Get E-Mail Updates

A Covenant for Civility

The political polarization of our society has now reached a new and dangerous level. Honest disagreements over policy issues have turned into a growing vitriolic rage against political opponents, and even threats of violence against lawmakers are now being credibly reported.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Just a few months ago, a deeply concerned, veteran member of Congress called me to express real despair about the alarming level of disrespect, personal attacks, and even hateful rhetoric that was occurring among her colleagues -- reflecting a degeneration of public debate in our national culture. This month, another member of Congress called to express real fear about threats of violence he and other elected officials had experienced against themselves and their family members. Political debate, even vigorous debate, is a healthy thing for a democracy; but to question the integrity, patriotism, and even faith of those with whom we disagree is destructive to democratic discourse, and to threaten or even imply the possibility of violence toward those whose politics or worldview differs from ours is a sign of moral danger, and indeed, a sign of democracy's unraveling.

Both members are people of faith and were calling to ask for help from the community of faith to lead in this dangerous moment and to begin to help heal what was becoming an increasingly alarming and frightening situation. I recently had lunch with a friend, a political conservative with whom I both agree and disagree on various policy issues. He expressed his real discouragement over how more and more Americans now get their news and information from only highly ideological and partisan media sources with whom they already agree, and who daily fuel the most passionate emotions of their loyal followers -- on both sides of the political aisle.

So for several months, a group of Christian leaders have been praying, talking, and discerning how the churches might lead by example to help create a more civil and moral tone in our national politics. We have confessed that, too often, Christians have merely reflected the political divisions in the body politic instead of trying to heal them in the body of Christ. People of faith from all our religious traditions could help create much-needed safe, civil, and even sacred spaces for better public discourse at this critical moment in our nation's history. What has come from our prayerful discernment is "A Covenant for Civility: Come Let Us Reason Together." Church leaders from across the political and theological spectrum -- who have voted Democratic, Republican, and Independent in recent elections -- have come together around this civility covenant, and the breadth of the signatories is a powerful statement in and of itself. Together we offer what we feel is a strong biblical statement motivated by deep concern about our present situation; we are now inviting thousands of other pastors and lay people in all of our churches to sign this covenant and then seek to implement it in our congregations, communities, and nation.

The Covenant for Civility begins:

As Christian pastors and leaders with diverse theological and political beliefs, we have come together to make this covenant with each other, and to commend it to the church, faith-based organizations, and individuals, so that together we can contribute to a more civil national discourse. The church in the United States can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is deeply divided by political and cultural differences. Too often, however, we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ. We come together to urge those who claim the name of Christ to " put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:31-32).

I offer the full text of the covenant here (as well as a link to the list of initial signers) and ask our readers and friends to consider both signing on and acting to make the commitments of this covenant in our lives and faith communities -- and offer a much-needed prophetic witness to the nation at this time of crisis.

We need to behave differently, for both the sake of our spiritual integrity and the health of our democracy. We have forgotten some of the key values of faith: respect, truth, honesty, humility, patience, kindness, confession, forgiveness, prayer, and the unity of the body of Christ. It is time to recover them again. Let the change we call for begin with us.

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

+Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Janice_M

04-11-2010 @ 9:00pm

Opps, sorry. I meant to say that we can go with THIS video if you like:

VIDEO

by: scat

04-09-2010 @ 3:57am

" Many of us here recognize the "covenant for civility" for what it is .... yet another device to shut people up who might disagree with you, especially the ones who are the most effective, forthright and pointed in their disagreement. "

Sounds like you don't think people, or at least some people cannot express themselves without being uncivil and without bending the truth. Maybe it's more about what people will listen to. Some people like all the vitriol and don't cate about the truth as long as what you are saying is consistent with what they want to believe.

Personally I think the love of a good fight and indifference to truth are the problems that we must deal with. I never will understand why some people don't care about being lied to while others will not forgive a lie.

by: kansasmennonite

04-10-2010 @ 11:39pm

I don't generally sign things like this. I read the list of initial signers and only knew of a handful. There was a signer from my current church's conference (Mennonite USA). I find if interesting that the only initial signer that I knew that would be considered conservative would be Chuck Colson. I guess I'm not very up on the leaders presented here.

Mennonites tend to be "ya and nay" and don't take oathes. There's an old testament story (can't remember which one-one I never heard of before) that is presented on historical furniture that deals with the oath issue. Perhaps I consider this signing too close to an oath.

I'd like to see some heavyweight right wing talk hosts sign on but we know that would be the end of their current job.

by: Janice_M

04-13-2010 @ 8:44pm

BlueDeacon wrote: "A twisting of the word "conservative," because they're anything but."

False.

Friedrich August von Hayek CH (8 May 1899

by: BlueDeacon

04-11-2010 @ 9:00pm

No, she didn't -- she was playing the old Nixonian game of divide-and-conquer.

by: BlueDeacon

04-13-2010 @ 8:17pm

Classic liberals (nka "conservatives") are forward looking and view themselves as the true progressives.

