Just before you read the Wallis text, Mayfield provides a brief bio of Wallis. What kind of information does Mayfield give on the author? Identify the kind of specific information. What is her purpose here?
What is Wallis's viewpoint? How does he support it? What is your point of view with respect to church and state? Are the two intertwined?
46 comments:
The essay “Why Can’t We Talk About Religion and Politics?” by Jim Wallis, Mayfield begins with a short biography of Wallis’ career. What I find interesting about the bio is how Mayfield says that Wallis identifies himself as an editor of Sojourners magazine. I did a Google search and on the NPR site it states that he is the founder of the Sojourners, a Christian group and the editor in chief of the Sojourner Magazine. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4460055. I wonder if this has to do with the fact that the Sojourner Magazine is listed as a Left Christian publication. In the bio is describes him in totally religious terms and careers, “evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher and faith-based activist.” Many of these terms seemed quite ambiguous and presented as respected religious figures.
I think the purpose in presenting it this way, it appears neutral and Mayfield’s opinion is not a part of it.
Jim Wallis and his religious background make it difficult for me to believe he can have an unbiased viewpoint. My initial reaction is that he is a preacher and their job is to persuade you to believe whatever they are selling and today it is a merge of religion and politics.
Wallis makes a great point in speaking about the Magazine and how it is encouraging dialog about religion in public life, about faith and politics. The merging of ideas and opening up of dialog is always good, but it doesn’t mean that it will work or is a great idea for our society.
In the reference to Abraham Lincoln, I felt a very uncomfortable type of double-speak. I couldn’t make heads or tales of that whole paragraph. His point is that if we have God on our Side we will have very negative results. Here is an example of prejudice language and poisoning the well, by using words like, self-righteousness and bad theology. These are strong words with extremely negative connotations. While if we are on God’s side this leads to all of the good things. Here he uses manipulation of emotions to make his point. Unfortunately he has not expounded on what God on either side really means, so the argument to this point is pointless.
The reference to Martin Luther King Jr. is not valid here because he was an activist and he did not hold a political office, so here I believe it is a false authority.
Wallis states that the values of politics are his main concern in the book, I beg to differ that the ever changing and enlightening values of religion are what should be of the greatest concern. Wallis goes into a sermon on the goodness of God and how it challenges everything about politics. His statements are easily challenged due to the personal nature of the opinions pointed out here. In his statement God’s politics are the best for our society, yet here he states that politics leaves behind the poor and the vulnerable and what is truly unfortunate is that the God society he is speaking of are experiencing the same problems as the secular society, with high rates of unwed pregnancy and high divorce rates, his society is almost the same as the secular.
The separation of church and state is necessary to keep those in religion from influencing the men in the government. The government has in place three branches to help balance the power and religion has it own freedoms. The merge of the two can lead to corruption and further depletion of American society. In short, I think we should adhere to the system in place and make it work. As a child I was taught to stay away from the topics of religion and politics. I find that people are very passionate about their beliefs and some will physically fight for them.
Yet I believe church and state are intertwined, and a great example would be, when election time comes around and the politician you never see, shows up to your church requesting your support and making promises for your community and why because the church is a powerful force. If all of the factions got together (don’t worry, it can never happen- they just open another church) big changes could be made.
The type of information that Mayfield gives on the author is that Wallis is deeply rooted in the christian faith. Also, that Wallis is an evangelist. Her purpose here is to give the reader a heads up of the type of writer he/she is about to encounter. Mayfield makes a specific point in letting the reader know that Wallis is a christian because that type of information is relevant to the topic of discussion. The reading was about religion and politics. Of course one could expect that an author who is religious will have a certain point of view that religion is right. Mayfield wants the reader to be aware of the source, and be aware of religios bias. Wallis's viewpoint is that church and state can go together. He supports his claim by giving suggestions of how religion and politics can go together. He claims that religion can be used as a foundation for values and ethics in politics. He also claims that God's polotics challenge national, ethnic, and cultural self interest, which reminds us of the wider world. Religion and polotics can go together because the values of religion could make the political world much more plausable. Values such as honesty, love, kindness,and respect, all have a positive effect. Religion should not be used as the foundation. The values should. Not every person believes in religion. However, a large percent of the world does believe in certain values. There will always be different viewpoints on religion. Therefore, there will always be conflict. That is why the values of religion should be used, and not the bases of God as persuasion.
Mayfiled lets us know that Jim Wallis is a Christian that considers himself knowledgeable of and a teacher of the Gospel. She wants us to keep in mind his heavily rooted Christian faith background as we read his views on Church and State, which lead me to believe he would be bias in favor of the Church over Government.
