Evangelical Support Grows for Path to Legalization

The New York Times reports:

Normally on the opposite side of political issues backed by the Obama White House, [evangelical]leaders are aligning with the president to support an overhaul that would include some path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here. They are preaching from pulpits, conducting conference calls with pastors and testifying in Washington....

Could it make a difference?

Although other religious leaders have long favored immigration overhaul — including Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews and Muslims — the evangelicals are crucial because they have the relationships and the pull with Republicans.

So, if all those groups are for it, who is against it? The people they are preaching to? Can they convert their choirs?[More...]

Another snippet:

Taking the lead for immigration overhaul is the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group that represents more than 40 denominations. Last year the association passed a resolution calling for comprehensive immigration overhaul, and this year reform is one of its top three policy priorities, along with reducing abortions and studying the impact of climate change on the poor. The association’s president, the Rev. Leith Anderson, was in the front row for Mr. Obama’s address, along with Dr. Land and Mr. Rodriguez.

These groups are not for equal rights for all. One leader says:

...the whole effort could implode if the final legislation extended family reunification provisions to same-sex couples where one spouse did not have legal status. For evangelicals, he said, “That would be a deal-breaker.”

< Report on Top Secret America | The Only Poll That Matters Is On Election Day >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    IMHO, it is not a matter of what but how (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by BTAL on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    Even conservatives strongly believe we have to fix the current system.  It is the methods and resulting consequences that are primarily the point of disagreement.

    As glas as I am they are for it (none / 0) (#1)
    by mexboy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    I wish organized religion would stay out of politics. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," would be a good group policy, and Christian too.

    *glad* (none / 0) (#2)
    by mexboy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 12:51:21 PM EST

    one of the most interesting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    and possibly the most consequential stories in a while.
    I think its great.

    now if they would just get behind gay marriage . . .

    I'll settle for (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    just stay out of the way.

    It is a real stretch to consider (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    Southern Baptists "evangelical."

    And Rev Land may find himself in deep trouble with churches that pay his wages.

    Bout time... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    they started taking the teachings of that Jesus dude seriously.

    If I had to guess, J.C. was an open borders guy:)

    honestly (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    I think they are only interested in new recruits.  hispanics tend to be religious.

    tithing and all that.


    They also tend to be Catholic... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    and take that superstition stuff very seriously.

    I don't see the other churches being too much of a threat to Rome's bottom line in the Hispanic immigrant community...but ya can't win new customers if you don't try.  At least they're on the right side on the issue, whatever the reason.

    Any evangelical leaders ragging on our money lenders?  The Prison Industrial complex?  I think J.C. would be all over those issues too...c'mon evangelicals, your lord and savior has spoken!


    Actually kdog (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    as a group of churches the evangelicals steer away from politics. The NAE was founded in 1942 and has become more and more mainstream and now dabble in politics.

    Paying much attention to what the so-called leaders have to say will lead you to false impressions. That is, evangelicals focus on teaching salvation of the individual rather than  group salvation from high interest rates.

    In short they are apolitical, choosing instead to render unto Caesar, etc. And that was, as you call Him, J.C.'s position.


    non political? evangelicals? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    from wiki

    On the American political spectrum, evangelicals traditionally fall under socially conservative. For instance, based on the biblical position that marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman, they tend to oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage and polyamory. Also, based on the principle that the life of a child begins at conception and that a baby's right to live should take precedence over a wish to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, evangelicals tend to oppose laws permitting abortion  (See below for more details). Note that while evangelicals may have conservative cultural values and lifestyles, they rarely seek to actually restrict private behavior of others except where they believe it infringes the rights of others (such as with abortion).

    evangelicals are to fundies as Rand Paul is to Ron Paul.  Rand believes the same things as Ron he is just smarter about publicly stating those beliefs.  and has said as much.

    hence they could be said to be even more "poltical"


    Have you ever been inside (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    an evangelical church? Attended enough services to know the names of a few members?

    ha (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    well, yes.  as a matter of fact I have.  pretty much every member of my family drinks the koolaid.
    I could not have lived as long as I have with them and not have experienced it in person.

    Then you know that the article (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    is nonsensical.

    actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    what I know is that the entire movement is changing.  its changing because there are constantly younger and more educated people entering it.
    my family is a micro chasm of this.

    Judging the world by yourself? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    We'll see come November.

    Jesus: advocate for cheap labor? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Yes2Truth on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:48:51 PM EST

    A Republican before there was such a thing!  Maybe he owned stock in co's that benefit from millions of new consumers, higher prices for rent,
    and all the rest.

