He goes on to cite Jim Wallis – who has endorsed Mr. Soeren's book at “the Left's main proponent of merging the biblical idea of justice with the liberal agenda to transform America into a place where the government orchestrates all facets of the economy. The Bible teaches that the state has a very limited role, a view reflected in the Constitution. One of those roles is not mandating coercive charity- taking from some people to give to others, in the name of “compassion.” That's not compassion–it's theft. And as the failed social programs of the past 40 years have shown, when Big Government usurps the role of churches, private charities, and voluntary associations, it creates dependence on programs that just don't work. So we support true social justice: a transcendent understanding that all human life is sacred, that our liberty is granted by God, and that happiness is ours to pursue. It leads us to seek policies that establish: fair tax policy, economic freedom, greater opportunity for all, and protections for the weak from criminals. But to those who wish to cloak political liberalism in the guise of biblical language, beware. Being a wolf in sheep's clothing is something Scripture strongly condemns.”

Mr. Soerens needs to consider the above. His redistributionist philosophy always has, and will continue to, impoverish society, and hurt the poor the worst.

He goes on to cite Jim Wallis – who has endorsed Mr. Soeren's book at “the Left's main proponent of merging the biblical idea of justice with the liberal agenda to transform America into a place where the government orchestrates all facets of the economy. The Bible teaches that the state has a very limited role, a view reflected in the Constitution. One of those roles is not mandating coercive charity- taking from some people to give to others, in the name of “compassion.” That's not compassion–it's theft. And as the failed social programs of the past 40 years have shown, when Big Government usurps the role of churches, private charities, and voluntary associations, it creates dependence on programs that just don't work. So we support true social justice: a transcendent understanding that all human life is sacred, that our liberty is granted by God, and that happiness is ours to pursue. It leads us to seek policies that establish: fair tax policy, economic freedom, greater opportunity for all, and protections for the weak from criminals. But to those who wish to cloak political liberalism in the guise of biblical language, beware. Being a wolf in sheep's clothing is something Scripture strongly condemns.”

Mr. Soerens needs to consider the above. His redistributionist philosophy always has, and will continue to, impoverish society, and hurt the poor the worst.

There is a “tremendous conceptual error.. . that in an urban society swamped by migration a ruler can know everything that is going on in the country and that a new social order can be built on this presumed knowledge… In such a society, with millions of people whose specialization makes them interdependent, with a complex systems of communication between producers and buyers, creditors and debtors, employers and employees, with a constantly evolving technology, with competition and a daily flow of information from other countries, it is physically impossible to be familiar with and directly run even a small fraction of national activities…. It is not rulers who produce wealth: they sit behind desks, give speeches, draft resolutions and supreme decrees, process documents, inspect, monitor, levy, but they never produce. It is the population that produces.”

He continues that we must beware of accepting “a society in which opportunities, property and power are distributed arbitrarily,” and critiques Peru’s rulers of the 1980s who saw government as “a mechanism for sharing a fixed stock of wealth among the different interest groups that demand it.” Of course, these redistributionists never realize that “wealth and resources can grow… and that even the humblest members of the population can generate wealth.” It is not a zero sum game!

Unfortunately, in the Obama/Pelosi world big government, as Olasky writes, redistributes wealth to bureaucrats (can only one say “platinum covered healthcare, but for Congress only?!) and hurts the poor. Olasky continues “People get rich not by investing labor or capital in productive enterprises but by gaining political influence. Businesses begin competing not to serve customers but to build ties with bureaucrats. Political efficiency becomes more important than economic efficiency.” De Soto concludes by noting that “In the redistributist state, the enviable capacity to be generous with other people’s money is an invitation to corruption.

Mr. Wallis and Mr. Soerens, despite probable good intentions, are ultimately creating – sadly – more misery and more poverty by their misunderstandings. Very sad, and very unfortunate.

Honestly, the big debates that have sprung up recently about the need or lack thereof for annual mammograms for women over 40 have shown that a big issue may be the demand and de facto mandate for “Cadillac” quality health-care. IMHO it's foolish to mandate that people get either Cadillac quality care, or no care at all; however that's apparently what we've been saddled with.

Let's not straw-man the situation by suggesting that we'd need to have the PD in every OB/GYN office. Mugging is illegal, yet we don't need police standing on every street corner to enforce (albeit imperfectly) the laws against mugging. To be honest, abortion bans would be difficult to enforce, even imperfectly. And yes, the fiasco with prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's serves as a big warning as to what happens when people outlaw activities that even a significant minority believe in. Honestly, unless and until there is a substantial changing of hearts on this issue, a ban in unrealistic. Enforcement would probably revolve around people reporting alleged abortions.

Now, in terms of the numbers here, you write that 80% of Americans are “religious,” and that “over 60%” are “pro-choice” when the problem is fairly framed. Can you please point to the poll and the phrasing? I remember reading in Christianity Today that the numbers are more like 50/50, and that's taking the country as a whole. There are many people who take more nuanced positions on the issue such as no abortion past 3 mo, everything else OK; no abortion except for fatal abnormalities; no abortion except for rape or incest, etc. etc. Should such people be classified as pro-choice or pro-life? One of the biggest ironies I see is that being “pro-choice” is seen as being “pro-woman,” yet the people are strangely silent when it's pointed out that in much of the world abortion is used to eliminate millions of girl fetuses for being female. Is that really pro-woman?