Wallis believes that church and state should work together side by side not separate. He uses quotes from two of the most famous and influential heroic leaders in American history and compares their views to his as though they are parallel. Wallis also uses an anecdote regarding someone of a different faith giving him accolades for his message not being specific to his own denomination of religion but including all; as though that one person's view would be that of all non Christians.
In just the small excerpt from Wallis’ book, he has fallacies through out his introduction. He uses misleading euphemisms, especially when he defined his own views of combining Church and States as “God’s Politics.”
I understand that church and state should be separate and for good reasons, but it’s not that way at all. American currency is stamped with our religion; it says “In God We Trust,” not “In Allah We Trust,” “In Jehovah We Trust,” and the Pledge of Allegiance, “In One Nation under God.” Let’s not forget Bush’s reason for not allowing Stem Cell research that has his religion dictating law. Please not let us forget the religious influence in State that has prohibited us gay and lesbians of our civil right to marry. So, really there is not much separation, but there needs to be.
Jonathan- we were on the same page for awhile then we really split when it came to the personal views on the separation of Church and State.
I believe we can have love, kindness, peace, and happiness in our State/Government without involving religion. Religions vary so much and they all have too many contradictions, and too much room for interpretations it would be chaos. I know America has its problems but look at these Holly wars in the Middle East, my goodness.
I like that fact that Americans can pray in a church, pray to the east, meditate, chant, pray in a synagogue or whatever, we have to keep that freedom. Besides which religion would we apply to government, Christianity? What about Atheists or other religions like Churches of Scientology, Judaism, Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduism and a bunch more. America has to be about Americans we cannot pick a religion simply because this country was founded upon it. The further religion stays out of Government the better.
Ms Wanzo, I know the rule, but I really wanted to make a comment to Jonathan’s post.
Jonathan,
You are right that not everyone believes in a religion but everyone has certain values. However, I must disagree with values of religion brings love, honesty, kindness, etc. The values you listed are not entirely based on religion but on the morals that people were raise with. A person can possess these values and not be religious. An example is a gay couple. I know the Catholic Church is not open to them but they carried these values (love, respect, kindness) as part of their characteristics. On the other hand, you can have a person who is very religious and yet they are so engulfed in their faith that they snub a neighbor because the neighbor may practice a different faith.
Kash,
While reading the essay, I said to myself, "Which God is he talking about?". His plan sounded at though if you didn't believe as he did, you probably would not ride in that boat.
Religious groups have deteriated to the level of politial groups and I find it hard to support Wallis in this claim. He uses the term "God", but I have a sneaking suspicion if we read further we will find a religious affiliation. Thanks for your engaging comment.
Mayfield paints Jim Wallis as a devoted Christian and activist. She informs us that is a national preacher, public theologian and that he states he�s an editor of a progressive Christian magazine. He does have an article in the Sojourners magazine (Jim Wallis: American Ideals 07-05-2007). She�s trying to keep us mind full of his strong religious POV before reading his writing.
Wallis POV is that he believes that Politics and Religion can co-exist if we instill God�s values into the politic values. He does this by playing on one�s values. For example, the �sincere� agnostic expressed his thanks to Wallis for making him feel that Wallis talking directly to him. Wallis was using kindness which is a characteristic of humanity not necessary the values of politics.
My POV is that politics test of one�s faith and morals. I believe in my faith but I feel that is private. I honestly don�t know if Church and State can co-exist as one. However, I find there are similarities between religious and political leaders. They both try to persuade people in to believing that they can provide them the security and guidance some people are looking for by preying on one�s values.
Sorry folks. I meant to hit the 'preview' button and I apologize for the little box that appear. The character "'" was converted.
Mayfield's short biography of Jim Wallis conveyed amixed message inview of what Wallis claims to be in the episode of his argument. Actually,this suggests that she has different feelings about Jim as a person.Even,such impression became obvious as she identifies dozens of titles Wallis used to discribe his status.Really, it tells that Mayfield is skeptic over Wallis introduction.Interestingly, she observed that,Wallis introduced himself as "evangelical,public theological,nationally renowned preacher and faith-based activist". Certaintly, the purpose of this is to show her disagreement with the Author and at thesame time, persuade her readers to empathize with her.