A twisting of the word "conservative," because they're anything but. I can't think of a modern conservative that was focused on anything but his/her own power -- and in the process accused their opponents of the very same thing (when it wasn't true). Besides, Burkean conservatism actually was disdainful of ideology generally -- a piece I read in The Nation magazine said that, by that definition, Barack Obama was a very conservative man.

by: BlueDeacon

04-11-2010 @ 8:59pm

Hitler's very first victims were the Communists, and since folks these days love to call such folks "socialists," there's no comparison. If anything, Hitler would for that reason alone would likely have been supported by today's conservatives.

by: WaveTossed

04-13-2010 @ 8:17pm

"will you sign the Covenant for Civility? Why or why not?"

For your information, I just signed the Covenant for Civility.

by: duhsciple

04-11-2010 @ 10:22pm

Is this a serious question, a mocking question, a gotcha question, or an honest question? In what spirit are you asking the question?

Given that I am concerned about the planet as a whole, my answer would be "yes" I am concerned about Guam. Do you have further information? Is the population self-sustaining, using resources from the island? What would happen if the island could no longer depend upon non-renewable energy sources? Our planet is also, ultimately, an island. We have finite, limited resources which must be stewarded wisely.

Are you worried about the planet and Guam?

by: WaveTossed

04-13-2010 @ 8:15pm

"Regarding traditional marriage, while progressives also believe it is an important issue, the difference seems to be that progressives are more willing to separate civil and religious marriage, and in a pluralistic society, are less willing to deny legal rights to certain citizens based upon their sexual orientation."

Thank you. I realize that many people have religious beliefs against same-gender marriage. Until the past couple of decades, there were quite a few people who had religious beliefs against inter-racial marriage. People have the guaranteed right to express their particular beliefs.

What people don't have the right to do under our Constitution is to impose their particular religious beliefs upon others -- EVEN IF their religious views constitute a majority. Our forefathers put in a Bill of Rights and later on, the 14th Amendment was instituted. All people have equal rights under the law, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc. None of these can over-ride others under the law.

by: xfree9

04-11-2010 @ 10:59pm

Actually, that's not true. Hitler's rage against communism was not the same as today's rage against alleged communism. Back then was a different scenario of ideologies. Hitler's platform has more in common with the progressive party platform than the conservative platform.

by: Janice_M

04-13-2010 @ 8:09pm

duhsciple wrote: "I identify as a "progressive."

Classic liberals (nka "conservatives") are forward looking and view themselves as the true progressives.

They believe that those professing progressivism today are actually "REgressives" - specifically embracing a backward-looking metaphysic.

".. The romantic movement of the early 19th century was actually a reactionary and nostalgic yearning for an idyllic past, answering to the sense of loss of community and oneness with the rhythms of nature. This backward looking movement idealized the primitive, and sought to unleash the subjective and irrational passions (countering the rational and objective detachment of science). (It is ironic that leftists call themselves "progressives," since the movement is ultimately reactionary and regressive to the core, psychologically, ontologically, epistemologically, and spiritually.) " ~ Robert W. Godwin, Ph.D, Clinical Psychologist

by: duhsciple

04-11-2010 @ 10:33pm

Sermon coming. And I preach it first of all to remind myself of my own calling.

Mocking, distorting, twisting, baiting, name calling, labeling, smearing, taunting, bullying, arrogance, superiority, belittling, making others guilty by association, trashing, terrorizing, seeking to instill fear, dissing are immature techniques. When these techniques are used, the one making the argument loses credibility. It is best to avoid them at all costs. Of course, because of sin, we may be so tempted.

Therefore, before posting, pray the Lord's Prayer, including, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Note that we pray deliver "us" not "them." So often when we demonize others we become demons ourselves.

by: WaveTossed

04-13-2010 @ 8:04pm

Actually, Ron Paul has a point here that I can readily relate to. According to the site you provided, Ron Paul said: "[Obama]'s a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."

This is a perfectly valid criticism of Obama's term, so far. So far, he has allowed too much influence from large corporations. Which Obama certainly hasn't been alone in allowing. GW Bush, Clinton, GHW Bush, Carter, many others have gone along similar paths -- allowing too much influence from large corporations. Eisenhower, way back in the 1950s, said it best, the "Military-Industrial Complex."

Ron Paul isn't that well-liked among the leaders of either the Republican Party or the Tea Partyers. However, many rank-and-file people are taking to him, as has been shown by some recent Republican polls. Ron Paul is a true independent. I don't agree with all of his views, but especially on civil liberties and being anti-war, he has been the most outspoken, much more than either Obama or his Repub opponents.

by: duhsciple

04-16-2010 @ 12:02am

Once again, calling people "socialists" and "fascists" and "Nazis" will not win an argument. I admit that it is scary to have this label thrown at you. Fear does rattle me. I wonder how folks could possibly think that. Loving each particular individual as priceless AND loving all people globally is central to my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus the Messiah. It is upsetting to hear people project demonic motives onto those of us concerned for "social justice," loving each particular person and loving all people, providing not just for their spiritual welfare, but physical, too

by: ckgmailOTscholar

04-11-2010 @ 11:10pm

I am dumfounded and disconcerted about the lack of civility that has been brought on by a simple call for civility.

by: scat

04-11-2010 @ 2:50am

"Progressives are often middle or upper middle class whites who think they know what's best for minorities and poor people. They control the educational bureaucracy, which is why American children have been falling behind the rest of the world. If you want to reform something, don't look to the modern-day progressives; they're too reactive."

