DISQUS

Aww that's so sad! No more foreign accents to listen to, no more "HES UP IN THE BARN"
I feel a tad bit depressed... Mom would be proud =P
p.s. I'm using your post about the definition of home as inspiration for a poem I have to write about my "motherland" ... aka home. Just thought you would like to hear that =]

Jessie

urrgh i feel the same way too, was in utter shock when i heard the news from my mum. i never scream WTF! why are all of them so dumb? their only digging their own grave deeper n deeper. how is all these bickering gonna set a good example for the younger generation? besides have u heard that the MOSQUE DENIED THAT THERESA WAS INVOLVE? tell me MALU OR NOT THESE STUPID POLITICIANS?! simple go n make a statement, get innocent ppl arrested then realise they are in a wrong, and proceed to release them. damn malu i tell u, i feel so embarass for these politicians. everyone thinks there are stewpid. never think before acting. n the foreign minister said that the reason why they were detained under ISA was to "protect them cos their life is threatened". gosh! HOW DUMB CAN THEY GET? no one is their right mind would believe that stewpid kindergarden reason! shouldn't they be protected instead of being detained! words just can't describe how screwed up the government is!

I got a necklace this Christmas from my husband and it's true! I cant stop touching the damn thing!


Thanks for stopping by!

Zakaria's case, to add on to the list of nothing-happened at last.

Thanks Thanks so much for a fair article about Ron Paul.  It is about time.  Thanks!

Robstur,
I agree that separation would be important. Sharing a denomination/affiliation/etc with members who have rejected orthodox Christian belief does damage to their institutional witness for Christ. This was the complaint of Anglican bishops in Africa about the actions of the American Episcopal church. They said that the ordination of Robinson (who left his family to live with his male lover) greatly harmed their witness to their neighboring Muslims. I'd have to agree.>

It's pretty obvious why Bush and Co.'s "stay the course" and dismissal of anything else has been the problem, not quite sure how your eloquent rebuttal is...well a rebuttal.
--Wasn't meant to be a rebuttal. Just pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of any substantive critique from Wallis. Reducing Bush's policies to "stay the course" is more of the same shallow criticism. Wallis hasn't offered any practical solutions. He's only criticized everything Bush has ever done. His whole post here is just saying "these guys are criticizing Bush and they are offering some different stuff, so this different stuff must be better." Of course, he leaves out the parts where the ISG agrees with Bush...>

Matt,
You're being rude.



Part of the problem of the past six years has been the way the administration has dismissied/demonized anybody who disagreed with them, questioned their policy, or reccomended alternatives.

--Part of the problem with Wallis and Co has been they way they have consistently dismissed/demonized the Bush administration and all of their policies.>

MB,
All the workers you mention (garbageman, plumber, etc.), with the exception of the dishwasher, make a lot higher than minimum wage. Also, if you say employers can pay teenagers less money, guess what will happen? They'll start hiring only teenagers.



These solutions you're proposing are just shifting around the costs. If you give small businesses more tax breaks, someone else presumably is going to have to pay those taxes...all of these things cost money. There's a reason neither party is proposing to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr. It would hurt more than help.>

J,
Supporting data for my points 1-3 are found here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm



You will notice that these are govt statistics.



Data supporting #4 can be found here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v27/ai_16971711 and pretty much all over the internet if you google it. I think it's just common sense. Do you really think that, say, raising the minimum wage to $10/hr isn't going to negatively impact small businesses? Especially those that are just squeeking by? Money doesn't grow on trees.>

when people who work a full workweek cannot support their family, they are not being paid a "fair wage".


--So, you're calculating what a "fair wage" is not based on the type of work but on the person working? This seems a little strange. I guess this would mean that a dishwasher would get paid the same whether he was a 16-year-old living at home with his parents or a 40-year-old who has a wife and 5 kids. There would be a lot of rich teenagers out there if you take your point to its logical conclusion. But they have lots of needs, too...I'm thinking Playstations and that new OC dvd set.



Actually, there wouldn't be rich teenagers...there would just be a lot of unemployed people. With only illegal immigrants washing dishes, because no restaurant would pay someone $15/hr to wash dishes.



Supporters of a higher minimum wage fail to consider that:



1) many people at minimum wage jobs work at bars or restaurants, where they also receive tips.