However, Wallis' view point in the argument remains that politics and religion are supposed to go together or mixed.And he supports his argument by quoting Abraham Lincoln as saying, "our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsemnet for all our national policies and practices." In thesame manner,he supports his claim by stating that Dr. Martin Luther King Jenior did it best, as he had Bible on one hand and constitution on the other while preaching for moral,religious values and Justice.Further more,he surpport his case by saying that,"God on our side leads inevitably to triumphalism,self righteousness,bad theology and dangerous foreign policies".While on the other hand,struggle to know if we are on God's side-lead to much heatheir things,like patience,repentance,humanity,reflection and accountablity.
I think the Author made his point clear.Church and state suppose to go hand in hand.In the real sense, church is like the watch dog and the merrior we look upon while reflecting on our values and morals.Certainly, if this could be achieved as the Athor rightly proposed, the world would be at peace than war.Our leadesrs would recognise the fact that they are servants instead of rulers.Values,morals,and respect would not be exchanged for materials.Truely,they two subjects are inseparable,they are interwined.
Hi everyone,I think is important for us to evaluate these concepts:moral,value and belief while associating it to religion.If these concepts are the products of religion,how about the atheist who does not belief in existence of God?But he still hold some values and moral in world view.
So, I can agree with I.Sayson,that not all morals and values result from religion.Values and morals could be inherent or taught.
Hi Kash, happy late fourth of July. I agree with what you said about church and state not being seperate anymore. Religion has been used time and time again in polotics, and religion and polotics intertwine with one another so much that they are no longer viewed as seperate. The president of the United States uses religion as a means of persuation all of the time. Many people in society are religious, so religion is a very powerful tool when a person is trying to persuade another person. Kash, I agree with you that there should be some seperation of church and state in certain areas. Gay marriages is one because I feel that a person should be free to do what ever he/she wants to do. However, because we are a "christian" society, it is considered an abomination to the Lord if the same sex marries. I feel that by not allowing gay marriages, judgement is being passed by man, and not the creator.
Before reading Jim Wallis “Why Can’t We Talk About Religion and Politics?”, Mayfield give us background information about the Wallis. She let us know that Wallis is Christian and preacher; and also he is designate as “progressive Christian” (235). It is very important information for readers because we are able to understand that Wallis’s viewpoint is affected by his religious and belief in the article clearly. Mayfield wants us to be aware that Wallis’s propose in his article when she identified that Wallis career titles as “evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, and faith-based activist”. Meanwhile, she doubts that Wallis’s opinion is objective to persuade the readers on his side. Whit his heavily roots of religion, we can realize that his belief, value and standard are influenced deeply, as well as his article.
In Wallis’s article, at first he point out his viewpoint when he says, that “ where I serve as editor, commits the offense, in every single issues, of talking about faith, politics and culture”. He believes that church and state, religion and politic can work together very well. He comments two quote to support his viewpoint, one is from Abraham Lincoln; and other is from Martin Luther King Jr. He tries to use those two persons who have been identified as famous and powerful hero in American history for examples to support his opinion.
In fact, King did best that “With his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.” But we have to see what actual happen at that time, how King was affected by the society. Of course, Wallis can follow those two greater men to write his book, but it’s not strong enough to support his viewpoint that just provides those samples and a comment from a young agnostic. Moreover, what is “God’s politics”? How could he define church and state work together as “God’s politics”? Is it just because he is a “progressive Christian”? That is confusing to readers.
Personally, I thought that religion and politic are similar, both ideas and belief that designed to persuade people to believe the side their on. No matter which religion and belief I fall on, my viewpoint is the state and church, religion and politic should not be work together. If they are combine together, in our society we will lose the balance between the facts (what really happen) to the power of religion. Furthermore, as a freedom and liberal country as America, every ethnic, religion and value should be accepted.
Hi Sayson,
I really impact on that you provide a sample about a guy couple is not allowed to go to Catholic Church. What is happening in our society now? Because we are in the country that believes “In God We Trust” only, we cannon pick religion and belief simply. We are in the same boat that disagree with values of religion bring love, honesty, kindness. All of us have right to choose religion, values and belief. Everyone would care moral, spiritual, or religious values, yet not just only depend on which certain religion he/she belong to.
Before reading “Why Can’t We Talk about Religion and Politics” written by Jim Wallis, Mayfield gives a small introduction on who is Jim Wallis. She states that he “identifies himself as an editor of Sojourners magazine, designated as “progressive Christian…,” and an “evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, and faith-based activist.” I believe Mayfield gives us this small introduction on Jim Wallis to get a feel of the perspective in which the author will be writing in.
Wallis viewpoint is simple. He suggests that religion and politics should be intertwined with one another. He doesn’t speak of religion as in what we should or shouldn’t believe in, but more along the lines of religion bringing hope, peace, faith, and so forth into politics. Wallis makes this clear to me by saying “The best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable nor loyally partisan. Both parties, and the nation, must let the prophetic voice of religion be heard. Faith must be free to challenge both right and left from a consistent moral ground.”
