long but good

Sorry to post this long article, but for once I fully, well almost fully, agree with Jim Wallis on something. He seems to be right on with this article.

A flawed exit poll question has sparked an enormous and important political debate in America, and one that will be with us far beyond this election. Voters were asked to name the most important issue that influenced their vote and almost 22% chose "moral values," just edging out terrorism and the economy. That poll result has sparked a firestorm in the media and in Washington's political circles about who gets or doesn't get the "moral values issue." Conventional wisdom holds that the Republicans do get it and the Democrats don't, and the "moral values" answer on the survey simply indicated voters who are against abortion and gay marriage.
But of course a Christian who cares deeply about peace likely would have checked the war in Iraq (one of the choices) instead of moral values, and a Catholic coordinator of a food pantry likely would have checked the closest thing to poverty, which would have been the economy or health care. The single "moral values" question was a whole different kind of choice to the rest of the "issues," ignoring the moral values inherent in those other concerns.
A post-election poll conducted by Zogby International a few days later confirmed that when a list of specific issues was asked, the results were quite different. When asked which "moral issue most influenced your vote," 42% chose war in Iraq while 13% said abortion and 9% said same-sex marriage. The "most urgent moral problem in American culture" resulted in 33% selecting "greed and materialism," 31% "poverty and economic justice," 16% abortion, and 12% same-sex marriage. The "greatest threat to marriage" was identified as "infidelity" by 31%, "rising financial burdens" by 25%, and "same-sex marriage" by 22%. See the full Zogby poll
Almost a year ago, I wrote in Sojourners and in an op-ed piece for The New York Times that too many Democrats still wanted to restrict religion to the private sphere and were very uncomfortable with the language of faith and values even when applied to their own agenda. And that Republicans wanted to narrowly restrict religion to a short list of hot-button social issues and obstruct its application to other matters that would threaten their agenda.
Well, after a year of political campaigning we ended up at about the same place. While some Democrats are now realizing the importance of faith, values, and cultural issues, a strong group of "secular fundamentalists" still fights to keep moral and spiritual language out of the liberal discussion. And while some Republicans would like to see an expanded application of faith, the "religious fundamentalists" still want to restrict religious values to gay marriage and abortion. A very smart group of Republican strategists effectively appealed to both the faith and the fears of an important conservative religious constituency.
Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne covered our "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat" campaign as a real sign of hope. Days after the election he wrote, "What's required is a sustained and intellectually serious effort by religious moderates and progressives to insist that social justice and inclusion are 'moral values' and that war and peace are 'life issues.' As my wife and I prepared our three kids for school the day after the day after, we shared our outrage that we in Blue America are cast as opponents of 'family values' simply because we don't buy the right wing's agenda. No political faction can be allowed to assert a monopoly on the family."
Later that day, E.J. told me that when he called for that deeper discussion of religious issues and moral values, he was thinking of Sojourners. "That's your job!" he challenged me.
It's time to spark a real debate in this country over what the most important "religious issues" and "moral values" in politics are - and how broadly and deeply they are understood. Religion doesn't fall neatly into right and left categories. If there were ever candidates running with a strong set of personal moral values and a commitment to be pro-poor and pro-peace, it could build many bridges to the other side. Personal and social responsibility are both at the heart of religion, and the two together could make a very powerful and compelling political vision for the future of our bitterly divided nation.