2) no one really stays at a minimum wage job for that long...instead they either get raises or move up the economic ladder



3) many of these minimum wage earners are teenagers



4) raising the minimum wage will negatively impact small businesses, will increase unemployment, and will reduce the number of entry level jobs available...these jobs are extremely important for people trying to get out of poverty.



But everyone likes the sound of "living wage" and raising the minimum wage.>

Once you get past the rhetoric, you'll see that Wallis' "Moral center" and "compromise" means that Republicans have to support big government programs and become more liberal. Wallis doesn't ask liberals to budge an inch for their uncompromising support of abortion, however (or any of the other positions on issues Kevin mentions).


Wallis would have a lot more credibility if he ever challenged the Democrats on anything (besides telling them to say "Jesus hates tax cuts").>

I should say of the regular bloggers, only Campolo is evangelical...>

This blog actually doesn't give much evidence for the claim that evangelicals are becoming more liberal. The only evangelical who has posted is Campolo, really. In addition, the liberal commentators on the haloscans have all been non-evangelical, and the conservatives have been more conservative theologically (more evangelical).


However, I do think the emergent church movement, which is purporting to be "evangelical" (some of their leaders, like McLaren, are not), is attempting to move evangelicals more leftward politically. I don't believe their influence is insignificant, in this regard.>

"Who Would Jesus Bomb?"


"Jesus was a liberal"



"The Christian Right is neither Christian nor Right"



"When did Jesus become pro-rich and pro-war?"



--Bumper stickers I have seen in my city, where there are about 30 liberal stickers for every conservative one.>

I don't know why you guys are upset. Wallis doesn't really think this was a "defeat for the secular left". This is just a rhetorical device Wallis likes to use in order to position himself as "beyond" all party labels.


Everyone here knows that Wallis supports all the positions of the secular left. They are in the same camp. Wallis just says they should use religious language more, like saying "Jesus opposes tax cuts and privatization of social security." In other words, he wants to take the worst from the religious right and apply it to the left.>

Payshun,
I agree that living up to your standards is better than not doing so. But we are all going to fail standards sometimes. Just because this is the case doesn't mean we shouldn't have standards. People here sound like they never want preachers to mention sin.>

I'd also add that just because he had homosexual sex does not mean that he was a hypocrite for his opposition to against gay marriage. He was a hypocrite because he preached against homosexual acts, yes. But his concerns about gay marriage likely had more to do with what is best for children--that they have a mother and father--rather than his moral opposition to homosexual sex. To truly be a hypocrite in his opposition to gay marriage he would have to be secretly married to a man while publicly opposing gay marriage.


But I guess this whole debate is touching a nerve and is hitting you personally. I hope I have not offended you with anything I've said, either. What happened to Haggard is just sad to me, and it upsets me to see him treated this way.>

Mykull,
What you say is "calling out hypocrisy" I say is gloating over someone who has been caught in sin. You say you don't condemn him, but that's all I've been reading. You seem to think that anyone who gets involved at all in politics can be ridiculed in more personal, negative ways than people who are not involved. I disagree.



Any preacher who is caught in adultery is guilty of hypocrisy. What does reveling in this accomplish? I've known a preacher or two who were involved in adultery. It just made me sad when I heard about it. My reaction was not at all like those I've seen here.



Homosexual acts are not the only thing he preached against. If he sinned at all, he would be guilty of hypocrisy. I don't see why liberals are so obsessed with hypocrisy. Is it because conservatives are more likely to have standards and liberals have none that they can violate?



If having standards means that I'll sometimes be a hypocrite, then a hypocrite I shall be.



The NAE that Haggard was president of is the National Association of *Evangelicals*. See here: http://www.nae.net/ . Please learn the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. You really do not seem to understand it. There is a tendency on this blog to call "fundamentalist" anyone who is a Christian who has views that are more conservative than their's. "Fundamentalist" is a negative label liberals give to people they'd rather not debate. It's fun to call people that, I guess, but don't expect them to be receptive to your arguments when you do.>

"Is that so? Fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals. Please tell me how that is an incorrect statement."
--You are incorrect in that you label Haggard's organization fundamentalist. It is not.



"When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, yes, most of the world condemns it. What is your point, exactly?"