However, I believe that this is chaos waiting to happen. Wallis doesn’t really talk about what exact religion should be intertwined with politics, but I think we can all agree or assume that it is Christianity since that is what he is promoting as mentioned in Mayfield’s small introduction about him. I believe that no religion should be mixed with politics because then we would only go back to what we fought so much to break away from. This should be a free country as our forefather’s intended it to be.
As for politics and religion, I think they are already too intertwined and need to be separated. Who says that my religion or your religion is the right one to follow? If we as American’s can’t even agree on a simple law in congress or a “fit” president, what makes us think that we can agree on the “correct religion for all American’s?”
Hey Jonathan,
I thought your response was really interesting because I was trying to figure out in my head how to get all of the good values a religion has to offer to intertwine with politics, making sure to first exclude all of the contradictions and restrictions of a religion. However, I found this to be impossible to do. A religion is a religion and there is no way that American’s, as liberal as we are, can come to an agreement of which are “good values” and which are “good morals.” I realized that everyone has their own interpretation of the meanings of these words and that someone would always be left out of the loop if religion and politics were to ever mix. Therefore, we should raise our children as best we could by teaching them our “good values and morals” hoping for the best.
Mayfield provided information as tell us about what kind of work that Wallis work for, and how related from his work to our reading. Also, Mayfield tell us Wallis is an "evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, and faith-based activist" From those information, we could estimated Mayfield purposed is persuaded the audience to have a new value assumption of both left and right.
Wallis's viewpoint is both the Right and the Left can survived at the same time. Which is politics and religious. "where I serve as editor, commits the offense, in every single issue, of talking about faith, politics, and culture." Wallis informed us that he had a commits the offense about every single issue of politics. At this time, Wallis is still challenging the situation of Politics and religious, which is church and state can work together. However, it's have some exception.
"MLK Jr. did it best. With his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other" Well, MLK of course had his best, we can tell even 50 years later which is now. But, how many MLK that we had in past over century, One? probably. King really affected our society and pretty sure it will still affected in the unlimited future
My viewpoint of church and state is interlace as the challenges both the Right and the Left, and we should seek to shape a new perspective on the separation of church and state while also challenging some value assumptions of both left and right.
Hi Maria G. Ambriz
I agree with you when you said "As for politics and religion, I think they are already too intertwined and need to be separated. Who says that my religion or your religion is the right one to follow?" You reminded me America is a freedom country, we can follow the others, we can create our own, or even we are "Agnostic". The concept is very understand, but how many of us can take a action?
Marlys Mayfield gave the readers great information about Jim Wallis' beliefs and work duty. Jim's job position was indicated as "progressive Christian". As well as, labeling Wallis as "evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, and faith-based activist."(236). Mayfield's purpose for the brief bio on Jim Wallis was to inform the readers that his point of view is biased. Wallis' viewpoint is that church and state can be combined as one. He supports his claim by using two big historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.
I believe that religion and politics both trying to persuade people to chose a particular side.In that sense they are related issues. They (religion and politics) want people to think the way they feel on certain issues.
My point of view on church and state is that they are intertwined with one another. A majority of the government laws that are in place are connected to religion in one form or another. For example, same sex marriages are not allowed.
In addition, we must treat others the way we want to be treated comes from the bible also.
Hi Jonathan! I agree with you that church and state can go together. People will always have different viewpoints on religion. The world would be more plausible like you meantioned. As well as, people believe certain values although they are not religious.
I believe values and morals that people believe originated from religion. The individual makes the decision to be religious, agnostic or atheist. It is a personal choice one makes.
Mayfield describes Jim Wallis as a faith-based activist who preaches on a national level. She also describes him as an “evangelical” and “public theologian” (pg. 236) which lets me know that his views are based on his Christian upbringing.
Mayfield’s purpose for giving information on Wallis’s history is to give a bit of his Christian background and lifestyle before allowing the reader to go on with Wallis’s story. This also allows the reader to give him a fair biased opinion based on his beliefs and his own actions. By that, I mean, does he practice what he preaches?
From reading the article, Wallis’s viewpoint is to accept and acknowledge that we are on God’s side and for political groups like the Republicans and Democrats not to use God to their advantage. He supports this by giving examples from Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, who both stated we are all on God’s side. Wallis also states that the Republicans and Democrats use God is on there side for power. By adding “religion into their political agenda” (pg 237), they can create terrible outcomes. Maybe trying a new conversation, the Democrats and Republicans may be able to steer away from God is on there side belief.
