Critics on Our Left, Meet the Critics on Our Right

Wallis and other Christians who consider more than the abortion issue when discussing issues of life are NOT dominated by the abortion lobby, even though the democratic party may, at this time, have a majority of pro-choice voters. That is why, as this article points out, Wallis and other Christians attempting to transcend the left-right politics are criticized by the left for being not pro-choice enough. As you yourself pointed out, the Republicans are dominated by advocates of torture and war, and the Democrats have a majority of pro-choice voters. That means that Christians who are sincerely pro-life, pre and post birth, are forced to choose for an anti-life party one way or another. Many Christians who are sincerely committing to ending abortion chose to vote for Obama because they could not in good conscience vote anymore for war. Now it remains to be seen whether Obama will get us out of the wars and stop torture and close Gitmo, which he has not done yet. If he doesn't, he won't that vote next time around. But it is unfair to accuse Wallis and others like him of insincerity or hypocrisy simply because they have a different approach to the pro-life issue than "make it illegal as soon as possible." As if that is within the president's power anyway. Even if McCain had won and had appointed a bunch of supreme court justices simply on the promise that they would overturn Roe v Wade, it would simply go back to the states.
Meanwhile, if you want to stop abortion (everyone in general, not you specifically Brother Marcus) volunteer at your local pregnancy crisis center or give money to it, support after school programs for young people, and quit buying into the culture of casual hook ups. Every man who has ever had a one night stand may have contributed to an abortion. You never know, so be a little humble.

Actually, what makes you think that the fact that rape is criminal actually reduces its occurrence? How many rapists do you think choose not to rape because it is against the law? If they are caught and put in jail, that particular rapist might not commit rape during that time, but as a deterrant to other rapists I don't think its very effective. I am not arguing for the decriminalization of rape, I am simply pointing out that what deters rape is a culture of respect for women and disavowal of sexual aggression in any form. We make it criminal so that when people do it anyway we can take them off the streets. Is this what you want? To arrest and jail women who - for whatever reason - have an abortion?

Thank you kansasmennonite. lol. I was beginning to regret reading this discussion.

Give what a "rest?" Abortion? What, are you tired of hearing about the injustice of abortion? Tough. What if I said Wallis should give poverty a "rest?" What kind of comment would that be for a Christian to make?

And no, I don't own a gun. Never have, But what kind of question is that anyway? I haven't threatened anyone, and I'm not the one excusing acts of violence. Would you like to report me, Mennonite? Maybe have me arrested?

Fascist.

And I am quite happy to embrace and celebrate the displeasure of Christians who have abandoned the unborn to their fate. You are unable to maintain this exchange because in conscience you cannot defend the indefensible.

And if I said that although I am strongly opposed to rape, I don't believe that attempting to criminalize it is the best way to reduce the occurrence, you would scoff (and rightly so). But if I said that I was only following the example of Jesus, who after all never called for the criminalization of rape, you would be disgusted (and rightly so). Which is why your invocation of Our Lord on behalf of legal abortion is, frankly, disgusting.

Wilberforce favored the criminalization of the slave trade. Ghandi called the British "criminals" for their brutal occupation of India. King called for and cheered legislation that would criminalize violence and discrimination in voting and public accommodations. Wallis routinely invokes these figures as models for his own work. They weren't afraid to advocate the criminalization of a great and violent evil, why is he?

Depends on the middle of which road.

Wallis is not saying that abortion is OK. He is NOT on the middle of that road.

Please, Please, PLEASE don't equate being against criminalization as being accepting of abortion.

Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you
And I'm wondering what it is I should do?

my intent wasn't to dismiss instructor29's legitimate cautions to Jim and Sojo; it was an attempt to suggest that it's always easier to point out the splinter in another's eye w/o addressing the log in our own; all of us are guilty of that from time to time - is the excess in the stimulus plan worse than the excess of the bailout scheme, who's to say?

Is this the same Keith Pavlischek who worked with Evangelicals for Social Action? Is this the same First Things founded by Richard John Neuhaus, who worked well with Ron Sider even when they may have disagreed on some things? I think Keith P. is right on in his statement on Jim Wallis. It it seems that Jim Wallis is doing the same thing that Jim Dobson did when he was at the height of his political power in the 1990s and early 2000s: start complaining about those who oppose them. Perhaps Wallis should take a cue from people like Ron Sider and work with people on all sides of the political spectrum. But that would mean truly believing that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat.

And Ryan, thanks for reminding me about First THings. I may want to renew my subscription that I was getting for a time about 10 years ago. They may provide an effective moderately conservative counter-balance to Sojo.