--By your logic, most of the world is hate-filled and bigoted, not just "fundamentalists" or Christians who hold Biblical views of sex.



"Since when do you speak for all evangelicals?"

--I don't. I'm merely stating the fact that many purporting to be Christian are using a fallen brother to score political points. This is wrong.



"It seems clear to me that you are adopting a reverse-victimization stance--which is rather common among fundamentalists."

--Just pointing out the fact that you and others here are acting unlovingly towards a Christian who has fallen. If Wallis or Campolo or any liberal Christian were caught in sin, I hope I would not act the same.>

"This is a political issue and because it is a political issue, it's not going away any time soon."
--Sounds like you don't want it to go away any time soon. Supporting some political causes does not make you a political figure. Bush wanted advice from Christian leaders. Haggard gave it. This does not make him a political figure. And this point is not really relevant, anyway. Even if he was a political figure, he doesn't deserve the treatment he's received here. He is a Christian. A brother falls, and people can only think about politics and their own personal issues with evangelicals. It's wrong.>

Another quote from the website I linked to above: "Another recent study confirmed the finding that there are relatively fewer integrated churches in mainline denominations' and relatively more among Catholic and conservative Protestant churches.">

"This IS about the Christian Right. Haggard was the #2 fundamentalist leader in the country. (Btw, note I am using the term "fundamentalist," not evangelical--highlighting that fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals.)"


--Apparently you can't tell the difference between a fundamentalist, an evangelical, and a politically conservative christian. You obviously know nothing about the NEA. Please educate yourself.



"You are wrong. Ted Haggard met with Bush once a week, and he was actively involved in several political causes, gay marriage being only one of them."



--He teleconferenced (not met) with Bush or one of his advisers once a week. Billy Graham spoke with many presidents (conservative and liberal). Does that make him a political figure?



And, so far, we've reviewed evidence that he supported some "conservative" causes (traditional marriage) and some "liberal" causes (global warming). He was not a political figure. He was a pastor and a Christian leader.



"How would you know what kind of ethnic make-up there is in "your more liberal mainline denominations"? Have you been to all of them to see? Do you have any sources to confirm this?"



--See here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_7_118/ai_71949662

The author writes, "the poorest record on diversity--only 2 to 3 percent mixed on average--belongs to historic Protestant churches."



"By the way, your 60% figure is for the U.S.A., not the world."

--You're right. It is likely higher in other parts of the world (besides Europe). Given that it's only legal in a few European countries and a couple of states suggests that most of the world is hate-filled and bigoted, I suppose.



"I don't despise you and your beliefs, and I don't think anyone else in this post does either. "

--Sorry, but I've read a lot of critical posts here of "fundamentalists" and their beliefs. Your own arm-chair psychoanalysis about feeling "sorry that his shame and self-loathing were so extreme that he diguised himself as an anti-gay fundamentalist preacher" is not really that flattering to Haggard or to evangelicals. I've read a lot of posts here (including Sullivan's original post) that have used Haggard's sin to criticize evangelical hypocrisy and the hatred they are filled with.



All evangelicals are being insulted here. This is a good demonstration of evangelicals' problem with liberals and democrats. It is not unfounded.>

People keep wanting to make this about the "Christian Right" and white christian conservatives but this is about a Christian leader. Though he may have been involved in some political causes, he was not a political figure, and the organization he headed (NEA) is made up of millions of Christians who are generally more diverse (at least ethnically) than most of your more liberal mainline denominations. That Haggard fell is a tragedy for all believers. The fact that people are making it into something political suggests that, to many, politics is more important than Christ and his church. Is it about gay marriage? Than why don't you bash and show hatred towards 60% or more of the world (including Jim Wallis).


And you wonder why liberals and the Democratic party have problems wooing evangelical voters? Why would I vote for someone who despises me and my beliefs??>

Matt,
You make claims rather than present facts. With the exception of the first (which has no basis in reality), these claims may be supported by some pieces of evidence, but they are also refuted by others. You're actually just calling people names rather than making any coherent arguments.



Where do evangelicals talk about "vanishing"? I have really never heard about this, and being an evangelical, you'd think I would have at least heard someone talk about it. Many evangelicals have expressed concern about religious liberties being infringed upon, but this is very different from "vanishing" and these concerns are not unfounded.>