My feeling is that religion and state should be separate. For example, religion should not be incorporated into banning abortions just because the bible states it is wrong. This is where religion should be left at the church and not brought into The White House.
The term God, used in the way the Republicans did in the last election is very dangerous. Our president basically got voted by incorporating in his speeches that God was on his side for the war in Iraq. I feel there is nothing wrong with religion or believing in a God. When others use religion and God as power, it is then that it can influence others with no knowledge on issues when voting.
Hi Kash
I agree with you on church and state should be separate. I do believe that Bush’s religious beliefs have gotten in the way of stopping abortions, gay marriage from being legalized, and stem cell research processing. This is mainly due to the Religious Right Movement which is mainly Christian Republicans, donating very big contributions during election times. This group is really trying to set America back due to there religious beliefs. Next year watch and see just how many of those Republican nominees have the Religious Right Movement in there campaign pocket.
Mayfield gives background on Wallis as a devoted Christian and most of all a preacher. Mayfield’s added this information about Wallis because this will persuade the audience to be on Wallis side of the argument. Also I believe that this is also used to help build Wallis ethos
Wallis point of view is that religion and politics can become one work together and not separate. Wallis supports his point of view because he uses quotes and reference two major people in the world Dr. King and Abraham Lincoln these two men believed that God things can come together.
I believe that church and state are intertwined because in one breath our president says “God bless American” in his speeches to the American people. While on the other hand he says that church and state should be separate so I take it as a slap in the face because we only use god to justify our actions if god is used in the money and in the pledge of allegiance and our national anthem but still people believe that church and state should be separate.
Hi Maria,
I agree with you because church and state are intertwined even is people don't want to admit it. Eventhough people have different values and practices but we all have religion in common because in America there are many diffrent relgions but that all have one thing in common is that there is a god.
The information that the author gives about wallis is that he is connected to the christian faith. With that said it leads me to think that he would be in favor of the church.
i get that the church and state should be seperate for many reasons. but it's not like at all. because we are in america and we are consitered to be christian place.but at the same time new people come here everday with their family and thier own religion so their for we can never be together and always seperate.
I agree with Kash because we are stamped with our religion. Thats what i said in my comment. Anyways, yes lets not forget about bush's reason for not allowing the stem cell resarch.
Wallis viewpoint is that he thinks religion should be in politic, because maybe religion with make the government better. He support his claim using Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King as an example that religion can work well with politic. “…Martin Luther King Jr. did it best. With his Bible in one hand and the Constitution other hand….(pg236)”
My viewpoint is in between because I don’t agree with Wallis full hearted. But, I do think he bring up good points. I agree with him that politic should a morality. On the other hand religion mix with politic can have devastating afford on how people are treated. An example of is Christopher Columbus. Columbus use religion as way to justly the genocide of Arawks. He told himself that god gave him the right to rule over Arawks because their belief didn’t stand up to Europe rule. That why I’m the middle when it come to putting religion into politic.
Mayfield provides information on the acomplishments of Wallace and a general descrition of him given by himself. The speciic information given is that the author's book became a best seller. It seems Mayfields purpose is to show that Wallis' opinions are widely excepted by society.
Wallace believes that the church and state can be mixed but that it has to be mixed in a way that it is used for positive moral persuations rather than for individual self-gain.
He supports this veiwpoint by giving examples of how chruch and state intermingled should be. Here, when he talks about "God's Politics", he shows how intermingling church and state can be used to help the people who need it the most and also to make our country a more civil place to live.
I never really thought much on if the two became combined. But if everyone could combine them in the way Wallace has described in his text, I agree that the world would become a better place. But I wonder how hard it would be to get everyone on that level of thinking because one of my excuses for not going to chruch is that almost everyone that I have attended has used chosen scriptures to support their own agenda. But it doesn't just happen in chruch, in everyday life I am constantly in conversations where other people are trying to use scriptures to persuade me of something. But these same people have no compassion for their fellow man unless he fits into their circle.
Judy
I agree that church and stae are already intertwined in that even today laws are being considered based on the morals of the politians who are fighting for or against them.
Hi
Hip Bong Lee
You made good point about how you think Religion and Politic go together. Your last sentence was excellent when you said,”….. Perspective on the separation of church and state while also challenging some valve assumptions of both left and right”(Bong)
But, I don’t agree with it because religion have been use for vary kind of evil. An example of this Christopher Columbus: You should read “The people history of United States by Howard Zinn. To find out what I’m talking about. Beside that book is a good read.
