the Religious Left speaks out against the real war on Christmas

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,521
Location
the West Coast
[q]A Religious Protest Largely From the Left
Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority

By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A08

When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.

That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?

Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.

"It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important," said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. "But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that."

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."

At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.

At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.

To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings "good news to the poor."

Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan."

To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not "intellectually right."

The "right tax policy," such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, "grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit," he said.

Dobson also has praised what he calls "pro-family tax cuts." And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives "know that the government is not really capable of love."

"You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need," she said.

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.

"There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact," he said. "But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility."

The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. "The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves," he said. "We're talking here about massive welfare programs."

The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. "Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals" about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. "What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301764.html

[/q]



so, essentially, the message from the Christian Right is that we don't give a shit if you're poor, unless you can find a uterus to crawl up into.

and this gets at *precisely* why the so-called Christian Right is so despised by liberals -- it just took the Christian Left to highlight the differences between what mainstream politicized Christianity claims to be by it's leaders (Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell) and what mainstream politicized Christianity could be if its most powerful members and most outspoken were liberals.
 
I think most mainstream "non-politicized" Christians certainly do care about the poor and put that into action, I see it in my own church -that is just one small example. We shouldn't let that get lost amongst all the talk of politics and conservative Christians.

I would question whether some of these conservatives are concerned with their own pocketbooks-tax cuts benefit them, and if you can cut money from programs for the poor all the better for their benefit ultimately, perhaps :|

It is WRONG, and if some of these Christians can't see that, I just don't understand that and I never will. "Pro family" tax cuts? What the? What does that mean?
 
Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.

Screw the poor and create a second class citizens.

Sounds so pro-life:|
 
The cool thing about Jim Wallis is he is pro-life, but he also realizes there are thousands of verses in the Bible pertaining to the poor. It's a Biblical mandate that we take care of the poor. The fact that the Christian Right ignores this is sickening to me because it gives Christianity a bad name and it goes against everything Christ stood for.
 
Certain Conservative Christians in my state, Alabama, have wreaked absolute havoc with our tax system and let social services go broke. This includes treatment for poor AIDS patients. There was a huge controversy over this tax increase package and it was rejected by the voters by a 2-1 margin two years ago. The situation was complicated because the tax increase was proposed by, of all people, our conservative Republican governor and some liberals opposed the package because they didn't want to help a conservative politician. I voted for the package myself, I didn't give a damn that I was helping the governor because I thought I was helping the state with my "yes" vote. The day after the vote someone who commiserated with me over the loss was a conservative Republican. The whole thing was very strange.
 
Sadly, both right and left have sold their souls for a mess of political porridge-both using the gospel for political gain.
 
I don't think the "Christian Right" is discounted only by liberals for their hypocritical and un Christ-like attitudes toward the poor, the imprisoned, the oppressed, etc.

I think they're discounted by anyone with a rational brain and feeling heart. ;)
 
Ft. Worth Frog said:
Sadly, both right and left have sold their souls for a mess of political porridge-both using the gospel for political gain.

Most true statement written in here in a long time.
 
I, at least, feel better at how morally bankrupt the Religious Right is, since they parade how godly they are at every turn.

Melon
 
Jamila said:
I don't think the "Christian Right" is discounted only by liberals for their hypocritical and un Christ-like attitudes toward the poor, the imprisoned, the oppressed, etc.

I think they're discounted by anyone with a rational brain and feeling heart. ;)

Is this a joke? Is that what the wink is for? To get away with a cheap shot?

I do not consider myself "Christian Right" but I know people in this forum who are. That is pretty unsulting and uncalled for. I have friends who belong to the "Christian Right" as you call it, and they do more charity, more visisting of nursing homes, more singing visiting in the hospitals, more big brother work, more workingin the homeless shelters, more running food banks....and on and on and on.

Wouldn't Christ be so proud of us all ..... Right...Left....I am sure he just can't wait to come back.

Get the log out of your own eye!
 
melon said:
I, at least, feel better at how morally bankrupt the Religious Right is, since they parade how godly they are at every turn.

Melon

So does the left.
 
Jamila said:
I don't think the "Christian Right" is discounted only by liberals for their hypocritical and un Christ-like attitudes toward the poor, the imprisoned, the oppressed, etc.