So it seems you are not of the "midle class whties who think they know what's best for minorities and poor people." What do you suggest? What do you see as the problem and how are you working to solve it? Since I am one of those misdirected progressives who dan't do anything right, I suppose I best desist from all volunteer work and personal efforts to help others. After all, we just can't do anything right, can we!
Type your comment here.

by: Brush

08-01-2011 @ 2:27am

Chip...

[

by: BlueDeacon

04-11-2010 @ 3:55am

Why would anyone essentially sign away their future right to express themselves as the situation demands?

That's not the issue. The issue is that, in the view of many people who frequent this blog, conservatives don't want the responsibility for the mess they created, preferring to blame their critics. And that won't fly.

by: BlueDeacon

04-11-2010 @ 3:53am

Sarah Palin made her "character" very clear with many of the statements that she made; thus, Wallis was not out of bounds in saying what he did. "Judge not lest ye be judged" does NOT preclude using discernment.

by: xfree9

04-09-2010 @ 5:44pm

What specifically appalls you? What facts is he wrong on? The White House met with FoxNews top brass and FoxNews execs asked what has been false, and they could only point to a small minor point Beck has made.

If the White House can't claim Glenn Beck is spewing incorrect factual data about the Obama Administration, I doubt you'll be able to outdo them!

by: BlueDeacon

04-11-2010 @ 3:51am

What support for racism have progressives done over the last 100 years?

by: xfree9

04-09-2010 @ 5:42pm

How is Glenn Beck violent? Sure he's mad as hell, but he has lots of great reasons to be (unfortunately, in my opinion, he's not mad about enough things, like the war and other unjust things like immigration laws-I part ways with him on these things).

Have you ever watched more than a few minutes of his show? Or listened to his radio show? On his radio show, nearly every day, he rants and raves about how nonviolence is the answer to all of this, and that becoming violent only stoops to the level of the Left and the Progressives. Believe what you will about his thoughts, but his rhetoric is not violent. He has lately quoted and espoused Ghandi's non-violent advice on letting the truth be our anvil and letting our hammer be "nonviolence."

Calling Glenn Beck violent is like calling Obama racist. Both have been claimed, and both arguments sound legit, but fail under investigation.

by: GWilson

04-09-2010 @ 5:26am

You miss the point. The point is that Jim Wallis doesn't have the "authority" to tell the rest of of us what qualifies as "uncivil".

Not to mention what qualifies as "truth". That is up to free individuals to decide. Not the government, and not Jim Wallis who has chosen to conjoin himself with the current one.

by: BlueDeacon

04-11-2010 @ 3:51am

You have one opinion, and others have others -- regarding what constitutes demonization and what constitutes calling to account.

There's a way you can tell. "I disagree," for example, isn't demonization. Calling someone a "socialist" is.

Many, including me, justifiably believe that it's Beck who is calling Wallis to account for his interpretation and use of the Bible to further the growth of government.

We don't think it's justified, particularly coming from someone who rejects basic tenets of the Christian faith.

The White House has been directly involved in attempting to shame people from watching Foxnews, and warning other networks not to pick up on any of the stories they break.

I guess you haven't noticed that the Fox News Channel is in essence an arm of the Republican Party. Roger Ailes, who runs it, was a GOP operative as far back as Nixon and was at one point an adviser to GWB (yes, while he was running the network). Had any of the "liberal" networks had that kind of relationship with the Democratic Party the conservatives would have justifiably screamed bloody murder.

I can't imagine though that there's been any coordination by Wallis and the White House regarding Wallis calling for Christians to start yet another ..... boycott. Where in the world would anyone get that idea?

In your own mind.

by: IreneH

04-09-2010 @ 6:11pm

Disqus - I find his rhetoric and that of most conservative leaders to be inflammatory. Then I see the tea party movement with signs that call our President Hitler, Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Communist (they sure cover all bases, don't they), it is not a movement that I can take seriously except for the disgusting behavior (spitting and screaming) and the violent acts (murder, flying a plane into a building) and threats of violent acts. It cannot be blamed on any one specific group or person but the words of some people, like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Bachman, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, et al have the effect of inciting the lunatic fringe in this country and they must take responsibility for it. Now they are going to have a rally near to the White House with everyone packing a gun. You are certain free to disagree with me and maybe you even think this type of discourse and actions are just fine, I don't think it has any place in our town meetings or rallies and is certainly not civil debate.

I say again that the right-wing of the country has gone off the cliff and it just befuddles me that they have such a following. Where are the moderate conservatives and why are they so silent?

As for Beck's conjuring up Gandhi - just maybe he's a little frightened about how out of control things are becoming. For him this crazy talk is a gig, it's just a paycheck, for the angry militia groups out there it's a call to arms. Don't underestimate the possibility of real violence to come, some people are just itching for it.

I very much appreciate your civil response to me.

