard as it is, the best hope for going forward is to bring the two sides back to the table and start a conversation that should have begun in earnest months ago. My own view continues to be that abortion should not be allowed to block the passage of critically needed health-care reform. The principal issue for me in the health-care debate all along, and the primary mission of Sojourners in this battle, has always been the fundamental moral issue of affordability and accessibility of quality health care for the middle and low-income individuals and families who desperately need it. But it is clear now that we will not achieve those goals if we cannot figure out a way to address the concerns around abortion in this bill.

The religious community has different views on abortion. But some of the most hysterical comments from the Left this week have suggested the problem is that progressive religious groups have been listened to by the Democratic Party; some members of the Left long for the good old days when their party was avowedly secular and properly hostile to religion and all this talk about those annoying moral values voters. Well, good luck in ever winning elections in the U.S. or, more importantly, ever seeing the kind of broad social movements that make real change possible (i.e., movements for social justice which have always been based on moral values with central involvement from the faith community).

Did he just say good luck on winning elections without religious groups? Did he just imply that those on The Left are often hostile to religion and moral values voters?

He sounds as though if we do not believe as the religious groups do that we are hostile to religion and morals?

How presumptive he is.

Now for the "secular fundamentalist" part.

I have fought against religious fundamentalists most of my life, but it’s quite sad to see this new assault of secular fundamentalism against religion of all kinds — even against progressive religion.

That is an amazing view when the Catholic Bishops met with Pelosi Friday night, had her talk to a bishop in Rome.....and thus the Stupak amendment was brought to the floor.

And Wallis calls it an attack of the secular people against religion?? Really?

He has done this before. In 2007 he referred to the DNC and to Dean in this way:

Wallis: Dean is the leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

Wallis said these words to Chuck Colson of Watergate fame.

Jim Wallis threatens political party entrenchment by challenging Americans to rethink the connection between morality, biblical teachings and government policies.

As he said in his reply to Chuck Colson, “My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important.

Seamless Garment refers to groups which are the non-compromising wing on anti-choice issues at all stages of life.

There should be no connection between "morality, biblical teachings, and government policies." It is just that simple.

Here is the definition of "secular fundamentalism" to which Wallis has at least twice referred.

Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between church and state, and to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. <[b>Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons and groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations.<2> In this way the state is to be secular in status and operation.

I am sorry he has opposed that view of separating religion from the government. It is just about what we need right now.

To clarify: I speak of the intrusion of religion on government with real concern. We heard the Iraq invasion being called a holy war from the pulpits of the Southern Baptist churches here. I was raised in that church, most of my family is religious. We left the church then in 2003.

The issue of Stupak may have changed from the issue of Iraq...but in both the pressure of churches was brought to bear. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

[defendandprotect]

1. Sickening . . . another male supremacist who values killing women ....

Evidently Jim Wallis has grown tired of pretending he's not a Christian extremist --

[Captain Hilts]

2. I'm not interested in a man's opinion, actually. There are too many in Congress talking about it.nt

[madfloridian]

5. Rev. Wallis is a religious leader with a huge following.

What he has to say matters a lot to many people.

[Captain Hilts]

8. No shit. I actually have met him and know folks that know him. And I still don't

want to hear what he has to say in this topic.

[madfloridian]

9. heh heh

I understand.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Keep the faith!

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Ignorance. Hateful willful ignorance...that is what people like this take advantage of.

I am disappointed in Jim Wallis. He had seemed like a reasonable man.

[AlbertCat]

35. a reasonable man.

Why? because he can turn a phrase?

How about "secular fundamentalists"? There's a phrase! That's like a square circle or Jumbo shrimp. It's meaningless.... unless you realize he's just projecting. He thinks secularists think the same way religionists do. He thinks their ways of approaching things are the same as his. There are plenty of unthinking religious fundies, but not so many secular fundies.... I'm sure there are a few stubborn secularists but it's nothing remotely like the staggering number and the staggering ignorance and echo-chamber clones you find on the religious side. The only harm that comes from secularism is what it might do to their beloved religion. The harmful excesses of religion are everywhere, long lasting and frankly only self-important. Nothing about him seems reasonable. It's like Theology....which is akin to arguing whether Santa Clause comes down the chimney head first or feet first. It's useless except within it own bubble.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Very disappointing.