I think they're discounted by anyone with a rational brain and feeling heart. ;)

If this is the face of the "Christian Left" I'll stick to the Right
 
Dreadsox said:
I do not consider myself "Christian Right" but I know people in this forum who are. That is pretty unsulting and uncalled for. I have friends who belong to the "Christian Right" as you call it, and they do more charity, more visisting of nursing homes, more singing visiting in the hospitals, more big brother work, more workingin the homeless shelters, more running food banks....and on and on and on.



but this gets to precisely the heat of the issue -- it doesn't matter how many hospitals you sing in or how many food banks you organize, the fundamental causes of homelessness, poverty, and most of society's ills are simply too complex to be tackled by individuals and charity groups. only government has the organizational capacity to address structural social problems. i think all these charitable works are commendable, but it's essentially one step forward two steps back if these same people are voting for politicians because they hold similar views on abortion or gay marriage and then these politicians turn around and cut taxes for the wealthy in the form of stock dividends and capital gains that aid the top 1 percent of taxpayers who make over $1m a year, and all this against the backdrop of the 1/2 a trillion for iraq and the katrina catastrophe and the medicare drug benefit. so what happens? fewer food stamps, less medicaid, and disappearing housing assistance -- all things that make real, palpable differences in the life of the poor and the very near poor.

these days, i'm finding myself to be even less of a believer, moving from agnostic to atheist because it really does seem like religion is something we made up to guard against the creeping dread of mortality, that when we're dead, that's it, and it's endless black sleep forever and ever and that's it.

but if i were a believer, and based upon what i've gleaned from sunday school, i know that Christ wouldn't support literally pulling food out of the mouths of the poor in order to put more money in the pockets of the rich while we mortgage away the future to China.

i want to quickly add that this isn't directed at you, Dread, but i wanted to use your post as a jumping off point.
 
Irvine511 said:

but if i were a believer, and based upon what i've gleaned from sunday school, i know that Christ wouldn't support literally pulling food out of the mouths of the poor in order to put more money in the pockets of the rich while we mortgage away the future to China.

Nice points made, Irvine. You sound like a believer to me! :wink:
You're right though, they're totally going against Christ's mandate in Matthew 25. Here, Christ actually says when we serve the poor, we serve him:

The Sheep and the Goats
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'


46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I just gave the whole section of the chapter for context reasons. Interesting, huh? Of course, I have to admit, I'm just as guilty as neglecting the poor as a lot of the right-wingers are.
 
coemgen -- EXACTLY! It's the same with same-sex marriage. How many times is same-sex marriage mentioned in the Bible? Sort of one. How many times is helping lepers mentioned in the Bible? Alot! Today's lepers just come with a different label -- AIDS -- and yet we don't want to help them. What about helping the poor? Alot! And yet we don't want to help them.

I've heard it said before and I believe it to be true -- you aren't a Christian if you go to Church on Sunday to worship God. You are a Christian if you walk out of that Church and live your whole life as if you were following God. There is a difference.
 
Irvine511 said:
but this gets to precisely the heat of the issue -- it doesn't matter how many hospitals you sing in or how many food banks you organize, the fundamental causes of homelessness, poverty, and most of society's ills are simply too complex to be tackled by individuals and charity groups. only government has the organizational capacity to address structural social problems. i think all these charitable works are commendable, but it's essentially one step forward two steps back if these same people are voting for politicians because they hold similar views on abortion or gay marriage and then these politicians turn around and cut taxes for the wealthy in the form of stock dividends and capital gains that aid the top 1 percent of taxpayers who make over $1m a year, and all this against the backdrop of the 1/2 a trillion for iraq and the katrina catastrophe and the medicare drug benefit. so what happens? fewer food stamps, less medicaid, and disappearing housing assistance -- all things that make real, palpable differences in the life of the poor and the very near poor.

That is quite a spring board for discussion!

I guess one of the fundamental differences is the view that government can cure all the ills. The US, with its might economy, has been tackling society's ills with increasing efforts over the last century. Yet, I would suggest that while many symptoms have been addressed, the ills remain. The government is only a subset of the people. All people can do far more than a government can. I would have a hard time calling a Libertarian morally irresponsible because they wanted a small government.

From the spiritual perspective, I can't imagine standing before the Throne and responding to the quesion "what did you do for the least of your brothers?" with a "Well, I voted for XX candidate and paid taxes." I think it would be misplaced moral suasion to think that my voting record took the place of my response to God's grace (through good works).

Jesus himself said, "the poor you will always have with you". But he also told us to take care of the poor - not look to the government to do so. And I agree with coemgen, if we each do an honest self-assessment, we would find there was still more that we could do.
 
nbcrusader said:
I guess one of the fundamental differences is the view that government can cure all the ills.



no no no no.

that's not what i'm saying at all. nowhere did i say that government was the panacea. i'm saying that there are certain problems that only government has the organizational capacity to address -- housing, education, etc. charities and individuals cannot hope to do it alone, and many people who do serious volunteer work in inner-cities that are plagued by generations of poverty will tell you that no matter how many after-school basketball programs they coach or how many kids they tutor after school, the problem is simply too vast, too systemic, too rooted in history for any individual to solve, or even many individuals to solve.

