Bush and Wallis
Who are the religious left? Where are they? I've been asked this a few times in the past few weeks.
Today is Saturday, and that means the weekly Presidential radio addrees. The Democrats also take their weekly opportunity to respond. This week, the Democrats sported Jim Wallis, a man on the forefront of the religious left, to do their thing.
Read all about it, including transcripts, here.
Today is Saturday, and that means the weekly Presidential radio addrees. The Democrats also take their weekly opportunity to respond. This week, the Democrats sported Jim Wallis, a man on the forefront of the religious left, to do their thing.
Read all about it, including transcripts, here.
posted by Nate at
04:42
4 Comments:
I've never taken the weekly radio address as anything but a farcical summary of what didn't occur in the political world, but Wallis's oration was actually coherent and sensible.
It irks me that he started and ended by distancing himself from the Democratic Party. It's all good and well positioning yourself as a centrist if you're looking to take the Vatican's approach to politics and comment on the moral and religious implications of political decisions. But I don't know that camping out in the center will produce results. Maybe that's okay, and it's better to provide fresh ideas and let the political process hash them out, but I would have been thrilled to see Wallis say "I'm speaking for the Democratic Party, and we are committed to taking these ideas and putting them into practice."
By
Anonymous, at Sun Dec 03, 09:30:00 PM GMT
My question is this: Did the Democrats convince Wallis to distance himself from the party so as not to isolate the far left extremists or did Wallis distance himself because he did not want to be associated with the Democratic party? If it's the latter, I don't blame him. I wish he WERE speaking for the Democratic Party, but I doubt they'll have the balls to follow him. Damned cowards!
Also, does the Vatican camp out in the center? All the extreme Catholics I know vote pretty intensely Republican. Of course, that's because homosexuality and abortion were the two most important issuess to Jesus himself and the Catholics have the insight to read past all the talk of helping the poor and to get right down to what Jesus was really getting at...that homosexuals are evil and the quality of life does not matter as long as each person is given the initial right to life. Jesus wouldn't care about state run executions, people starving, or people, especially children, not being able to afford medical coverage. Besides, homosexuals would definitely hurt the sanctity of marraige more that all those good heterosexuals who think it's so sacred they just have to do it again and again.
I think I'm ranting now, so I'll stop. :-)
By
John E., at Tue Dec 05, 02:45:00 AM GMT
Here's what (via GetReligion.org) what the (Arch?)Bishop of Denver said to a group of reporters a few years back:
"Some of you may remember that a year ago I was part of a rally on the Capitol steps to protect state funding for the poor and homeless. But you didn't read about it in the Rocky or the Denver Post, because they didn't cover it.
"Last September, just a few weeks before the election, I preached a homily to 5,000 people at Red Rocks, and I had them repeat out loud three times that if we forget the poor, we'll go to hell. That’s one of the principles of Catholic social teaching. If we forget the poor, God will forget us. By our indifference, we will damn ourselves. But you didn’t read about that in the press either, because- again—nobody covered it.
"Our diocesan website has at least 18 articles I’ve written and talks I’ve given against the death penalty in the past few years. They’re just a fraction of what I’ve said and done against capital punishment for more than three decades. The press covered that one time recently—when I criticized our Republican governor."
By
Anonymous, at Wed Dec 06, 04:17:00 AM GMT
Thanks for that info. It appears that the media isn't per se liberal so much as divisive and/or incompetent. I haven't thought them liberal for a long time. I just assumed they were incompetent which many confuse for liberal, but now I'm beginning to think maybe they are just divisive, which makes sense. They seem to think two people have to totally disagree with eachother and passionately attack the other person's character for anyone to watch. I know I'd watch two sensible people talking about the real points and not the ridiculous extremist views. Is the media wrong or is there any chance there are a lot of people out there like me?
By
John E., at Wed Dec 06, 04:36:00 PM GMT
Post a Comment
<< Home