[Odin2005]

6. STFU, Reverend!

[riderinthestorm]

7. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the separation of church and state issue

is not well understood by the left (and most especially by the right).

Jim Wallis is as insidious as the right in claiming that we "must" include Dem religious craziness, as the Rethugs.

I hate it when Dems (and DUers) get their history so wrong about the separation of church and state in great social movements. For example: Martin Luther King was a minister and he harnessed the black church to his cause but fundamentally the issue was wayyy beyond religiosity and was more inherently persuasive as a secular civil rights issue than a religious issue. SECULAR CIVIL RIGHTS.

Jim Wallis is deliberately distorting history to shape it into a religious movement when it necessarily had to be much more than that to succeed.

[Angry Dragon]

39. There is a huge difference between church and religion

The church is an organization. Religion is a set of beliefs. I can have religion without church. Religion is the way each one of us choose to live our life. Church tells one how to live and what to believe.

The churches for civil rights had very little to do with a belief in a god. It was a fight for rights for people to live as equals. Very few churches promote this, at least the ones that are making all the noise. I understand that you are not against churches working for equal and civil rights, I am just stating my views on it.

[eShirl]

10. Wherever they go, these evangelists expect to walk right in and take over like they own the place.

This isn't a theocracy yet, Jimmy boy!

[rucky]

11. This is where Wallis and I part ways.

I read Sojourners, and as a secular jew, am glad to have him on our team to help fight poverty and the culture wars and whatnot - but he's way out of line here. This is a religious attack on women.

[madfloridian]

13. Yes, he does do a lot of good.

I agree with you.

But right now I am not very objective after what happened with Stupak.

[mzmolly]

12. Does that mean that a few Catholics should be able to ban payment of vasectomies?

How about birth control methods?

[grasswire]

15. Wallis has been in Washington for too many years now.

He's one of the insiders. I've known this for some time now.

[madfloridian]

16. Salon: Wallis declared Stupak the most important vote of the year.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/11/10/stupak_pitts/

"Which raises the question: Who's pulling whom? Did backbencher Bart Stupak really come up with the bluff that led pro-choice Democrats to abandon not one but two compromises, one of which Stupak himself seemed to be signing off on earlier this summer? Or was it Pitts, an abortion-wars warrior since the 1970s, and a longtime leader of the House Values Action Team -- an off-the-record caucus of religious right organizations and members of Congress -- who drew up the blueprint?

Neither Stupak nor Pitts is talking. Of course, if they just keep quiet, the press will pin it on the bishops -- who, to be fair, are more than happy to take credit. That version of events neglects the role of relationships forged within the evangelical context of the Family -- a group founded in the spirit of virulent anti-Catholicism, and which maintains to this day that being Catholic brings you no closer to Christ than being Jewish or a Muslim -- and the growing evangelical movement within the Democratic Party. A source close to the Faith Table, a gathering of ostensibly progressive Christians helmed by evangelical leader Jim Wallis, notes that the group has been agitating for Stupak-Pitts for months, with Wallis declaring Stupak-Pitts the most important vote of the year.

He may have been right about that. Right now, even the diluted healthcare reform bill that's limping toward more mauling in the Senate looks like the result of a historic vote. But as a weather vane, Stupak-Pitts tells us which way the wind is blowing. Last time the Democrats possessed this much power in Washington, the Dixiecrats tried to hold the party hostage. Now, it's the faith-based Democrats. Dixiecrats were racists, plain and simple; the faith-based Democrats are a more complicated bunch, a mix of genuinely moral conservatives, many of them to the left on economic issues, political cowards, and default Blue Dogs. They're anti-choice and anti-gay but, by God, they're about love, not hate, a gentler fundamentalism, a faith based in the conflation of Christianity and the Constitution, not the substitution of one for the other. So that's progress, right?"

[madfloridian]

26. More from Salon....last time we had this much power it was the Dixiecrats

who held the party hostage.

