Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Mar '10 06:58
    Not again! Meet Obama's new controversial pastor
    Champion of communism, socialism called U.S. 'destroyer of human life'

    Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of President Obama's "faith council" who is described as a spiritual adviser to the president, is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. "the great captor and destroyer of human life."

    "

    The Associated Baptist Press described Wallis as a "politically progressive evangelical and longtime advocate for the poor." The Huffington Post identified Wallis as a "Christian author and social-justice advocate."

    Wallis, however, is a longtime socialist advocate and founder of a far-left magazine, Sojourners, that has championed communist causes He currently serves on Obama's White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He reportedly is a spiritual adviser to Obama and has known the president for years.

    Wallis began his activism as a protester and then later Michigan leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, the 1960s anti-war group from which Bill Ayers' Weatherman domestic terrorist organization splintered.

    Discover the Networks said that as a theology student, Wallis founded an anticapitalism magazine called the Post-American, which identified wealth redistribution and government-managed economies as the keys to achieving "social justice."



    In 1971, Wallis renamed his magazine Sojourners. He has since served as editor of the publication.

    Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class."


    Sojourners has published a slew of radicals, including socialist activist Cornel West and James Cone, considered the founder of Black Liberation Theology, which spawned the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.

    Wallis' magazine actively lobbied for communist regimes that seized power in Latin America in the late 1970s, including the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua. Sojourners in the 1980s was a fierce opponent of the U.S. nuclear buildup, claiming the policy was "an intolerable evil" irreconcilably at odds with Christianity.

    Discover the Networks notes how Sojourners originally formed a socialist commune in Washington, D.C., where members shared finances and launched anticapitalist activism.

    In his 1976 book, "Agenda for Biblical People," Wallis called the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."

    Wallis continues to openly support socialism. Along with socialist activist West, Wallis in 1995 founded Call to Renewal, a coalition of religious groups demanding the spread of U.S. wealth to promote "social justice."

    As a guest on MSNBC last week, Wallis stated "social justice" is at the heart of the Bible.


    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128053


    The debate,if Obama is not a radical why does he surround himself with radicals? Did Obama not say, "you will know me by the people i surround myself with?"
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 07:22
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    ...Wallis in 1995 founded Call to Renewal, a coalition of religious groups demanding the spread of U.S. wealth to promote "social justice." As a guest on MSNBC last week, Wallis stated "social justice" is at the heart of the Bible.
    Well the question of whether "'social justice' is at the heart of the Bible" probably belongs on the Spirituality Forum. But is there actually anything Gotcha! about a political activist seeking "social justice"?

    And isn't just about everything and anything about the political process, pretty much anywhere, connected in some way with how wealth and power are used and distributed? Isn't everybody welcome to participate in the process?

    It seems all you've got here is your disagreement with Rev. Jim Wallis, and therefore your disagreement with Obama, which is nothing new. We know you're not an Obama supporter. And we would have easily taken it as a given that you're not a Rev. Jim Wallis supporter either.
  3. 24 Mar '10 11:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    [b]Well the question of whether "'social justice' is at the heart of the Bible" probably belongs on the Spirituality Forum.
    I posted it there and they told me it belonged in the debates forum. It seems no one wants to talk about it. :'(
  4. 24 Mar '10 11:05
    Originally posted by FMF
    It seems all you've got here is your disagreement with Rev. Jim Wallis, and therefore your disagreement with Obama, which is nothing new. We know you're not an Obama supporter. And we would have easily taken it as a given that you're not a Rev. Jim Wallis supporter either.[/b]
    Ah yes, it is the "You don't agree with them so we can ignore everything you say" arguement. So setting aside glibly discrediting posters as you routinely do, what are the implications for the seperation of church and state? Is Obama setting policy by what God is telling him to do much like "W" was critisized on the left for going to war because God told him to do so?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 11:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    Is Obama setting policy by what God is telling him to do much like "W" was critisized on the left for going to war because God told him to do so?
    No. I don't think so. Why? Do you?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 11:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    Ah yes, it is the "You don't agree with them so we can ignore everything you say" arguement.
    No. It's the "I don't agree with you utherpendragon, so I don't agree with you about it being a problem" argument. You, on the otehr hand have simply side-stepped the entire substance of my post which was about the legitimacy of seeking "social justice". This strikes me as a much better example of the "You don't agree with them so we can ignore everything you say" argument than what I posted.
  7. 24 Mar '10 11:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. I don't think so. Why? Do you?
    You don't think that "W" was told by God to go into Iraq or you don't think Obama is being told by God to redistribute wealth or both?
  8. 24 Mar '10 11:17
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. It's the "I don't agree with you utherpendragon, so I don't agree with you about it being a problem" argument. You, on the otehr hand have simply side-stepped the entire substance of my post which was about the legitimacy of seeking "social justice". This strikes me as a much better example of the "You don't agree with them so we can ignore everything you say" argument than what I posted.
    Ok then, so is social justice the redistribution of wealth? If so, are you in favor of Marxism? If not, why not?
  9. 24 Mar '10 14:58
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. It's the "I don't agree with you utherpendragon, so I don't agree with you about it being a problem" argument. You, on the otehr hand have simply side-stepped the entire substance of my post which was about the legitimacy of seeking "social justice". This strikes me as a much better example of the "You don't agree with them so we can ignore everything you say" argument than what I posted.
    Wallace a socialist activist who has championed communist causes.