however, this is not to say that government alone is enough. it certainly isn't. and i admire the charitable spirit of the religious (and non-religious, of course, but that's not what we're talking about here), but we fool ourselves into thinking that our individual efforts working in a food bank is enough to combat homelessness. or that working for Habitat is enough to combat increasingly unafforadble housing.

i think skepticism of government is a good thing; i think outright derision and paranoid suspicion of the "guvment" is a bad thing, and that's what plagues the efficacy of the American government (along with rampant cronyism, but that happens all over).

i don't think the advocacy of a smaller government, in and of itself, is immoral; but i do think it's 100% immoral to push through $60B in tax cuts while reducing food stamps, pouring money into an Iraqi sinkhole, and dealing with the aftermath of natural disasters. the fiscial irresponsibility of the Republican controlled Congress is appaling, and it's going to be your children who are going to have to pay for it all.
 
Irvine511 said:

i don't think the advocacy of a smaller government, in and of itself, is immoral; but i do think it's 100% immoral to push through $60B in tax cuts while reducing food stamps, pouring money into an Iraqi sinkhole, and dealing with the aftermath of natural disasters. the fiscial irresponsibility of the Republican controlled Congress is appaling, and it's going to be your children who are going to have to pay for it all.

nbc -- I agree with you that the government can't cure all ills but Irvine is right. Last year, one of the reasons people said Republicans won so many federal seats and the presidency was because their policy positions appealed to those who identified themselves as evangelical Christians. If you run on a platform that you are a good Christian, you have to act like it. It's hypocritical to be against abortion but not find a way to feed the starving children who are born in poverty because a woman decided to carry through with her pregnancy.

I can do what I can and give to charity but I am no Bill Gates. My donation to the Veterans of Foreign Wars can't reopen a VA hospital closed due to a lack of government funds. My donation to a food bank can buy a turkey for a family, but what about the rest of the year when they can't afford food because they don't have food stamps? We all have a responsibility to take care of those less fortunate and you don't get an exception to that if you're standing on the floor of the Senate.
 
I disagree with the notion that the governement is the best organization.

I believe in keeping my money and using it by donating it to causes that I choose to donate too. I do not believe that the governement is the best place for it.

There are plently of examples of pork and misuse of tax money.

When I chooses to take what money I have and give to my church, my local homeless shelter for example, I am better able to if I am not giving my money to the government.

It is a HUGE assumption that people make that the tax money that I or any other person wants saved is not going to be used in a productive manner.

How this makes me any less of a "Christian" is besides me.
 
[Q]but this gets to precisely the heat of the issue -- it doesn't matter how many hospitals you sing in or how many food banks you organize, the fundamental causes of homelessness, poverty, and most of society's ills are simply too complex to be tackled by individuals and charity groups. [/Q]

I disagree completely here. The donation of time serving another is as great a gift as the dollar.
 
sharky said:
I can do what I can and give to charity but I am no Bill Gates. My donation to the Veterans of Foreign Wars can't reopen a VA hospital closed due to a lack of government funds. My donation to a food bank can buy a turkey for a family, but what about the rest of the year when they can't afford food because they don't have food stamps? We all have a responsibility to take care of those less fortunate and you don't get an exception to that if you're standing on the floor of the Senate.

I think you sell yourself short here. Sure a government agency can crank out more food stamps than you. But, your handing of a meal to a family in need carries far more than just food. You are the face of hope, not a government agency. You give hope and a future - not a meager dependency on future handouts.

Another important factor is the role we all play. You vs. the government is not a fair match-up. If it were the people of the United States vs. the United States government, the people win. Too many people sit home and do nothing because they think it is the government's problem. If we all tackle the problem, on a personal level - the results would be far beyond what we've come to hope or expect from government.
 
Dreadsox said:
[BI disagree completely here. The donation of time serving another is as great a gift as the dollar. [/B]



i think that's a nice thought, but in terms of actually addressing big problems, i don't think it's true. time spent doesn't build affordable housing or pay Head Start teachers.

it might do well for an individual on an individual level, but speaking from the experience of working with high-potential, traditionally under-served kids, one person cannot and will not make a dent against the odds stacked agains these kids *unless* it is through the mechanism of government.

government is neither good nor bad. it's as good or bad as we allow it to be.
 
sharky said:
coemgen -- EXACTLY! It's the same with same-sex marriage. How many times is same-sex marriage mentioned in the Bible? Sort of one. How many times is helping lepers mentioned in the Bible? Alot! Today's lepers just come with a different label -- AIDS -- and yet we don't want to help them. What about helping the poor? Alot! And yet we don't want to help them.

I've heard it said before and I believe it to be true -- you aren't a Christian if you go to Church on Sunday to worship God. You are a Christian if you walk out of that Church and live your whole life as if you were following God. There is a difference.

Well said, sharky! :rockon:
 
Back
Top Bottom