Jim Wallis and Richard Land are not throwing down...
...but the intro music is "The Final Countdown!"
Land and Wallis stand behind transparent lecterns, grip them authoritatively, emphasizing their stout builds. I can't recap the entire debate in one post, so I'll just share what caught my interest. [Full disclosure: I used to work for Sojourners, of which Wallis is editor in chief.]
Wallis begins by emphasizing common ground, says "we must make sure our faith trumps our politics." Affirmation of sacredness of human life draws applause. His call for legislation reducing abortion elicits amens, and there's brief applause when he says he's troubled by abortion rates.
Wallis' approach to poverty - "3 legged stool " of government, church and private sector. Not a hint of applause. A little clapping for fatherhood initiatives, none for education, health care, wealth building. Living wages - not a peep from the audience. I infer from their response that they believe marriage will magically undo poverty.
Wallis' line connecting poverty and race, and call for repentance of racial sins, generates light but steady applause. I am genuinely surprised.
Land:
Cites CBS poll saying evangelical voters prioritize health care over abortion. Asks if audience agrees.
"NO!"
Were you included in the poll?
"NO!"
[The sample was 1,282 people across the country, so there's no reason to expect anyone in the room would've been surveyed. This is how opinion research works.]
Says "the transcendent moral issue of our time is sanctity of life given from conception to natural death." Touts need for law: "If we didn't have law against slavery, we would still have it. If we didn't have a law against segregation, we would still have it." Unless we outlaw abortion, "we will still have it."
[Note: We still have segregation, and it didn't take a law to solve slavery, it took a war, a cluster of constitutional amendments, and decades of transition.]
Land on foreign policy:
"I do not believe America is God's chosen nation, or god's chosen people, but I do know that we are most blessed nation in human history."
Later..
"I do not believe America has a special claim on God, but that God has a special claim on us."
A bit of tension there, no?
Just wow: "The only reason there is freedom anywhere in the world today is because of the military might of the United States of America and the willingness of its people to fight for other people's freedom."
Wallis argues for environmental responsibility, warns of climate change. There is a boo in the back of the room. Says we should be hardest to convince, not easiest, and that the war was mistake. Faint gasps whisper through the crowd.
Wallis' strongest applause came when he said "we cannot pit the unborn against the 30,000 children who die in poverty every day."
Land closed with a rift about the virtues of supply side economics.


Comments
A lesson here in understanding these far right evangelicals. Mention race, there is some openness and even polite applause, as long as you aren't talking about affirmative action. Mention children in poverty in the same sentence as abortion, and you will get more applause, as long as you aren't talking about expanding on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Mention government as one of the legs of the stool to end poverty (Wallis's opening line) and you not only will be met with silence but you will be lucky to get out of the room alive. This was clearly Land's turf but you have to admire Wallis for wading in there and giving it the old college try.
Posted by: ron | October 19, 2007 01:45 PM
This was great news that the Evangelicals are more interested in healthcare than abortion. Let's work were we have a common cause and get something done.
Posted by: Rev. Sandee | October 19, 2007 02:03 PM
Great timing on the new CBS poll on evangelicals and health care. It's pretty obvious that this group is outside the mainstream even for evangelicals. Not a ringing endorsement for the relevance of THESE values voters. It is inexcusable that earlier they were on their feet applauding Tancredo for helping to stop the override of the Bush veto on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Posted by: ron | October 19, 2007 02:11 PM
Sounds like Dr. Land needs to be in my intro to stats grad school class. Must not have gotten to sample size and unbiased surveys in his grad program.
HA, this stuff is useful. I'll have to tell my prof.
Posted by: Dave | October 19, 2007 02:11 PM
I am curious about those book signings after the debate... Dan, were any conference goes buying Jim's book, coming up to talk to him much? How did it compare to the scene around Land?
Posted by: Katie | October 19, 2007 02:28 PM
See my blog today by clicking on my name; to see how things are playing in the crucial state of South Carolina in regard Southern Baptist leadership.
And Keep following Michelle Cottle in tnr.com as she seems to have Richard Land's number
Posted by: Stephen Fox | October 19, 2007 03:43 PM
Also, abortion doesn't necessarily disappear when you outlaw it http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
Posted by: Beth | October 19, 2007 04:56 PM
I found that report on that abortion study really confusing... Mollie over at GetReligion asks some good questions about whether the numbers are about abortions per number of women or abortions per number of live births: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2767
Which should be the measure? Is this study misleading in any way? Anyone have any insights? I am truly a little baffled.
Posted by: Katie | October 19, 2007 05:47 PM
Katie, I do agree that that study is confusing, and I do think that it would be hard to argue that legality has no effect on if a woman choses to have an abortion or not. However, I was just trying to point out that Land's point, "we will still have abortion unless we outlaw it." isn't necessarily true, since it is women, ultimately, who are the actors in this situation, not the state.
Posted by: Beth | October 19, 2007 07:28 PM
Here's a piece from the Catholics over at Mirror of Justice considering how this study (if the methodology is sound) would change matters, if at all. Worth a read: http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2007/10/guttmacher-abor.html
Posted by: David | October 21, 2007 10:22 AM