    OVERpopulation:  it's not just a way to avoid having rich young men face a Draft.


    Nah... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    not a fan of cheap labor, a critic of slapping chains on people who cross lines we made up.  They ain't his old man's lines:)

    I'm sure he'd be all over the sweat-shop owners as well as the border patrol...he was cool like that.


    Actually his "old man" as you put it (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    was very possessive about land....

    Jesus is about individual salvation as opposed to group salvation. He would be converting sweat shop owners and the employees, but not preaching civil disobedience.

    Mark 12:17

    And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

    That is at the heart of the Christian faith and belief. Through it Christianity spread through out the world with a minimum of "conquer and convert" although some of that happened. It also the basis for our secular government because it allows different faiths to exist side by side.


    OK (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:02:31 PM EST
    Well considering that you are a propagandist, I will take the academic version of what Evangelical Christianity is.... lol

     It was the era that followed Watergate Scandal and the 1976 presidential elections that paved the way for the Christian Fundamentalism (and later Christian Evangelism) towards political power. Jimmy Carter won the 1976 presidential elections with a vast support from evangelists. Though he didn't stick to his "evangelist agenda", his victory reflected a great deal of power and influence for Evangelists within the American public.

       The latter was noticed and employed by the Republican Party, whose focus used to be primarily on a conservative economic agenda. In Zakaullah's words, "the Marriage of Economic and Christian Fundamentalisms" took place and led to "A 'Born Again' Republican Party" whose major challenge was "winning the coming 1980 presidential elections."

       Here again, Zakaullah genuinely goes through the 1980's presidential elections campaign to illustrate the rise of Christian Evangelists.  "They realized that in order to unite right wingers of all shades and colors, this agenda would have to encompass economics, morality and pro-family issues as well as being anti-homosexual and anti-abortion. The party strategists knew that they already had the expertise, manpower and networks to promote the pro-market economic agenda but they were also aware that they had neither the expertise, the organization, the networks, nor the volunteers to articulate and sell effectively the pro-family evangelical agenda among the voters... the only way they could succeed was to unite all the fundamentalists across all the religions and denominations."

     Reagan did win the 1980's presidential elections. He was then succeeded by George Bush (sr.). The Republicans realized that "president is not enough because it was the Congress and the bills that make policies" and they even succeeded in having a majority in both houses.

       In its last part, the book discusses the rise of "Christian terror in the ideological war" and even some Christian terrorist organizations, the most dangerous of which is the "Army of God" organization.

       Such movements were justified by the fact that "16 years wait under these presidents ( 1976 - 99 ) did not deliver the goods the frustrations started running high and many radical fundamentalists lost all hope" according to the book.

    The author, Muhammad Arif Zakaullah is an Associate Professor at the department of Economics in the International Islamic University, Malaysia. His ongoing research focus is the contemporary political economy of the United States.


    Well, there is nothing like (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:37:10 PM EST
    quoting an author from Malaysia about political and religious matters in the US.


    My opinion and observation based on people I know tells me that the so-called evangenicals have moved away from the old leadership because the old leadership has moved to the Left.

    Illegal immigration is a hot button to these people because of the bad economy and a recognition that the illegal immigrants are taking jobs and not paying their fare share of education, health and infrastructure costs.


    And christianity has what (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:47:57 PM EST
    to do with "the Left" or the Right?

    I guess you didn't read (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 09:49:09 PM EST
    the posts.

    I think you'd (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    have to BE Jesus to be so sure about what the Jesus from the Palestine of 2,000 years ago "would do" today. Of course, that's what I love about conservative christians: they always know more about Jesus and what he would do than they do about thier own wives and children.

    And of course, he would NEVER, under a circumstances, preach civil disobedience, (oh horror of horrors). Jeus was no peace creep, enemy emboldening, hippie tree hugger, after all..


    Well, we have a record of what he did say and do. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    You can speculate to your hearts desire.

    We have a "record" (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    of sorts, of SOME of what he (allegedly) said and did.

    Look at it like this (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    If I am wrong I lose nothing.

    If you are wrong.... Ouch!


    Look at it like this (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    God obviously created people who are capable of being very wrong about very many things, and supposedly "forgives" them for that tendency, and yet you waterboarders and preemptors claim that he gives the big "ouch" to those who dont subscribe to your brand of Christianity. That smells to me like a brand of persecutory authoritarianism under a thin veneer of "love".

    Sorry bub, no sale.


    As (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    one interloper to another, you might say.