From sojo.net

Beliefnet invited Jim Wallis to participate in a "blogalogue" with David Klinghoffer, author of How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative. Here's Jim's response to David's final post, "The Bible Says Poverty and Morality are Connected"

The problem with using the Bible as the basis for running a society is that it would always be somebody's interpretation of the Bible, and a worst-case scenario is that it might be your interpretation, Mr. Klinghoffer.

I too have read and studied the Bible all of my life, and I just can't recognize the Bible in so much of what you have said in our "dialogue." I really work at finding common ground with people across the political spectrum on moral issues that transcend ideology and politics. But we have been unable to find much common ground in this dialogue. I still find many of the things you have said absolutely astonishing.

I still can't get over your contention that most of what the Bible says about the poor doesn't apply to America because our poor people are so well-off here. I replied that most Christian clergy and Jewish rabbis that I know would find that statement incredulous, but got no direct reply from you. In your latest post you say, in an equally unbelievable way, that wealth is the most consistent test of whether a society is righteous in God's eyes. I read the Hebrew prophets in a totally different way -- that the best test of a nation's righteousness is how it treats the poorest and most vulnerable. That is always how God judges a society. Read Isaiah, Amos, and Micah.

Then you say that war is just a "tool of statecraft." Really? The Hebrew scriptures warn against militarism -- "not trusting in horses and chariots" -- and Jesus calls we Christians to be peacemakers and love our enemies. In fact, you note in your book Christians who believe that:

Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites, among others, can point to the teachings not only of Jesus himself but of ancient and medieval sages -- Tertullian, Origen, Francis of Assisi, Menno Simons, down to a twentieth-century figure like Thomas Merton.

It's interesting that "Jesus himself" and the earliest church fathers were all opposed to war. So, what happened? You say, quite correctly, "With the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (324 C.E.), all that changed." Indeed, it did. And you then cite such esteemed theologians as Oliver Cromwell and Gen. George S. Patton. When you say in your latest post that war is merely the normal tool of statecraft, does that mean all wars? Every time a nation decides to go to war as an expression of its statecraft is justifiable? What about when one nation with Christians and Jews decides to go to war with another nation with Christians and Jews? Are both nations justified? Is there any religious critique or discrimination possible here? Let me guess: You support all the wars America has fought. I could never get you to tell me what you think about the war in Iraq.

I could go on, issue after issue, but I don't think that would be productive. We just disagree, profoundly, on what biblical imperatives suggest about society and politics. I am very glad that America has a separation of church and state and that people who would prefer a more theocratic vision of society (as I interpret you to prefer) don't get to run things they way they would like. We both have to convince our fellow citizens that what we believe is best for the common good. That's a good thing, and I welcome that debate. Thanks for this one.

Do conversations like this take place is other Democracies? Is there any other country in which God is as front in center in political and policy debates as He is in this one? Does the German or French or British press focus on the role of religion in the public sphere as much as ours does?

Do candidates in German parliamentary elections have to assure the voters of their chummy relationship with deity? Does the leader of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party in Britain have to acknowledge that he or she seeks divine guidance in making decisions? Do Canadian politicians have to wear their faith on their sleeve so that the electorate can see that they are sufficiently Godly?

i would assume that they do, or at least that they have, but not neccessarily to that extent. but hey, it's america. we have a heck of a lot of religious people. most religious people see belief directly tied to morality, and morality directly tied to decision-making. which, in a nation where everything has to be labelled and pigeon-holed, one can learn a great deal about someone's views and decisions based on what denomination (or lack thereof) they belong to. it also has something to do with the desire of just about everyone to have someone exactly like them in the office. on average, women want hillary, old white guys want mccain, black people want obama, baptists wanted huckabee, etc. i would doubt that in europe and the uk that someone would vote for a politician if they supported a different soccer team than was their native. it might not make any sense or have any bearing as to who is more qualified for the job, but we're a democracy, not a technocracy, and i prefer it that way.

Politics in Europe, from what little I know from friends over there, is so much different from ours. Not only do politicians rarely feel the need to feign any overt displays of religiosity, but in fact unpardonable "sins" and scandals that would destroy a politician's career here in the U.S. are usually overlooked.

Lots of European politicians openly travel with a mistress, and it doesn't even cause the major papers to bat an eye. The European media see this as a matter between him and his wife, not something for the voters to care about. And the way I look at it, why should they?

Politicians are hired to do a job. Not be choirboys or angels.