First of all, the biography that Mayfield gives us about the author, Jim Wallis, provides background and gives us a sense of what kinds of viewpoints the author probably has. Since he is a preacher, he must use lots of language relating to religion. And since it also says “public” and “nationally renowned”, the language he used must relate to some politics. I think the purpose here is that it tells us that the author is somehow neutral on both side of religion and politics. The reader must take that in mind while reading the essay. However, since the author is a preacher, we can assume that he will be somehow bias and in the position of religion’s side.
In this essay, Jim argues that God is also politician. States and Church can actually work together, not separate. He also argues God’s politics is the best. He claims that God’s politics is never partisan or ideological. It challenges narrow national, ethnic, economic or cultural self-interest.
As I see it, the author use many prejudicial language and ambiguous words in his essay. He said when we think “God on our side”, it leads to triumphalism, self-righteousness, bad theology, and dangerous policy. All those words are ambiguous and he did not further provide examples of what they mean. Next, he claimed that if we asked whether we were on God’s side, which leads to “healthier things.” The word “healthier” is prejudicial and ambiguous. I think we need more specific examples instead of just those words without clear meaning. At the last two paragraphs of the essay, the author had some good viewpoints about politics. However, I just don’t see that has something to do with the religion and the God. I will probably considered his opinions if he can provide real examples.
Hi Sandye
You have done great job! I also do some Google search and found the same thing, that the author is “the founder of the Sojourners, a Christian group and the editor in chief of the Sojourner Magazine”. I agree with you that the author uses so many different kinds of fallacies (especially prejudicial and ambiguous language) in his essay. I also agree with you that the separation of church and state is necessary to keep those in religion from influencing the men in the government.
Wallis is obviously a Christian. Mayfield includes all of his religous titles in his introduction all of which are prestigious in an attempt to show his knowledge on the matter at hand; and to let you know what angle he'll be presenting from.
His view point would be religious considering his christian backgroun and whatever other relions he's been exposed to. He supports this view when he mentions his position at a publication company where he talks about the topic at hand regularly. Clearly one would have to do some research to write publication worthy material. Also Wallis quotes Abraham Lincoln and complements Martin Luther King.
In my opinion Church and State is definately intertwined. Most if not all of the states were founded on some kind of religious beliefs. Many of these became instilled moral values. These moral values and beliefs became shared by the public and went on to become laws.
I belive the original law makers started out with good intentions. Their set-up included many participants with contingency plans in place in an attempt to share pertinent desision making with a diverse group of the public, to make sure to get the best possible concensus.
We learn from Mayfield's biography of Jim Wallis that Wallis is a Christian with that not only practices but also preaches and works in the public field. With the information given almost immediately one makes inferences and has possibly acquired stereotypes about the man. Mayfield did this consciously, if for no other reason than to give the reader a "heads up" as to what they are going to read. To a certain extent i feel that Mayfield, or maybe it was just my initial reactions to her writings, over prepared me--meaning i was expecting a Pat Buchanan.
In Wallis's writings it is learned exactly how he feels about the bond between government and religion. Like many Americans, Wallis thinks that the values obtained from religion are a wonderful base and model for how government should be structured. Using love and morals the U.S. could be a more promising and happy country. At some points I almost felt like Wallis was a hippy, which is funny because there seems to be a 'right' connotation put on Christians in this country.
Personally I think that it is imperative that Church and State in the United States remain seperated. While we can all find examples of where they aren't completely seperated, for the most part Church and State act as seperate entities, less and less lately. A complete marriage between the two would lead to another civil war.
L. Sayson said
"You are right that not everyone believes in a religion but everyone has certain values."
Hi L. Sayson. While i agree with this those set of values that everyone has doesn't necessarily come into line with yours, mine, his, hers or theirs. While i do agree that church and state must remain seperate i just wanted to point out that i think just saying you have values isn't enough. Some values believe theft is alright, if only to keep from starving, others think that it should lead to stoning. Even some Americans.
Judy said
"I believe values and morals that people believe originated from religion. The individual makes the decision to be religious, agnostic or atheist. It is a personal choice one makes."
Judy, i have to disagree with you here. As adults I think it is indeed a personal choice what religion you choose, or choose not to believe or follow, but even still there is influence from the past. On the other hand, children don't really have all the knowledge and maturity to be able to critically think about religion and choose what they do and don't believe. Even with many atheists and agnostic people, they choose not to believe partially because growing up there was no religion in their household.
The kind of information that Mayfield gives on the author Jim Wallis is his occupation and religion. The kind of specific information she gives is his viewpoint, which is Left Christian. I also believe Mayfield’s purpose is to say that Mr. Wallis is religiocentric.