Peace, Irene

by: Jonahn

04-11-2010 @ 11:15pm

I agree. Actually, the responses of the people who for whatever reason seem to be against this, and seem determined to come to this sight to prove sojo wrong and tell them how evil or misinformed or dishonest they are, if they are trying to prove soso's ailments its not working. I think its actually making me more liberal by the minute/everytime they post an accusatory comment.

by: GWilson

04-09-2010 @ 5:18am

"Authority", he says. Telling.

by: Jonahn

04-11-2010 @ 3:48am

"But what's at issue here is just whose definition of civility are we using?"

The Bible's!! Every single point in the covenant is backed with scripture! Did you read it?

by: Janice_M

04-11-2010 @ 11:13pm

duhsciple wrote: "..We have finite, limited resources which must be stewarded wisely."

I believe people are the most important resource. Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.

Consequently this is what I subscribe to:

The American Conservation Ethic

by: BlueDeacon

04-09-2010 @ 4:40am

Oh, the whole anti-Clinton campaign was indeed a subversion of the MSM. There actually was a specific plan -- float a rumor in right-wing media and have the MSM pick it up and try to investigate. By the time they figured out that it was a dead end, another rumor surfaced. That did two things: Raise the circulation/ratings of right-wing media and supposedly show that the MSM were in bed with the Democrats for protecting Clinton (when indeed there was nothing to find). The MSM finally got wise right around the impeachment -- and did you notice that there were no more "rumors" afterward?

by: GWilson

04-11-2010 @ 3:47am

Thanks for illustrating my point. There's many differing opinions on what is truly "uncivil", and what is "calling out".

Let's let the chips fall where they may, try to be as civil as is warranted, and get away from signing covenants. Just MHO.

by: BlueDeacon

04-09-2010 @ 4:36am

Apparently, under the rules of such a covenant, Wallis is free to refer to Glenn Beck as a strange money-grubbing clownish pornographer, but Glenn is not allowed to identify Wallis' mindset as having Marxist, redistributionist tendencies and characteristics, and voice his opinion that this is NOT what the Gospel is all about.

The question is: Is there evidence to support those opinions? On top of that, Beck does NOT subscribe to the historic Christian faith and thus doesn't have the authority to mention what he thinks it should be.

by: GWilson

04-11-2010 @ 3:43am

Well no, but it seems that he's the driving force behind it. Or so I read in a news account in the Washington Post or some place.

Civility is fine. Most people try to be basically civil, because to be otherwise is usually counterproductive to your cause. But what's at issue here is just whose definition of civility are we using? Who is the arbiter? What makes this particular "covenant" so special? Why would anyone essentially sign away their future right to express themselves as the situation demands?

And especially -- why is it that Wallis seems to get free reign to be uncivil (by his own definition, see above) and others apparently do not?

When we go down this road of presuming to tell others what's civil, when in reality we're all well within the bounds thereof, the founders turn over, and free speech cowers in fear.

by: BlueDeacon

04-13-2010 @ 9:14pm

By this definition, the political movement known as modern conservatism is not "classic liberal" -- and that includes the people who call themselves conservative. The movement caught fire by scapegoating and obstructing its enemies. Besides, you have to have enough confidence in your program that you believe it can stand on its own; most conservatives IME don't.

by: duhsciple

04-11-2010 @ 11:49pm

Here's my explanation.

When your goal is winning at all costs, civility is optional. When your goal is love, civility is central.

by: Jonahn

04-11-2010 @ 3:42am

Many, including me, justifiably believe that it's Wallis who is calling Beck to account for his understanding of what social justice is. Beck never intended to attack Wallis with his first mention social justice being code for naziism. Wallis challenged him on it, and Beck responded in a very poor manner. Social justice does not amount to big government, and this is not what sojourners is about. To my knowledge, Wallis never makes this claim. You can infer all you want though.

by: duhsciple

04-13-2010 @ 10:19pm

I'm confused. Am I Hitler or am I a regressive? So many analytical options of what is wrong with me :)

by: duhsciple

04-11-2010 @ 11:48pm

When your goal is winning at all costs, civility is optional. When your goal is love, civility is central.

by: xfree9

04-11-2010 @ 3:33am

Sure, why wouldn't I?

by: duhsciple

04-11-2010 @ 11:46pm

May I gently suggest that people are not resources or commodities but rather treasured children made in the image of God. As treasured and beloved, all people are deserving of their daily bread as we pray in the Lord's Prayer (food, clothing, shelter, safety, education, clean environment, health care).

And may I suggest that the earth is the Lord's and all that is in it. Therefore, we are to care for the air, soil, water as belonging not to us, but to the Lord for the purpose of abundant life for all creation.

Perhaps you will agree that my position is "conservative" as my ethic is grounded in ancient biblical wisdom. And when I suggest that what we have is finite and limited (the area of our disagreement?) you may recall that we are "dust and to dust we shall return," meaning that we are not gods.

Yes, natural resources are resilient. But sometimes ecosystems can be damaged for generations? Will there be enough clean, fresh water and energy and food to sustain life without causing increasing numbers of species to go extinct, threatening ecological collapse? What is the number of human beings this planet can support? Surely this number is not infinite.

by: squeaky

04-09-2010 @ 5:45am

OFCOL, and ever more emphatically, OFCITB.