    Define what 1."social justice" means to you.

    While you are at it define,
    2.anticapitalist activism.
    3.politically progressive
    4.wealth redistribution
    5.socialist commune

    Then tell me is it appropriate to have ANOTHER member of the Presidents inner circle to hold such views of the U.S. ,

    ..."the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."

    "U.S. nuclear buildup policy was "an intolerable evil" irreconcilably at odds with Christianity."
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 15:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    Ok then, so is social justice the redistribution of wealth? If so, are you in favor of Marxism? If not, why not?
    Is social justice the redistribution of wealth? No. That would be simplifying it. I think seeking a something approximating an equality of opportunity is what I favour.

    Am I in favor of Marxism? How can I answer that in your terms? You have never said anything that makes me think you have the remotest idea what "marxism" is.
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 15:09
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    tell me is it appropriate to have ANOTHER member of the Presidents inner circle to hold such views of the U.S.
    "Such views"? Yours is the Land of The Free, isn't it? I don't understand why you want to go into a huddle with me and designate what is permissable, appropriate, to decide to proscribe certain views etc. You remind me of European communists that I've met. Always wanting to rule 'unacceptable views' out and rule 'acceptable views' in. Creepy stuff. I come from a tradition of freedom, tolerance, diversity. Sometimes it's difficult to make head nor tail of your terms of reference.
  12. 24 Mar '10 15:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    [b]Is social justice the redistribution of wealth? No. That would be simplifying it. I think seeking a something approximating an equality of opportunity is what I favour.
    I am only interested in the one component of Marxism which is the government mandated redistribution of wealth. Having said that, do you then seem to think that the redistribution of weath equated with equality of oppurtunity? Does this always work? Are there examples where it does not always work?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 15:12
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    ..."the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."

    "U.S. nuclear buildup policy was "an intolerable evil" irreconcilably at odds with Christianity."
    Legitimate points of view, both. Even if they may not be my views.

    Do you have a list somewhere of things that Americans "can think" and "cannot think". Share it with us. Facilitate the discussion.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    24 Mar '10 15:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    do you then seem to think that the redistribution of weath equated with equality of oppurtunity?
    I believe in the spending of wealth, by our democratic representatives, on fostering equality of oppurtunity (and not equality of outcome). I am thoroughly ambivalent about cash payments, financial benefits, allowances and subsidies etc. But these things seem to be the 'price' tag of some semblence of decency sometimes, but I go nowhere near that in my working life. Training, education, apprenticeships, micro-finance, resources, libraries, free health care, free education for those who cannot pay, free/cheap tertiary education etc. 'Dole' and the like, my eyes glaze over. Sorry.
  15. 24 Mar '10 15:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    "Such views"? Yours is the Land of The Free, isn't it? I don't understand why you want to go into a huddle with me and designate what is permissable, appropriate, to decide to proscribe certain views etc. You remind me of European communists that I've met. Always wanting to rule 'unacceptable views' out and rule 'acceptable views' in. Creepy stuff. I come from a ...[text shortened]... diversity. Sometimes it's difficult to make head nor tail of your terms of reference.
    Too early in the post to start your spin sweetie.
    I am not discussing average citizens speaking their mind but rather the President of the United States surrounding himself w/these person who are at odds w/the U.S. Constitution. A document the President has sworn to uphold and defend.