Mike Cope's blog

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

A quick trip to LR yesterday (and then in the evening to Searcy to watch the all-star game with a buddy). I forget sometimes what an incredibly beautiful city Little Rock is. Tall, gorgeous TREES everywhere! The Arkansas River. Hills and bluffs. While on the tram between terminals, I heard a harried mom explaining to her daughter (about 4) that the next flight would be much longer. "How much longer?" she wanted to know. "About a Shrek and a half," she replied. Isn't that much more practical than, "When the big hand is on the . . ."? If you have time, catch yesterday's Tavis Smiley show. He has an interview, that turns into a discussion/debate, between Jim Wallis (Christian leader and editor of SoJourner) and Jerry Falwell about values, morality, and politics.

10 Comments:

  • For the Tavis Smiley show I mentioned, zip over to the link, and click on "previous shows" (right column). Then click on July 13.

    By Blogger Mike, at 7/14/2004 07:03:00 PM  

  • After listening to that conversation between Jim Wallis and Jerry Falwell about morality in politics, my mind is made up - I'm voting for Tavis Smiley.

    By Blogger Grant, at 7/15/2004 07:07:00 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/15/2004 08:08:00 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/15/2004 08:12:00 AM  

  • Dear Blog Community - Only registered users are allowed to post as of today. Hope that enhances rather than diminishes the sense of community. Don't know what happens to past anonymous posts.

    By Blogger Mike, at 7/15/2004 08:59:00 AM  

  • Arghh. Lost comments today by someone who did sign his name (Don), but wasn't a registered user. Don, please register quickly and put your comments back. Basically, he took issue with something in the Smiley interview by all three (Smiley, Wallis, and Falwell), and then pointed out that our trust is not in any political party to establish the rule of God -- a position I whole-heartedly endorse!

    By Blogger Mike, at 7/15/2004 09:12:00 AM  

  • It appears that we have descended to the point now where we cannot have reasoned debate on important issues. Is filibuster the only way to show that your opponent has nothing to say?

    Second, why is it so important to Falwell how Wallis cast his vote? Wallis should have brought up the fact that we have a secret ballot in this country.

    I hope that our Christianity does not come down to a litmus test, determined by which party gets our vote.

    Blessed are the Republicans, for theirs is the kingdom of God. -- I need a new concordance -- I KNOW that verse is there, but can't yet find it.

    By Blogger jds, at 7/15/2004 09:28:00 AM  

  • Ok, for purposes of full disclosure, I am a Republican. And, I think I can make good arguments as to why. I listened to the program this morning and, because of my political leanings, I probably have a different slant on it than you. However, I heard Joe Beam say something the other day that really made me think. He was talking about Matthew, the tax collector, and Simon, the zealot. He pointed out that, from a purely political view, Simon would probably have liked to have taken a sword to Matthew. And yet, they were both among the twelve. I might think you are just plain loopy in your politics (and I may be right!!!), but we are both trying to follow Christ. And that supercedes politics.

    By Blogger Jim Shelton, at 7/15/2004 12:58:00 PM  

  • jds-- I agree that Falwell's tactics were out of line, and, in my opinion, discredit his message.

    However, on one point, Falwell's message resonates. As a Christian, I cannot pull the lever for a candidate who will not defend the lives of unborn children. If this is what you would call a "litmus test," then so be it.

    I understand what Jim Wallis was saying-- that poverty is also a "values" question. But I ascertain that I, as a private citizen, am able to use the blessings God has given me to improve the lives of children in poverty. I don't need an elected official to do it for me, and I sure don't need that elected official to confiscate my income in order to do it for me.

    On the other hand, what can I, as a private citizen, do to spare the life of an unborn child whose mother has determined that delivering and raising that child is too great of an inconvenience to warrant the effort? On this singular issue, the only action I can take that may positively influence the chances of that child's survival is voting for the candidate who, if elected, will fight for that child's right to life.

    It's not a Republican or Democrat issue. In my estimation, it's a vote of conscience, and of faith.

    By Blogger Phil Richardson, at 7/15/2004 01:13:00 PM  

  • I also generally vote Republican, but the Republicans do not have a lock on morality. In fact, our Democratic congressman, Charlie Stenholm, votes consistently for pro-life issues.

    The abortion question is, as you say, a moral one at its root. As a nation, we are becoming Canaanites in sacrificing our children to our false gods (which generally are ourselves).

    My beef with Falwell is that he has the chutspah to demand an answer of a person as to how he voted. More than that, to then draw a conclusion about that person's moral character based on that voting decision.

    By Blogger jds, at 7/15/2004 08:23:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home