Interesting comments from Salon:

"Last time the Democrats possessed this much power in Washington, the Dixiecrats tried to hold the party hostage. Now, it's the faith-based Democrats. Dixiecrats were racists, plain and simple; the faith-based Democrats are a more complicated bunch, a mix of genuinely moral conservatives, many of them to the left on economic issues, political cowards, and default Blue Dogs. They're anti-choice and anti-gay but, by God, they're about love, not hate, a gentler fundamentalism, a faith based in the conflation of Christianity and the Constitution, not the substitution of one for the other. So that's progress, right?"

[Solly Mack]

17. K&R

"This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes." (which isn't the least bit "fundamentalist" - but I know he uses the term in his game of of tit-for-tat /you call me that, I'll call you the same to deflect bullshit)

What do we call a government that acts on religious reasons or enforces religious purposes?

a Theocracy

And anyone in America advocating a theocracy is someone advocating the overthrow of the government.

Secular law requires secular consideration and application - it's just that simple.

Edit to add: Fuck Wallis

[struggle4progress]

18. I think you completely misunderstand what "the seamless garment" represents:

It originates from discussions around the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' 1983 pastoral letter "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response," which was primarily directed at the issue of nuclear weapons (which was linked to abortion); the document asserted (for example)

~snip~
1. We support immediate, bilateral verifiable agreements to halt the testing, production and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems. This recommendation is not to be identified with any specific political initiative.
2. We support efforts to achieve deep cuts in the arsenals of both superpowers; efforts should concentrate first on systems which threaten the retaliatory forces of either major power.
3. We support early and successful conclusion of negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
4. We urge new efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the world, and to control the conventional arms race, particularly the conventional arms trade.
5. We support, in an increasingly interdependent word, political and economic policies designed to protect
human dignity and to promote the human rights of every person, especially the least among us. In this regard, we call for the establishment of some form of global authority adequate to the needs of the international common good.
~snip~
<pdf available via:> http://www.cfr.org/publication/15805/catholic_bishops_letter_on_the_challenge_of_peace.html

The document produced considerable controversy at the time, and Fordham University invited one of the drafters of this document, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, to explain the underlying concepts later the same year

THE SEAMLESS GARMENT
Writings on the Consistent Ethic of Life
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin

1. A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE
An American Catholic Dialogue
Gannon Lecture, Fordham University, December 6, 1983

... During the drafting of the pastoral letter one commentator wrote in the editorial section of the Washington Post: “The Catholic bishops . . . are forcing a public debate on perhaps the most perplexing nuclear question of them all, the morality of nuclear deterrence . . . Their logic and passion have taken them to the very foundation of American security policy" ...

Precisely because life is sacred, the taking of even one human life is a momentous event. Indeed, the sense that every human life has transcendent value has led a whole stream of the Christian tradition to argue that life may never be taken. That position is held by an increasing number of Catholics and is reflected in the pastoral letter, but it has not been the dominant view in Catholic teaching and it is not the principal moral position found in the pastoral letter. What is found in the letter is the traditional Catholic teaching that there should always be a presumption against taking human life, but in a limited world marked by the effects of sin there are some narrowly defined exceptions where life can be taken ...

While not denying the classical position, found in the writing of Thomas Aquinas and other authors, that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, the action of Catholic bishops and Popes Paul VI and John Paul II has been directed against the exercise of that right by the state. The argument has been that more humane methods of defending the society exist and should be used. Such humanitarian concern lies behind the policy position of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops against capital punishment, the opposition expressed by individual bishops in their home states against reinstating the death penalty, and the extraordinary interventions of Pope John Paul II and the Florida bishops seeking to prevent the execution in Florida last week ...

The essential question in the technological challenge is this: in an age when we can do almost anything, how do we decide what we ought to do? The even more demanding question is: In a time when we can do anything technologically, how do we decide morally what we never should do?

Asking these questions along the spectrum of life from womb to tomb creates the need for a consistent ethic of life. For the spectrum of life cuts across the issues of genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare, and the care of the terminally ill. These are all distinct problems, enormously complicated, and deserving individual treatment. No single answer and no simple responses will solve them. My purpose, however, is to highlight the way in which we face new technological challenges in each one of these areas; this combination of challenges is what cries out for a consistent ethic of life.