This entire thread makes me very sad and frustrated. Come on people. We are all Christians here, bought by the blood of the Lamb. Time to try to look at each other as such, through His eyes, and speak to each other accordingly. Very few here are reflecting Him very brightly. Some not at all. Most not at all. In fact, where is He? Do you see Him? Do you hear Him? Stop for a second and try. Or are you even looking for Him? Are you even listening to Him?

I am deep in lamentation. Not just for this nation but for Christians who delight in sniping at each other. We're supposed to be known by our love, you know. Where is it? Why is it such a rare occurrence even here on a Christian blog? I pray that not one seeker stops by this blog. Ever. If they do, it may be the thing that turns them from their seeking. And I suspect we will be called to account for our idle words, even idle words written in cyber space.

What a witness we are for Him. We should all, myself included, bow our heads in shame for how we have maligned and misrepresented Him in the way we speak to each other. Why are there so few of us in mourning over this? Why are there so few of us throwing ash on our heads in lament over how politics and ideology has raped, denigrated, and destroyed our love for one another?

We will never, ever, not in a million years, learn. End of story. I have no idea why God puts up with us. He has far more patience than I, that is for sure.

I sincerely pray God fills each and every person here with His love and compassion for all you respond to on this blog. Imagine a blog where the love of Christ actually shines through even in the way we disagree with each other. And with visions of that pipedream dancing in my head, I bid thee good night, and good luck.

by: xfree9

04-11-2010 @ 3:31am

Pelosi is a politician who is actively espousing a political platform that oppresses individuals and threatens freedom under the veneer of good intentions at the expense of defiling the Constitution she swore to uphold. There is a very legitimate place for pointing out danger, evil, or otherwise unConstitutional policies to light. Glenn Beck doesn't call people names, he's labeling them. There's a marked difference. Calling somebody a "marxist" is not name calling, it's labeling. Granted, I think Beck throws around the labels a bit too much, which works against his main purpose because it de-emphasizes the real danger of truly evil ideologies (such as marxism and communism). But at the same time, he's stated over and over that the people he's shedding light about are more than likely very good people with good families and good hearts, but he feels called to expose their vile ideologies.

But unless you watched him, you wouldn't be able to know that.

And for what it's worth, I'm defending Beck the same way I would Obama or Jeremiah Wright or Jim Wallis. I don't agree with Beck on many issues, but I'll defend people where they need to be defended. I think this particular issue of Glenn Beck's crusade against misapplied social justice has been taken out of context tremendously (though Beck has set himself up for it, really).

by: Janice_M

04-13-2010 @ 10:55pm

Blue Deacon wrote: "the political movement known as modern conservatism is not "classic liberal""

Not so. The classical liberals, Ronald Reagan, Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, are all conservative's heros.

by: GWilson

04-11-2010 @ 3:28am

"There's a difference between "demonization" and calling someone to account." -- BlueDeacon

But that's the problem, don't you see? You have one opinion, and others have others -- regarding what constitutes demonization and what constitutes calling to account.

Many, including me, justifiably believe that it's Beck who is calling Wallis to account for his interpretation and use of the Bible to further the growth of government. He disagrees with that definition of "social justice", as it's just an extraordinarily clever way of saying "redistribution".

The White House has been directly involved in attempting to shame people from watching Foxnews, and warning other networks not to pick up on any of the stories they break. Imagine if Bush had done that regarding MSNBC. Their former "green jobs dude", Van Jones, organized a boycott of Beck's sponsors. And now Andy Stearn, SEIU, frequent visitor to the White House, is starting another.

I can't imagine though that there's been any coordination by Wallis and the White House regarding Wallis calling for Christians to start yet another ..... boycott. Where in the world would anyone get that idea?

by: xfree9

04-13-2010 @ 10:38pm

You're correct in that Hitler fits in his own category in many ways. However, "rounding up" may be his implementation of a final solution, but that does not mean the underlying views of the world were not akin to that of the progressives today. Look up the Nazi party platform on wikipedia. With few exceptions, it sounds very similar to current progressive platforms.

I would classify your phrase, "believing in an over-riding government with lack of any sort of civil liberties" as essentially fascist. The very arrogant notion that central planning and concentration of power is fascist to the core. The "nanny state" idea is very fascist. It puts government as the master of the people, rather than permitting people to choose their own master.

by: xfree9

04-11-2010 @ 3:24am

"generally reject" is convenient for you, but conservatives could say the same thing. Progressives SAY they reject racism, but their history of eugenics and racism over the past 100 years speaks for itself. While major "progressives" have advocated against racism, that doesn't necessarily count for the movement as a whole.

by: xfree9

04-13-2010 @ 10:34pm

haha... I doubt you'll see a demon. Goldberg's book title is not as off-putting as it could be, but is actually a good historical overview of the fascist movement throughout the 20th century.

As for the caricatures, those happen to every president. Why the outrage for this particular one is beyond me.

For what it's worth, LF is actually a better book than it sounds. I've read reviews from the left that praised it, as well as reviews from the right that condemned it.

by: Jonahn

04-11-2010 @ 3:21am

I'll ask you again:

This covenant is not simply a "sojourners" or "Jim Wallis" thing. Even if you don't like sojourners or Jim Wallis, does that dislike negate the need for civility?

