The Missing Religious Principle in Our Budget Debates

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-missing-religious-pri_b_1577935.html

Jim Wallis
Christian leader for social change
Posted: 06/07/2012 11:57 am

Both Republicans and Democrats have a religion problem and it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, abortion or religious liberty. Rather it is budgets, deficits, and debt ceiling deadlines that are their serious stumbling blocks.

That's right, in a city deeply divided between the political right and left, there is a growing consensus from religious leaders about getting our fiscal house in order and protecting low-income people at the same time. Together, many of us are saying that there is a fundamental religious principle missing in most of our political infighting: the protection of the ones about whom our scriptures say God is so concerned.

Indeed, the phrase "a budget is a moral document" originated in the faith community, and has entered the debate. But those always in most jeopardy during Washington's debates and decisions are precisely the persons the Bible instructs us clearly to protect and care for -- the poorest and most vulnerable. They have virtually none of the lobbyists that all the other players do in these hugely important discussions about how public resources will be allocated.

For us, this is definitely not a partisan issue, but a spiritual and biblical one that resides at the very heart of our faith. It is the singular issue which has brought together the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Salvation Army and the leaders of church denominations, congregations and faith-based organizations across the nation.

more at link

[JNelson6563]

1. This has been tried & failed.

There was a time long ago where religious leaders actually had parity with secular leaders. Not in America of course but that doesn't matter. What matters is the experiment went badly.

As an atheist I am fully aware that one needn't have religious belief to be cognizant of the less fortunate. I think to claim otherwise, as this article seems to do it not only erroneous it's insulting.

Julie

[cbayer]

2. It didn't fail at all, it just got lost.

This article is about religious leaders and their moral imperative based on their beliefs. It doesn't dis non-believers at all. I don't see anything here that makes the claim that non-believers are not cognizant of the less fortunate.

[JNelson6563]