Such an ethic will have to be finely honed and carefully structured on the basis of values, principles, rules and applications to specific cases ... The development of such an atmosphere has been the primary concern of the “Respect Life” program of the American bishops. We intend our opposition to abortion and our opposition to nuclear war to be seen as specific applications of this broader attitude. We have also opposed the death penalty because we do not think its use cultivates an attitude of respect for life in society. The purpose of proposing a consistent ethic of life is to argue that success on any one of the issues threatening life requires a concern for the broader attitude in society about respect for human life ...

We should begin with the honest recognition that the shaping of a consensus among Catholics on the spectrum of life issues is far from fin- ished. We need the kind of dialogue on these issues which the pastoral letter generated on the nuclear question. We need the same searching intellectual exchange, the same degree of involvement of clergy, religious and laity, the same sustained attention in the Catholic press.

There is no better place to begin than by using the follow-through for the pastoral letter. Reversing the arms race, avoiding nuclear war and moving toward a world freed of the nuclear threat are profoundly “pro-life” issues ...

<pdf:> www.maryknollmall.org/chapters/978-1-57075-764-8.pdf

One can strip all religious language from these texts and still have something to discuss: the issue of "Respect for Life" -- which in our culture is often lacking, as shown by military expenditures, indifference to the poor, continuing unnecessary executions, disregard for the environment, and so on. "Seamless garment" refers to the idea that "Respect for Life" ought to be a holistic respect and not merely a buzzword for anti-abortion activism

[madfloridian]

21. During the Schiavo controversy, I read a lot of their works.

I am anti- many of the things they oppose, things you listed. However they are still way too deep into controlling women's choices.

They are now known as Consistent Life. Here is the link to some of their articles.

http://www.consistent-life.org/library/library.html

Here are some of the Seamless Garment articles and links:

http://www.seamless-garment.org/pl_links.shtml

And they are part of the Common Ground section at RH Reality Check.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground

I addressed Wallis's tendency to call the Left hysterical over the Stupak amendment, and I addressed the fact that he too often defends religion mixing with government.

He should not have used the word "hysterical" when referring to those who oppose Stupak.

[struggle4progress]

29. The phrase "seamless garment" predates the organization and should not be confused with it

Having said that, I will add this:

If more of us had the commitment shown by the Executive Director of the Seamless Garment Network and her husband, we would probably have legislative victory after legislative victory. The woman and her husband have both been dedicated peace activists for years, and both she and her husband have served time for nonviolent protest -- her husband several years for a Ploughshares action. Describing their philosophy as "controlling women's choices" badly misses the mark

[AlbertCat]

36. "hysterical"

This word comes from the same source as "hysterectomy", y'know. It used to refer to what was thought to be the fact that women (not men) were over-emotional and "lost it" over things....because they were women....unfit for important duties. (the "extremely funny" definition is a late one)

I think it's perfectly appropriate that a misogynist should use it....as he himself goes hysterical! "The MOST IMPORTANT VOTE.... blah blah blah" Talk about hysteria!

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Jim Wallis is a stronger voice for the poor and against militarism and for peace in the Middle East

Although his views on abortion may be less than enlightened - at least Jim Wallis is consistent in his pro-life position. He is not one of those who believes that the sanctity of life begins at conception and ends at birth.

I would hope progressives recognize the importance of building coalitions on the issues one can build coalitions on - even if there are some areas in which they will never be able to agree. Democrats typically win between 20% and 33% of White Evangelical vote and strong majorities among African-American and Latino-American Evangelicals. If all Evangelicals voted Republican - the radical right-wing Republicans would completely dominate all three branches of government permanently and impenetrably.

[madfloridian]

20. Yes, he has many sensible views. He should not refer to the Left in that way

using the word hysterical.

I have many of the same views as he has, as I was raised a Christian.

But he is defending an amendment that hurts the rights of women. He has too often used the words "secular fundamentalism" in such a negative way.

He is getting too much power in the Democratic party, and now he is demanding instead of just presenting his views.

What happened this week went way too far.

He is defending it against those of us on the left who speak out and he calls us hysterical.