Tort reform is certainly not a cure-all. And you're correct, in that states like Texas have tried it (in terms of a damage cap) and it has not cut health-care costs there. Other types of reforms have been proposed such as sending all such cases to a “Medical Court” analogous to bankruptcy court. I personally am thinking about how maybe adopting the British tort system (the loser pays the attorneys for BOTH sides) would reduce the overall number of lawsuits filed, which would jive nicely with the Biblical command to try to avoid using the secular courts when possible. Some sort of legislated guidance chart as to what injuries should get what damages would be helpful too; the current system often has plaintiff A getting X dollars, and plaintiff A' with circumstances very similar to A getting vastly different damages. And I've heard from lawyers about how a common abuse of the current system (be it medical or otherwise) is to have plaintiff threaten to sue, offer a settlement, and then the plaintiff's attorney *drops* the plaintiff if the defendant fights! (The plaintiff is then in trouble with no representation to continue the case – even with a meritorious case the plaintiff may well end up losing – the original attorney's goal was to get paid for little work.) Honestly, probably only outlawing contingency agreements can put an end to this type of abuse. But unless outlawing contingency is coupled with the British tort system, the poor will be out of luck, and such is very unjust too.

And no, I doubt that *most* religious people are “pro-choice.” Please show me evidence that I'm wrong, if it exists. As to who's being a single issue voter, might I suggest taking a look at oneself? Finally, no, it's not that all “pro-choice” voters are in the extreme secular wing; rather, it's that the Kos/Huffpo radicals (granted, there are moderates there too) are extremely secular.

That's not news. That's standard procedure in 21st-century American politics.

I'm sorry, but as an independent voter who voted for Obama and who has followed this blog, I find this terrible double speak. I've been forced to listen to how nobody is “pro-abortion” and that this is a defamation from the right, and then the “progressive” bloggers believe that there are people out there who are actually “Pro hate crime?” Come on people! Listen to yourselves! I agree that the Moral Majority super conservative comandeering of politics has been terrible, and that there are plenty of political liberals who are serious about their faith. But the folks on the Left need to remember that of their brothers on the Right as well.

Thank you again for blogging about this and I'll make sure to financially support his campaign.

Back then, I didn't even know half what I know now. I see myself on the bridge between progressive democrats and socialism. It's hard not to look at the effects of American capitalism, militarism, and imperialism and the neo-conservative belief that it is okay for a small group of elites to control the masses… and not shudder.

Yet, as a grassroots organizer, I have meet “Christians” who do not question the discord between America's actions and God's commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” And, well, many just generally have no clue that the Right wing co-opted Conservative Christians in the 80s and made Abortion and Homosexuality political issues to mobilize their votes.

I work for Peace Action West, and put forward the vision of a Nuclear Weapons Free World – and foreign policy changes that could make that dream a reality. I've had a couple Christians tell me they don't believe that it's possible…and I've asked them if they believe that someday everyone could believe in Jesus. The response both times is a quick “No, people are just not like that… there's bad people out there.” Strikes me as a severely limited belief in God's power. Also, egocentric – the notion that God could transform them, but not certain others. Ugh.

I have become un-religious since Wheaton, but these 9 years later, feel very comfortable saying I'm doing God's work, raising people's consciousness of our political history and mobilizing grassroots momentum for reform.

Politicians come and go, but it's movements that endure. Politicians represent ideals of movements, but I think it's important to not get too hung up just on elections – paraphrasing the wise words of Eugene Jarecki – No one politician, or even group of politicians will ever be able to change the system unless they are backed by a clear and irrefutable public mandate.

Also, if elected, I hope Ben Lowe will consider joining the Progressive Caucus! Mainstream Democrats are just as guilty for maintaining the status quo, we need a serious progressive movement to start addressing real solutions to the problems we are living with daily.

I believe there is a mainstream of American political life. The vast (about 95%) of issues, principles, ideologies, strategies, tactics, etc. fall within this mainstream. There are very few extremists–and not truly embraced by either party.

BOTH parties essentially span the mainstream. They are more like Ford and General Motors fighting out the US auto market rather than BMW vs Kia.

They have distinctive flavors and styles. They employ different kinds of language and marketing. They have different conceptions of how the puzzle pieces of a society and politics fit together. They may carve out different policy positions in response to different questions and priorities.

But at the end of the day, we are largely talking about two different ways to decorate the room.

A national political party for history's most diverse nation–wielding history's greatest global influence–must by definition be a broad and diverse entity that spans the mainstream of political life. If either party conceives of itself as some pure ideology that somehow attracts 51% of voters and excludes the rest–it positions itself to be unable to govern.

From the standpoint of Evangelicals–of course we belong in both parties. Progressives and conservatives. Who cares is someone looks at us funny. What's the point of living if we don't bring something unique to the table?