You make some pretty broad leaps in your article- leaving women out of the equation when it comes to anti-poverty measures because if one is for "equal justice for women, then you have to concede that abortion must remain a woman's option. A fetus is not a person." One cannot work against poverty and for justice for women and children and also believe that abortion is wrong? Really? Huge leap.

Our standard as Christians is not what "the right" thinks. Our standard is God's standard. This leads many of us to conclude that abortion is wrong, harmful to both mother and child. You are free to disagree with this position. This issue divides our country as no other issue does. It is good to have someone who understands a thoughtful, moral (non-reactionary) stance against abortion also working towards issues like health care, the environment, and other important issues.

Call Jim Wallis "sanctimonious" (I read the statements you reference and I don't smell a whiff of sanctimony in them) all you want, he's done a great deal to bring people together. It's not Wallis or the "religious left" who are derailing health care- the blue dog democrats, sold out to big insurance and big pharma, scared to death that they're going to lose their senatorial seats, are doing a fine enough job of that on their own.

Don't blame people who want to transcend the things which divide us and bring us together in common cause. It's time for Jim Wallis to go? He's trying to make a power grab for the Democratic Party? You accuse him of being in the same league as James Dobson- guilt by association? You sound like the reactionary conservative purists who have hijacked the modern conservative movement.

Just want to ask for a correction. Although you found my post on Mother Jones, where I am very proud to have it appear, it first appeared on AlterNet, where I am the Washington bureau chief.

As for a rejoinder, let me kindly suggest that the fact that the right doesn't find Rev. Wallis strident enough on abortion does not negate the fact that he is anti-choice himself. I believe my criticism stands up to that test.

Very interesting posting, Mr. Beiler. Thank you.

"So which is it? Are we hijacking Obama's health-reform policy with our radical anti-abortion agenda? Or are we uncritical lackeys of the Obama Administration that don't really care about abortion? Do we really get zero cheers? And multiple jeers?"
--Of course, the problem is that you're trying to have it both ways by talking out of both sides of your mouths. For example, you talk like you're pro-life, but when it gets down to substance, you're actually no different than the average pro-choice politician. How is this a 'common ground' or ground-breaking approach? To most people it just seems deceptive. Sorry.

Fundamentalists, in my view, alre those who hold certain positions on issues that are beyond contestation. The grounds for such can be intuition as in the self-evident rights in the Bill of Rights, or the truths of revelation, or the suggestions of empirical investigations, or the supposed demonstrations of syllogistic logic. Facts are that in a pluralist context none of these indubitable grounds are convincing to those of different pursuasions.

And in this wise, I also argue that the mediative position of those who seek to achieve compromises on divisive issues are also, in their way, ideologues in that they think that some sort of consensual truth can emerge from the contentious disputes engendered in pluralist societies.

In short, lacking ABSOULTE proof of one' s preferred point of view, i.e., one that is manifestly obvious to all, we, seemingly, are relegated to producing better arguments and by appealing to a "more" human sensibility to carry the day.

Ideology, that is, our interpretations of the things that be and the values that define the good life, are necessarily contestable so long as we live in a pluralist world.

Thus, on this view, neither the right nor the left nor the center can escape the mangle of ideology.

This bespeaks, contra discourse consensualists like Habermas and Rawls, a modus vivendi wherein we reach no consensus but a begrudging acceptance (for the nonce, if possible) of a dominant ideology on issues that are radically contentious.

And one's ideological vocation in this landscape of unerasable dispute is to contine the fight for one's "truth" so that it becomes the warp and woof of the law of the land and the law of peoples and the law of their hearts.

Of course, then there are some of us who happily and enthusiastically uphold your calling to take it from both sides, who raise issues in which we think you are not upholding that calling well--or confusing/compromising it--or simply think you might give some consideration to different tactics in fulfilling.

And in that line my frustration is not even whether you find the raising of such concerns helpful--it is that when asked to simply reflect and explain what your are you doing--there is silence.

Silence from the proponents of dialogue--by the way. Might you simply catch a whiff of why that is offensive?

Advocates of a "third way" can come across in different ways:

1. As innovators: They look at option A and B. And turn around and invent something totally different: Option Bolderdash.

2. As compromisers: Split the difference. Middle-of-the road centrists.

3. As Common-Grouders: Find the mutual commitment and build from there.

4. As avoiders: Separate the feuding parties--and argue there is no conflict.

5. As Transcenders: Find a framework (and/or higher ethical good) able to embrace and answer the highest aspirations of both parties.

6. As cynics: Everyone else is disgusting.

7. As arrogant critics: Everyone else is stupid.

8. As self-righteous fundamentalists: Us against the self-righteous extremists.

How do you think you come across??? How do you desire to come across?