And with all due respect, telling somebody that they are uncivil in an uncivil way seems rather counterproductive. maybe even hypocritical.

by: xfree9

04-13-2010 @ 10:32pm

Again, you are claiming facts that I don't believe are accurate. And I'm not just pulling from "one source," as you claim. Having more than a single source does not make something "true." Of course, defining "progressive" can be slippery, so not everything Hitler did was what we call "progressive" today. I've never claimed that. But there is nothing oxymoronic about the term "liberal fascism," because fascism by and large is a movement from the Left. The Right certainly has its own flavor of fascism (Goldberg has a complete chapter in his book on how GWB was pretty fascist).

Believe whatever "facts" you want, but I don't trust you to present an "independent" or "objective" view, since such terms do not truly exist anyway.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: uberVU - social comments

04-08-2010 @ 6:07pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by sojourners: A Covenant for Civility by @jimwallis http://su.pr/2Upgmp...

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 6:11pm

I'm reminded of a story that Justin Trudeau told during his Eulogy for his father, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau:

"As I guess it is for most kids, in Grade 3, it was always a real treat to visit my dad at work.
As on previous visits this particular occasion included a lunch at the parliamentary restaurant which always seemed to be terribly important and full of serious people that I didn't recognize.
But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals.
Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him -- a generic, silly little grade school thing.
My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: `Justin, Never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.'
Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating there with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl a little younger than I was.
He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual."

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 6:11pm

I'm reminded of a story that Justin Trudeau told during his Eulogy for his father, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau:

"As I guess it is for most kids, in Grade 3, it was always a real treat to visit my dad at work.
As on previous visits this particular occasion included a lunch at the parliamentary restaurant which always seemed to be terribly important and full of serious people that I didn't recognize.
But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals.
Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him -- a generic, silly little grade school thing.
My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: `Justin, Never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.'
Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating there with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl a little younger than I was.
He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual."

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 6:18pm

Um, on a purely technical note (I don't know where else to put this) but the post to Facebook link on the Covenant is not working. I got this weird message about the campaign being over.

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 6:18pm

Um, on a purely technical note (I don't know where else to put this) but the post to Facebook link on the Covenant is not working. I got this weird message about the campaign being over.

by: fogbound

04-08-2010 @ 6:35pm

When the Bush era came to an end there was a real sense of brokenness in this country and a need for profound change. The issues were many and complex. Obama was viewed by many as a savior coming onto the scene with new views, a new sense of hope and without all the Washington baggage. But something happened along the way and his favored status has plummeted. I sense there is a spirit of desparation in this country for its future and people are losing confidence and hope in the political system. Maybe the covenant is a good starting point for Christians to come together and at least begin dialogue.

by: fogbound

04-08-2010 @ 6:35pm

When the Bush era came to an end there was a real sense of brokenness in this country and a need for profound change. The issues were many and complex. Obama was viewed by many as a savior coming onto the scene with new views, a new sense of hope and without all the Washington baggage. But something happened along the way and his favored status has plummeted. I sense there is a spirit of desparation in this country for its future and people are losing confidence and hope in the political system. Maybe the covenant is a good starting point for Christians to come together and at least begin dialogue.

by: elsa123

04-08-2010 @ 6:50pm

I find it laughable that Wallis would write such a piece as I don't recall anything remotely similare when Bush was the target of the vitriol. Total hypocrisy!!! Wallis, come clean and come out of the closet!

by: elsa123

04-08-2010 @ 6:50pm

I find it laughable that Wallis would write such a piece as I don't recall anything remotely similare when Bush was the target of the vitriol. Total hypocrisy!!! Wallis, come clean and come out of the closet!

by: Mitchcarnell

04-08-2010 @ 6:54pm

My article, "Breaking Point? Working to Restore Civility," has been published by www.ethicsdaily.com. We are greatly in need of turning down the rhetoric in both religious and political dialogue. It starts with each one of us taking responsibility for our own actions.

by: Mitchcarnell

04-08-2010 @ 6:54pm

My article, "Breaking Point? Working to Restore Civility," has been published by www.ethicsdaily.com. We are greatly in need of turning down the rhetoric in both religious and political dialogue. It starts with each one of us taking responsibility for our own actions.

by: pastoraljohnson

04-08-2010 @ 6:55pm

Thanks rev wallis for your thoughtful work

by: pastoraljohnson

04-08-2010 @ 6:55pm

Thanks rev wallis for your thoughtful work

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 7:18pm

Bush was criticized for 1) achieving the presidency under dubious circumstances; 2) lying about going into Iraq; and 3) never admitting that he was wrong -- in other words, for what he did, not what he believed; the hypocrisy charge is thus bogus. On the other hand, conservatives in the Republican Party actually impeached Bill Clinton for being a Democrat and now have set their sights on Barack Obama for the same reasons. Apples and oranges.

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 7:18pm

Bush was criticized for 1) achieving the presidency under dubious circumstances; 2) lying about going into Iraq; and 3) never admitting that he was wrong -- in other words, for what he did, not what he believed; the hypocrisy charge is thus bogus. On the other hand, conservatives in the Republican Party actually impeached Bill Clinton for being a Democrat and now have set their sights on Barack Obama for the same reasons. Apples and oranges.

by: Ngchen

04-08-2010 @ 7:20pm

Quoted originally from Justin Trudeau :-)
He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual.