Mr. Wallis’s viewpoint is that “Both parties and the nation should let the prophetic voice in religion be heard. He also believes that faith must be free to challenge both right and left from a consistent moral ground.” (237). He supports his viewpoint by using the example of Abraham Lincoln saying, “Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God’s Blessings and endorsement for all our national policies and practices- saying in effect, that God is on our side. Rather we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God’s side” (236). He also supports his viewpoint by the illustration of how Martin Luther King Jr. went about his business.
I believe church and state should be separate because I believe religion is a personal thing and not a national thing. I believe one’s way to salvation is their business. The two are intertwined. All great societies say their God, or God’s had something to do with their prosperity. Religion shapes politics.
I agree with Judy when she says, “The majority of government laws that are in place are connected to religion in one form or another.” Muslim law is the Shari a, and our laws are based on Christian principle. I believe all lands are governed by religion.
I agree with Jonathan the church and state are often connected. For example our currency, which is regulated by the government(law), has "In god we trust" imprinted on every dollar bill. Also in the pledge of allegiance we recite the words "One
nation under god with liberty.....", in the pledge on allegiance we mix both religion and many concepts of democracy.
Sandy you are right, church and government are intertwined. Many politicians claim to be religious and often revert to their religious beliefs and values. For example our president often refers to our country as a "Christian state" and President Bush often eludes to the Christian way of thinking as being a more just, and righteous point of view.
After reading "Why Can't We Talk About Religion and Politics?", my first thought was why can't we mix oil and water?
Mayfield describes Jim Wallis in much the same way he identifies himself and his accomplishments. She informs us of his background as a "renowned preacher, and faith-based activist."
I believe she is giving us this information in order to invite us into his writing, and let us know that the territory is one of religion and personal belief.
Given that Wallis is also the editor of Sojourner's Magazine, I googled it to learn more about its message. The fact that it claims to be a "progressive christian" magazine makes me immediately suspicious. I have never felt any love or acceptance from this sect of people and as such, I am resistant to trust the premise of this magazine overall. I realize that in order for me to gain a greater understanding of myself and others, I must try to be open if for no other reason but for the sake of argument.
Wallis' viewpoint is that church and state can mingle and enhance each other in doing so. He mentions Martin Luther King Jr. as one way to support his beliefs. He goes so far as to say, 'Martin Luther King Jr. did it best. With his bible in his hand and the Constitution in the other, King persuaded, not just pronounced." While what he is suggesting about Martin Luther King Jr. may be true, that was a different time. Life and all of its obstacles are profoundly unique and in some ways quite another kind of battle now.
I do not think anyone could do today what Martin Luther King did 40 years ago. Yes, it is true that King was a preacher and his faith helped to shape his approach in the fight for equal rights. King was also an activist and he brought about unequivocal change in his work. Again, the time of the movement during King's life was dramatically different than today.
In my opinon, church and state are most definitley intertwined. One does not exist without the other. For instance, I believe that Bush started the Iraq war in the name of god and liberty. God and the Bible are continually used as weaponary in an effort to explain why some of us have the right to be together and have family, and others of us are held in scorn because of our choices. God and Christianity are the podium at which many stand in order to define "family values" at the exclusion of an entire population of people.
My feeling is that church and state should be separate. One only seems to cast an indiscernible shadow on the other. I do not quite understand how they belong on the same stage together. I do see that they are united, and perhaps inseparable like a dysfunctional marriage.
God is held up as an iconic figure for us to maintain faith and trust in our lives. I do not believe that there is a God that exists outside of any one of us.
Having made the comments above, I will at some point read more about Wallis and his stance if only to educate myself and to concede to another's point of view.
Before reading, "Why Can't We Talk About Religion and Politics" by Jim Wallis, Mayfield gives us a little background information on him. Mayfield lets us know that Wallis is a "progressive Christian"(pg. 235), as well as an evangelist, a preacher, faith-based activist, an editor in the "Sojourners" magazine, and several other titles. I think the whole point of doing this is for us to keep in mind that he has a really strong Christian point of view, so that we are thinking about that as we read.
Wallis believes that Religion and Politics can both exist, and that they should go hand in hand. He feels that we should be able to talk about them both, without having to worry about making people uneasy and uncomfortable. In his magazine, Wallis often discusses "faith, politics, and culture,"(pg. 236) without caring about how people feel. Even though the topic was so controversial, more and more people began to read it, so there wasn't a problem.