You make some pretty broad leaps in your article- leaving women out of the equation when it comes to anti-poverty measures because if one is for "equal justice for women, then you have to concede that abortion must remain a woman's option. A fetus is not a person." One cannot work against poverty and for justice for women and children and also believe that abortion is wrong? Really? Huge leap.

Our standard as Christians is not what "the right" thinks. Our standard is God's standard. This leads many of us to conclude that abortion is wrong, harmful to both mother and child. You are free to disagree with this position. This issue divides our country as no other issue does. It is good to have someone who understands a thoughtful, moral (non-reactionary) stance against abortion also working towards issues like health care, the environment, and other important issues.

Call Jim Wallis "sanctimonious" (I read the statements you reference and I don't smell a whiff of sanctimony in them) all you want, he's done a great deal to bring people together. It's not Wallis or the "religious left" who are derailing health care- the blue dog democrats, sold out to big insurance and big pharma, scared to death that they're going to lose their senatorial seats, are doing a fine enough job of that on their own.

Don't blame people who want to transcend the things which divide us and bring us together in common cause. It's time for Jim Wallis to go? He's trying to make a power grab for the Democratic Party? You accuse him of being in the same league as James Dobson- guilt by association? You sound like the reactionary conservative purists who have hijacked the modern conservative movement.

Ok. Here is an honest question. Why is it that for the past 8 years there wasn't a day that went by where Sojourners was not demanding an end to these unjust wars now (which for the most part I agreed with) but when President Obama got in office, I've hardly noticed one article demanding the same. Yes, Obama has promised (which by the way is something at which politicians are very good) to shut down Guantanamo (hasn't happened), end the Iraq war (I see no signs of that) and has vowed to INCREASE our presence in Afghanistan. So what has ACTUALLY CHANGED in the Obama administration (and lofty promises and flowery rhetoric do not count, unlike they do for the Nobel Peace Prize committee)? I like what Sojourners stands for (a non-partisan Christian voice) but this kind of double standard make you guys look like a watered down hack for the Democrats and Obama, at least on the issue of war. That is my honest observation. I'd love to hear an honest response.

Very interesting posting, Mr. Beiler. Thank you.

"So which is it? Are we hijacking Obama's health-reform policy with our radical anti-abortion agenda? Or are we uncritical lackeys of the Obama Administration that don't really care about abortion? Do we really get zero cheers? And multiple jeers?"
--Of course, the problem is that you're trying to have it both ways by talking out of both sides of your mouths. For example, you talk like you're pro-life, but when it gets down to substance, you're actually no different than the average pro-choice politician. How is this a 'common ground' or ground-breaking approach? To most people it just seems deceptive. Sorry.

I think it is a matter of Rev. Wallis not passing the litmus tests of abortion and gay marriage that gets the Left mad at him. Wallis, because of his religious beliefs, is pro-life and for gay civil unions, which makes some religious liberals like Pastor Dan and Sarah Posner nuts. But shouldn't people be allowed to take their own positions and not always worry about ideological purity? Wallis might agree with Posner and Pastor Dan on other issues, but all they focus on is litmus tests. He's not pure enough for them.

I think it hard to decide whether to support ongoing US and Nato intervention when there is not a clear case being made as to why we are there, what the objectives are, what the strategies are, what the exit strategy is, etc. It seems like an ongoing "must intervention" with revolving rationale--almost as if the nation has lost its mind.

I know we are trying to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan of all that bad stuff. Come to think of it--all the bad stuff that existed before 9/11 and will exist after we leave.

Ya' see--this is when officials get backed into the corner and start coming up with desperate rationales like non-existent WMD's.

Our large cities have thousands of armed terrorists on the streets--called criminal gangs--whom the government cannot track nor control. Why we believe terrorist networks need a nation like Afghanistan to communicate, to gather, to train, etc is beyond me. They could exist in the US. They could exist in the most controlled environments in the US under the nose of Uncle Sam--Federal Prisons. We have militaristic groups that train; home-grown terrorists that build bombs; and gangsters woven into the fabric of the military.

I didn't buy the invasion of Afghanistan nor Iraq. Didn't buy it then. Don't buy it now. Iraq at least had a long history of direct defiance to UN action, external aggression, and demonstrated use of WMD's. The argument for invading Afghanistan was that some gangsters who trained in some tents there had punched us in the nose.

I think y'all provide perfect illustrations to fill out Ryan's story -- except I wonder where all the people went who have strong passions about religious and social issues and can say so without denigrating anyone else? Or make an argument that inspires and pulls us out of mud?