True, which is why I deeply respect honest conservatives who push for valuable ideals. But what about flat-out liers and those who clearly are not interested in the least bit of dialogue? And those who hold values which are flat-out repugnant (racists, sexists, money grubbers, etc.)?

Would some form of shunning of these people be a good idea?

by: Ngchen

04-08-2010 @ 7:20pm

Quoted originally from Justin Trudeau :-)
He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual.

True, which is why I deeply respect honest conservatives who push for valuable ideals. But what about flat-out liers and those who clearly are not interested in the least bit of dialogue? And those who hold values which are flat-out repugnant (racists, sexists, money grubbers, etc.)?

Would some form of shunning of these people be a good idea?

by: Ngchen

04-08-2010 @ 7:24pm

Bush was the target of numerous attacks, and yes he was deeply hated. The key reason I believe was the Iraq war, and the hyping of it. Second was the Rovian idea of always playing to the base that he used, at least until his second term. When you play to your own base all the time, don't be surprised when the opposite base hates you. Is that right? Probably not.

But what has Barack Obama done that "legitimately" would/should cause such an extreme level of outrage from the right? He hasn't started any wars of choice yet, at least.

by: Ngchen

04-08-2010 @ 7:24pm

Bush was the target of numerous attacks, and yes he was deeply hated. The key reason I believe was the Iraq war, and the hyping of it. Second was the Rovian idea of always playing to the base that he used, at least until his second term. When you play to your own base all the time, don't be surprised when the opposite base hates you. Is that right? Probably not.

But what has Barack Obama done that "legitimately" would/should cause such an extreme level of outrage from the right? He hasn't started any wars of choice yet, at least.

by: Srfnff

04-08-2010 @ 7:38pm

On another technical note, I like to link stories and ideas like this one to my Facebook page. I usually use the thumbnails, as a graphic can more easily get one's attention than a headline. However, the thumbnail in this case is an inappropriate ad (for this topic) relating to a book for sale. Can we change the thumbnail please? Thanks and I support this idea fully but I must say, I hope I'll get some daily reminders about my own behavior!

by: Srfnff

04-08-2010 @ 7:38pm

On another technical note, I like to link stories and ideas like this one to my Facebook page. I usually use the thumbnails, as a graphic can more easily get one's attention than a headline. However, the thumbnail in this case is an inappropriate ad (for this topic) relating to a book for sale. Can we change the thumbnail please? Thanks and I support this idea fully but I must say, I hope I'll get some daily reminders about my own behavior!

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:02pm

Wrong -- I'm in the MSM and I can assure you that we're not "left" (except if you consider that we're certainly not "right"). And the Texas Air National Guard story was simply botched; even the producer believed that it had the goods. (And ABC News broke that story.) BTW, there was essentially no "left" in this country until the war in Iraq started, and even today it's weak and disorganized.

Compare that with the outright lies that right-wing media were putting out. Remember that in 2007 the Washington Times published a story that said that President Obama had attended radical Muslim schools in Indonesia and that it got the information from "someone in the Clinton campaign" -- both of which were false. The paper's response? "Sue us."

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:02pm

Wrong -- I'm in the MSM and I can assure you that we're not "left" (except if you consider that we're certainly not "right"). And the Texas Air National Guard story was simply botched; even the producer believed that it had the goods. (And ABC News broke that story.) BTW, there was essentially no "left" in this country until the war in Iraq started, and even today it's weak and disorganized.

Compare that with the outright lies that right-wing media were putting out. Remember that in 2007 the Washington Times published a story that said that President Obama had attended radical Muslim schools in Indonesia and that it got the information from "someone in the Clinton campaign" -- both of which were false. The paper's response? "Sue us."

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:03pm

Not this time.

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:03pm

Not this time.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:06pm

Yes, Bush was merely "criticized." He wasn't hated, vilified, called awful names that you can't even type on this blog, compared to Hitler, etc. He was just "criticized". Because we all know that no one on the left can ever behave as badly as those on the right.

And yeah, it was because of what Bush did. Therefore, all the bad behavior of the left during the Bush years can be excused. Bush did things the left didn't like so any action by the left is excused. And the dislike of Obama has nothing to do with the policy positions he's taken. It's all irrational, misdirected hatred. What a joke...

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:06pm

Yes, Bush was merely "criticized." He wasn't hated, vilified, called awful names that you can't even type on this blog, compared to Hitler, etc. He was just "criticized". Because we all know that no one on the left can ever behave as badly as those on the right.

And yeah, it was because of what Bush did. Therefore, all the bad behavior of the left during the Bush years can be excused. Bush did things the left didn't like so any action by the left is excused. And the dislike of Obama has nothing to do with the policy positions he's taken. It's all irrational, misdirected hatred. What a joke...

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:07pm

Read between the lines. The so-called "Leave Us Alone" coalition, a group of conservative activists that met every Wednesday morning in D.C., actually began plotting to have Clinton impeached the day after he was reelected. The impeachment itself was based on flimsy charges with evidence that may have been gathered illegally. And you're going to tell me that it wasn't politically motivated?