To prove his point, Wallis made references to Abraham Lincoln as well as Martin Luther King Jr. Like Lincoln said, Wallis stated, "Our task should not be to invkoe religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessings and endorsement for all our national policies and practices....God is on our side......we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God's side."(pg. 236) Martin Luther King also supported his idea because he felt that, "with his bible in one han and the constitution in the other, King persuaded."(pg. 236) He uses examples from these leaders to further support his idea of church and state going hand in hand.
I believe that church and state are intertwined because when you have one, you more than likely have the other. I feel that church and state should be separated because not everyone has the same religious views, so it's not fair to force a view on someone.
The information that Mayfield gives on the author is basically that Jim Wallis is a modern type of preacher. He is active in today’s society, recognizes the current involvement of religion in politics, and actively participates in media to encourage modern ideas of religious integration into modern lives. The terms that Mayfield uses are “evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, and faith based activist”. All of these descriptions make him sound like a very modern preacher to me. I think Mayfield included this information to let the audience know that Wallis was a modern type of preacher that had modern ideas about the relationship of church and state. It showed that Wallis had a lot of involvement with today’s society and that he was in touch with the present.
I think that Wallis’ viewpoint was that politicians were throwing around God’s name a little too much. He wrote that Lincoln said, “We should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God’s side”. I agree that God’s name is used almost as a weapon to show that one side of an argument is justified over another’s. People say that “God is on my side” and think that saying something like that will make it true, no matter what the viewpoint is.
My viewpoint is that church and state are already together. It’s a given today that if you are going to be a successful politician, you have to be religious. No religion? Then what morals can you possibly have? The president is a good example of this. He says things like “ I have prayed long and hard over this decision”, and it is supposed to validate any decision he makes. There is a lot of talk about God and prayer anytime the president gives a speech.
Hello Judy, I agree with what you said about religion being used to persuade people about a particular subject. It seems like it’s becoming a strategy that is standard when dealing with politics now. It can be looked at as the idea of “if you are not on my side, you are against god” point of view. If you are religious, then you know that God is infallible, and if you say God is on your side, you are infallible. It doesn’t seem like a valid point to include in any argument to me.
Mayfield suggested what evangelical believe on religion with respect to political perspective as well to display on government property, and convey government to support of religious beliefs. Even though the author objective is to challenge both party left and right on religion perceptions.
Wallis’s viewpoint is to inform as well as lure people toward faith and presenting new attitude and approach for political in American which seem gradually in progress in Bush regime. However, his point of view is to establish of a state church as well as convince people toward God’s politics thereby using the same route as Martin Luther King Jr. who succeeded.
I am against Wallis’ perspective because there are many religion sects here in US each sect seeks to control the state so that separation of church and state have to remain effective even though did left didn’t get it.
Mayfield gives us background information on Jim Wallis before we read the story, "Why Can't We Talk About Religion and Politics." We find out that Wallis is "an editor of 'Soujorners' magazine....and a progressive Christian."(pg. 235) We also find out that Wallis is "an evangelical, public theologian, nationally renowned preacher, and faith-based activist."(pg. 236) We find this out in the beginning so we are able to keep that in mind as we read.
Wallis feels that Church and State both exist together and that they should be talked about, without having to worry about breaking up a dinner party. He is an editor of a magazine and he often expresses his opinion about "faith, politics, and culture,"(pg. 236) even though it's like committing the ultimate offense.
He uses words from Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. to support his viewpoint. Wallis quotes Lincoln by saying, "asking if we are on God's side leads to much healthier things,"(pg. 236) which is him talking about the church and state going together. In referencing Martin Luther King Jr., Wallis says, "...bringing religion into public life,"(pg. 236) reminds us of God's purpose.
I feel that Church and State are intertwined, but shouldn't be because everyone has their own idea of their religion and it is personal to them. I feel that Church and State are opposites and should be an individual thing.
Hi Kash,
I appreciate all of your comments with respect to this assignment. I like the way you think. Your voice comes through with an intelligence and thoughtfullness.
I believe I understand your sentiment when you said, "American currency is stamped with our religion; "In God We Trust." You listed several religions that do not come under that particular umbrella. To me, that is exclusion at its worst because it eliminates more people than I can count.
Given that our democracy is governed by money, I believe that a great contradiction exists within church and state. Furthermore, I question the level to which Wallis is operating within the realm of contradiction, and the possibility of a misguided approach.
Kash, as I am uncertain as to who you are, I will make an effort to introduce myself to you in class.
Thank you,
Lisa
hi alex
but where is your point of view do you agree with wellis's or not any way all polticiant.
Post a Comment