[charlie]

22. That idiot was crowing that the 2006 elections wasn't just a repudiation of the Right

but of the "Secular Left" as well. Ol' Jim has got his bugaboos.

[madfloridian]

24. Yes he has a thing about "secular".

I guess he is one who believes that good people are Christian people. Some of the most moral people I know never go to church. Some of the worst hypocrites in this area that I know sit in church every Sunday.

[lukasahero]

23. "Hysterical"

I knew he had to be talking about women's rights as soon as I saw the word "hysterical".

"My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important."

Interesting how "Protecting women's lives" doesn't seem to make it into his "important" category.

[Cerridwen]

25. Women become "invisible" when discussing many women's rights.

I'd call it "interesting" if it didn't make me so damned furious.

Here's but one example.

[Blue State Blues]

27. Use of the word "hysterical" says a lot

Not only is it a word frequently applied to women's concerns in a dismissive way, ("Don't pay attention to her, she's just hysterical."), the historical roots of the word stem from dismissive and mysogynistic beliefs about women.

From wiki:

Until the seventeenth century, hysteria was regarded as of uterine origin (from the Greek "hustera" = uterus) in the Western world. Hysteria referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that suffocation and madness arose in women whose uteri had become too light and dry from lack of sexual intercourse and, as a result, wandered upward, compressing the heart, lungs, and diaphragm. The belief was that hysterical symptoms would emanate from the part of the body in which the wandering uterus lodged itself.<1>. Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus" ("Hysterical").

Hysteria is not merely a condition of women, it's a condition of uppity women.

Pay no attention to the hysterical woman. Her complaints are not real, she just needs a powerful man to, ahem, provide for her.

[Starry Messenger]

28. He sounds like people who post here.

I never understand people who call the non-religious fundamentalist. We simply don't have the social currency to change things, unlike the religious who firmly asserted their power in our government with this. I'm sure these Christians who call for more religion in our government would have a shit fit if the Buddhists etc. decided they wanted in on this too.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. He's just an uptown version of a garden variety Mega evangelist

Big Biz. He's a sexist, homophobic bag of greed and personal ambition, with a smile. He is far more dangerous than a Pat Robertson. Many here say 'he does good'. Well, the Church of Scientology does plenty of 'good' as well. Best be ready to defend their faith on the basis of some pr based acts of self serving 'charity'.

[madfloridian]

31. TAPPED blog also notices how Wallis blames the left for religious persecution.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2009&base_name=changing_the_subject

"I've already written too much about Jim Wallis' apologia for the odious Stupak-Pitts amendment. Suffice it to say that if we were to take Wallis' argument seriously, we wouldn't need health-care reform at all: After all, the current system doesn't literally ban private insurance for people who can't afford it, so access must not be a problem, right? Still, this strawman demands a response:

But some of the most hysterical comments from the Left this week have suggested the problem is that progressive religious groups have been listened to by the Democratic Party; some members of the Left long for the good old days when their party was avowedly secular and properly hostile to religion and all this talk about those annoying moral values voters.

Truly a definitive example of this kind of argument. First of all, the "good old days" when the Democratic Party was "hostile to religion" don't exist. (When was this exactly -- when it was led by the Southern Baptist Bill Clinton? The Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter? For the decades in which its most influential member of Congress was the devout Roman Catholic Ted Kennedy? Help me out here.) Secondly, when you invoke "hysterical comments" indicating that people of faith need to be driven from the Democratic Party, you really need to name names and cite examples, or people can safely assume that your examples are either trivial or don't exist at all."

Exactly right. It infuriates me when Wallis calls The Left hysterical and implies we don't have religious views because they are not just like his.

[AlbertCat]

37. long for the good old days when their party was avowedly secular and properly hostile to religion

When the hell was that?????


Hare Krishna! Hare Rama!

[TornadoTN]

32. Just another power hungry man doing so in the name of "religion"

Yes, he does have some sensible views and his work in some areas is commendable. But he's pushing further and further to the right on social issues and he used the guise of religion to force his viewpoint.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

38. I find his use of the words "progressive religious groups" funny

The groups pushing for this amendment are not progressive unless you are talking about believing something that is 2000 years old progressive.