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:07pm

Read between the lines. The so-called "Leave Us Alone" coalition, a group of conservative activists that met every Wednesday morning in D.C., actually began plotting to have Clinton impeached the day after he was reelected. The impeachment itself was based on flimsy charges with evidence that may have been gathered illegally. And you're going to tell me that it wasn't politically motivated?

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:08pm

More accurately in evangelicalism.

by: BlueDeacon

04-08-2010 @ 10:08pm

More accurately in evangelicalism.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:10pm

But what has Barack Obama done that "legitimately" would/should cause such an extreme level of outrage from the right?

People don't like it when they're lied to. Maybe it's me, but it certainly irritates me when I'm lied to. Or perhaps you don't see certain issues as important as those on the right do. If your job is threatened because of Obama's climate change or health care policy you might get upset too. Give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not completely irrational, but reacting to policies they genuinely dislike. Just as people should give you the benefit of the doubt that you perhaps didn't like Bush because of the Iraq War and it's not some underlying irrational Bush hatred.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:10pm

But what has Barack Obama done that "legitimately" would/should cause such an extreme level of outrage from the right?

People don't like it when they're lied to. Maybe it's me, but it certainly irritates me when I'm lied to. Or perhaps you don't see certain issues as important as those on the right do. If your job is threatened because of Obama's climate change or health care policy you might get upset too. Give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not completely irrational, but reacting to policies they genuinely dislike. Just as people should give you the benefit of the doubt that you perhaps didn't like Bush because of the Iraq War and it's not some underlying irrational Bush hatred.

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 10:13pm

I think that's still just a matter of perspective, because I grew up on the evangelical left.

Went to school with Ron Sider's nieces and everything. ;)

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 10:13pm

I think that's still just a matter of perspective, because I grew up on the evangelical left.

Went to school with Ron Sider's nieces and everything. ;)

by: calab

04-08-2010 @ 10:14pm

Watch the video,maybe the holy spirit will bless you with truth for today

by: calab

04-08-2010 @ 10:14pm

Watch the video,maybe the holy spirit will bless you with truth for today

by: calab

04-08-2010 @ 10:17pm

Watch the video and maybe you can make a connection.

by: calab

04-08-2010 @ 10:17pm

Watch the video and maybe you can make a connection.

by: calab

04-08-2010 @ 10:19pm

It is not for sell but a free gift from God to you his beloved child.

by: calab

04-08-2010 @ 10:19pm

It is not for sell but a free gift from God to you his beloved child.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:24pm

No, but he knows what was in their minds. He knows what's in yours too. Watch out.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:24pm

No, but he knows what was in their minds. He knows what's in yours too. Watch out.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:25pm

Oh, has he been hacked before? I was thinking these comments were pretty irrational, but I've met a lot of weird people online. Perhaps we should cease criticism of his comments until he owns up to these ridiculous views.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:25pm

Oh, has he been hacked before? I was thinking these comments were pretty irrational, but I've met a lot of weird people online. Perhaps we should cease criticism of his comments until he owns up to these ridiculous views.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:28pm

I'm glad to see that this covenant has broad-based support. Frankly, I believe that we've reached a point where our nation is getting close to being ungovernable as a myriad of competing interest groups vie for the attention of politicians who appear to be bought for a price. A number of years ago someone I know commented that our country was being taken over by libertarians and civil libertarians, both who push for the rights of individuals -- without the responsibility --- over the rights of the community. We've also lost our compass for God, whether it's the lack of concern for the poor or for the rights of the unborn.

It's also worth noting that Jim Wallis could be a bit more civil in his discourse. The only mention of Chuck Colson in his God's Politics book was lumping Colson with Jim Dobson as part of the Religious Right. No mention in the book of what Colson has done for prisoners to meet both physical and spiritual needs with his Prison Fellowship Ministries.

by: Jesusistheway

04-08-2010 @ 10:28pm

I'm glad to see that this covenant has broad-based support. Frankly, I believe that we've reached a point where our nation is getting close to being ungovernable as a myriad of competing interest groups vie for the attention of politicians who appear to be bought for a price. A number of years ago someone I know commented that our country was being taken over by libertarians and civil libertarians, both who push for the rights of individuals -- without the responsibility --- over the rights of the community. We've also lost our compass for God, whether it's the lack of concern for the poor or for the rights of the unborn.

It's also worth noting that Jim Wallis could be a bit more civil in his discourse. The only mention of Chuck Colson in his God's Politics book was lumping Colson with Jim Dobson as part of the Religious Right. No mention in the book of what Colson has done for prisoners to meet both physical and spiritual needs with his Prison Fellowship Ministries.

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:28pm

Can you provide any evidence that the objective of this "Leave us Alone" coalition did what you say it did?

by: Rogerbison

04-08-2010 @ 10:28pm

Can you provide any evidence that the objective of this "Leave us Alone" coalition did what you say it did?

by: Ivriniel

04-08-2010 @ 10:30pm

Thanks but, I've sat through a few too many of similar type videos in the past.

Seems to me that over the centuries there have been literally thousands of different theories on what the book of Revelations is about. No one's been proven right yet but the vast majority of them have been proven wrong, sometimes tragically so. I much prefer to take the advice of Matthew 6:34: "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today."