MofH,

I actually thought about that trap of not speaking of good works -- in that context it cut both ways. Wallis had already accused Falwell and Land of not caring for the poor. Had they not defended themselves, Wallis would have won the arguement. Having defended themselves, they lost the joy of their giving in private.

Besides, it might be argued -- Land and Falwell were speaking for Christians -- those of their church -- being exemplary. Therefore they were not bragging on their goodness as individuals.

When turned back around on Wallis, I really don't think he could have answered in the same manner as Falwell and Land -- whose church's charitable works has become awfully well known, whereas, Wallis' whole point is that it should be government -- not church -- not individuals -- who cares for the poor. I mean, that was the whole point of his argument. That was the implied measure of a Christian's morality by Wallis' very thesis...

....which, again, is Wallis, using government to impose his moral views on everyone else -- the very thing that his "debate partner" Sharpton claimed illegitimate.

RE: common sense...

....most of those awful things you cited were residual practices of former, non-democratic systems of goverment, and the common sense has, over time, made each of them the uncommon -- not the rule.

Holy Cow!! we are having one BEAUTIFUL sunrise today!