7. Well explain this:

Together, many of us are saying that there is a fundamental religious principle missing in most of our political infighting: the protection of the ones about whom our scriptures say God is so concerned.

~~~

Actually it is a humanist principle that is missing. We don't need the bible (one of least enlightened documents I've ever read) in order to know what the right thing to do is.


Julie

[cbayer]

9. That is a basic religious principle, but not exclusive to religious people.

Religious scripture has been used to harm and marginalize others. The point he is making, imo, is that the liberal and progressive religious leaders need to take that back and invoke the fundamental religious principle that we are here to care for those less fortunate than ourselves.

Be that a humanist or religious principle, it's a good one. Where one chooses to draw it from makes little difference, but kudos to all that do.

[JNelson6563]

11. Great! Start a social movement!

There is no place in government for religion. Sorry.

Julie

[cbayer]

12. Glad you weren't around to tell MLK that.

He might have given up the whole thing, lol.

[dmallind]

13. Sure because he couldn't possibly have had any other reason to seek equality could he?

Randolph managed to come up with one.

[cbayer]

14. MLK was driven and strengthened by his religious beliefs.

To think otherwise is just denial.

Again, saying that some political movements are motivated and led by religious leaders does not mean that non-religious leaders are not also critical.

It takes all kinds. That's what the Democratic principles of inclusion and tolerance are all about.

[skepticscott]

18. Name ONE good deed, ONE positive social movement

that could not have occurred but for religion. Name one that couldn't have been accomplished without all the baggage that religion brings. It should be simple, right?

[JNelson6563]

16. Seems to me he did just as I suggested.

That whole social movement thing. Don't recall he wanted a place in government.

Julie

[cbayer]

17. Didn't know we were talking about people running for government, just religious leaders

who want to promote social issues within the government (just like MLK).

[JNelson6563]

24. No, I saw nothing about anyone wanting to get elected either.

I went and read the entire article and all I see is the argument that religious leaders should have more influence on the budgets because Jesus said "the least of these".

I have a better idea, how about we entertain such budget considerations for reasons such as we are all equal, human rights for all, good education for all, everyone has a right to health care....these things all combine to improve society and a nation's strength. We are only as strong as our weakest link and we have many very weak links. Only by working together for the common good can we improve this situation.

If Christendom or any other wants to get busy addressing these ills in society that would be lovely! They can start by sacrificing their tax exempt status.

And apparently the fellow who wrote the article has missed the ascendancy of the Religious Right and the role they have played in promoting/electing politicians who promise loudly to do as much to eliminate social safety nets as possible.

Sorry but to see an article lamenting that if only religious leaders were given more influence we wouldn't be in this mess is laughable.

The naivete' of this last bit seals the deal:

Both Republicans and Democrats could agree to the principle of protecting the most vulnerable people... But both party's church leaders and pastors will be telling them to defend the ones for whom God commands us to give special care.

Again, somebody's missed the last 30 years. I sure wish I could live in such a happy place. Republicans can agree to the principle of protecting the most vulnerable?? OMG. Both party's church leaders will tell them to think of the poor? If that wasn't so shockingly erroneous it would be hilarious. The dominant Christians in our society, the ones on the right, scream bloody murder about homosexuality and abortion.

Seems to me the ones interested in the least of these are a bit late to the dance and they are going to have a long haul ahead trying to wrest dominance from the currently reigning religious-with-influence.

In the meantime I will continue to push my legislators to work for social justice and safety nets for the least among us because it is the humane thing to do as well as a good investment in our society. So much simpler to keep the magical thinking and heavenly reward business out of it.

Julie

[skepticscott]

25. But...but...you're not supposed to mention

the BAD stuff that religiously motivated people do, because that doesn't count! Only the good stuff counts, as we have shoved in our faces on a daily basis by the bayer family. The people who do the bad stuff aren't REAL Xstians, and when we bring it up we're being negative, disruptive, ugly, counter-productive, and just playing "gotcha".

So next time, please concentrate on the warm and fuzzy stuff. That is the ONLY way to have a "serious", "productive", "meaningful" discussion...as we have also been told.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

26. Good post, Julie

It sums up my thoughts almost exactly, and you said it better than I ever could have.

[cbayer]

27. Again, there is nothing exclusive about all people working towards a mutual

goal, regardless of their motivation to do so. If someone is religiously motivated, is there work towards a mutually held goal any less valuable than someone who's motivation is secular?

As you say, working together would make the goal more likely to be attained.

It is not for you or I to determine how these groups go about working towards equality and justice. As long as no group is pushing an agenda that is antithetical to other groups working together, why dismiss them because of the ideology that drives the?

You are correct about the last thirty years, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not going to accomplish anything. Why dismiss allies when they make it more likely that you will get where you are trying to go? As you said, it's going to be a long haul to overthrow the christian right's political dominance. To not embrace any group that want to help achieve this goal is short sided and speaks to a different agenda altogether.

I commend you on pushing your legislators and respect your reasons for wanting them to do it. For you, that makes the most sense. For others there may be other motivations or meanings, or they may use their belief system to obtain even more fire in the belly.

[JNelson6563]

31. The heart of it.

The article you post is really putting forth the theory that nothing can/will be done about the least among us because of a lack of Christian presence in the decision making process. I noted not even the usual obligatory mod toward a single other religion in the article but that is of course merely an aside.

But what of all the Christian lawmakers? Are they not "real Christians?

No, the article says these certain things cant' be done without Christian influence to which I say Nonsense.

Julie

[laconicsax]

20. I don't recall King ever trying to merge church and state. n/t

He certainly framed his arguments in religious language, but the implication that he advocated for a "place in government for religion" is false along with the implication that the separation of church and state would have deterred him.

[daaron]

3. The missing principle in red letters: Matthew 6:1-5. nt

[cbayer]

5. Here it is (so others who may not be familiar don't have to look it up)

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

[GeorgeGist]

21. Gibberish. IMO

[Leontius]

23. Yeah you're right it's much better to do these things loudly with a huge public

display so everyone knows how much better you are then they are because of your great piety and generosity.

[SoutherDem]

4. Fix the fiscal house and protect lower income at the same time

Unless I am missing something this means you need revenue. For governments, since you don't sell a product this mean you tax more. And, I mean a lot more. Are the churches wanting taxes raised?

If this is true then churches need to STOP backing the Republican party. History has shown us over and over that the Democrats do what the churches want much better than Republicans, if fact I think they are the only party to ever control the fiscal house and protect the lower income.

Churches need to understand there is a separation between them and the state and you can not legislate morality, no matter how much you may try. They should preach there beliefs and leave government out of the picture.

[cbayer]

6. Agree. Mobilizing the liberal and progressive christians in this country is imperative at this

point. The Republicans did it so effectively that it was game changing.

Unlike the Christian right, I don't think the progressive and liberal people of faith want to legislate morality, but I do agree that the Democratic party seems much more in line with traditional christian principles than the repubs.

[skepticscott]

19. They don't have to legislate morality, for pity's sake

they just have to vote more liberal, progressive candidates into office. But they can't, because they aren't anything close to a majority among Xstians, let alone the general population, but fundies are, despite the constant denials by you and your father.

[msongs]

8. the primary directive of most religious institutions = fleece the flock nt

[cbayer]

10. Some, even many, but not all.

[laconicsax]

15. Jim Wallis is a homophobic bigot.

http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/2011/05/jim-wallis-andrew-marin-and-hollowness.html

[trotsky]

28. I am disappointed every time that asshole is quoted or cited in here.

You'd think liberal believers wouldn't want to promote this cowardly homophobe in their ranks, but oh well.

[laconicsax]

30. I don't think they care.

It's like when Craig is cited--he's a creationist for fuck's sake.

[Angry Dragon]

22. .

[trotsky]

29. Jim Wallis, "Christian leader for social change"

Except for marriage quality. Bigoted asshole.

Do you think of Wallis as a good Christian leader, cbayer? Is he an example of the good things happening in religion today - opposing the rights of others?