Which Letter is a Load of Pure Mush-Brained Platitudes?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXXI

NYT has published, yesterday, six letters in response to Jim Wallis' column, Dec. 28.

To the Editor:

In "Putting God Back in Politics" (Op-Ed, Dec. 28), Jim Wallis discusses the difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding religion but doesn't make a crucial distinction: God and organized religion are not necessarily the same thing.

The religion of the right is a political institution concerned more with exercising power over social behavior than with Jesus' anticonformist teachings of justice and compassion.

The separation of church and state, a tenet dear to most Democrats, provides for freedom of religion and inclusiveness. Its erosion under the present administration increases the politicization and polarization of religion and the exclusion of those who disagree.

Rather than engage the right on religious ground, Democrats need to support aggressively the social and personal values that their leaders in the past have espoused and many of us find lacking in the Republican agenda. That would be a truly moral stand.

MAUREEN W. ARMOUR
Naples, Fla., Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Re "Putting God Back in Politics," by Jim Wallis (Op-Ed, Dec. 28):

I'm one of those Southern Democrats who started as a Democrat, spent several years voting Republican, and five years ago came back to the Democrats for good. I realized that there were too many stands the Republicans have that don't coincide with my religious upbringing and the morals and principles I was taught were right.

My faith affects the choices I make in life. I hope the same is true for our elected officials.

SHARON FORD
Canton, Miss., Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis's Dec. 28 Op-Ed article speaks to me as a lifelong Democrat and Christian. It reminds me of what the theologian H. Richard Niebuhr said in his lectures at Yale: we all have a right to views of the Absolute, but none of us have a right to absolute views.

If politicians would heed that principle, they might avoid the arrogance too often associated with religion in political rhetoric. Better for us all the humility that begins, "It seems to me that the Bible says..."

DONALD W. SHRIVER JR.
New York, Dec. 28, 2003
The writer is president emeritus, Union Theological Seminary.

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis ("Putting God Back in Politics," Op-Ed, Dec. 28) suggests a new approach that could be helpful both for the Democratic Party and for America. Unfortunately, the leadership of our party shows neither the imagination nor the courage to take up such a challenge.

NICHOLAS CLIFFORD
New Haven, Vt., Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Re "Putting God Back in Politics," by Jim Wallis (Op-Ed, Dec. 28):

I agree that the Republicans have claimed the religious high ground in contradiction to their policies. The "Christian right" has always seemed to me an oxymoron. I would say that to be a Christian who takes the teachings of the religion's founder seriously precludes membership in today's Republican Party.

The current occupants of the White House, whatever they call themselves, have consistently chosen mammon and Caesar over God.

MARVIN BARRETT
New York, Dec. 28, 2003

To the Editor:

Jim Wallis (Op-Ed, Dec. 28) asserts that "Democrats deprive Americans of an important debate" by "withdrawing into secularism" and cites the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of the effect of religious belief on the public sphere.

But Dr. King was not an elected official. He is the perfect example of how an individual's religious beliefs can have dramatic public effect.

The fact that religion should be kept out of the business of state does not mean that it should be kept out of our varied national discussions. It means only that the government should have nothing to do with it.

ALICE D. MICHTOM
Ithaca, N.Y., Dec. 28, 2003

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

How about that? Wallis tries to tell Democrats that they're giving over a huge area of human experience to the Republicans. With one exception, the responses from those readily identifiable as Democrats (unless that party happens to be too moderate for them) can be summed up as either (1) no, we're not or (2) yes, and we darn well should.

BTW, if you answered the opening question with the letter from the president emeritus of Union Theological, you were quite right, Faithful Reader. :-)

(Thanks, Amy.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 12/31/03 02:50:44 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.