Shortly after my post “Where do ProgressiveEvangelicals Stand on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment?”, I got an blast email from the folks over at Sojourners calling attention to a Sojourners article by Brian McLaren that answers the question.
McLaren is not happy with the folks at the Daily Kos, in part because they have accused “progressive religious forces” for their stealthy support of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to health care reform. McLaren explicitly repudiates the charge:
That faulty diagnosis [that Evangelical progressives are a Fifth Column of sorts in the Democratic Party] seems to be shared in recent speculation that the Stupak amendment — which went beyond the abortion neutrality called for by all the Christian progressives I’m aware of — was added to the House health-care bill as part of a long-standing plan by progressive religious forces. Those speculations are undermined by the fact that the amendment was added to bring some hesitant conservative Democrats on board, but it took Christian progressives by surprise as much as anyone.
Stupak-Pitts took Christian progressives completely by surprise!
In any case, we now we know that McLaren’s “third way” between the religious right’s support of Stupak-Pitts and the secular left opposition is to side with the secular left. Don’t worry, McClaren is telling the Daily Kos folks, we also oppose Stupak-Pitts. Unless I’m missing something McLaren just threw pro-life Democrats under the bus. And he did it in Sojourners!
Now we need to hear explicitly from the likes of Jim Wallis and David Gushee and other “progressive evangelicals.” Is this their idea of a “third way,” too?
November 13th, 2009 | 9:16 am
It is good for one’s soul to be required to take a stand. One must carefully think through the issue in question. Perhaps some who were just “going along” because of party loyalty will experience a moment of truth. We can hope for that.
November 13th, 2009 | 3:17 pm
The curious thing is that Christian progressives clearly knew about the Stupak amendment for quite some time–the Catholic Church’s backing of it was all over the news and Stupak’s efforts to include such an amendment have been in the news ever since the healthcare debate began.
Why feign surprise at this? It should be enough for them to just say that they opposed it…but this would be too forthright for McLaren, Wallis et al.
November 17th, 2009 | 9:13 am
What exactly makes you think this presents Wallis with any kind of a dilemma? Wallis is not some kind of white knight that can be expected to rein in the more unruly elements on the “Christian” left. He is the inspiration for these people. He has his share of the blood of the unborn on his hands.
November 18th, 2009 | 1:00 pm
I’m often annoyed by McLaren’s brand of “spending a lot of words to say nothing” prose, and this sample is no exception. But as best I can tell, he’s only saying that the Stupack amendment is not something that he intended or supported. He’s not saying one way or the other whether he opposes the amendment, so he’s not really “throwing pro-life Democrats under the bus.” He clearly would shed no tears if the amendment were omitted, which is not exactly the same as opposing it, but is close.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact