A Religious Protest Largely From the Left

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Wanna see a REAL war on Christmas? Take a look at Congress's Grinch-like end-of-the year welfare cuts. Now that's a war on Christmas. And I just love this particular quote by some jackhole at the Focus on the Family (a typical right wing Christian conservative group):

t's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important. 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.

In other words, poor people, if you're cold and hungry this Christmas, the right would love to help you. You'll just need to find a womb to crawl into first.

Nice, very nice. Merry Christmas, indeed.

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?"

Linkage
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
<Begin RRR mode>The poor are only deserving in charity from a church where they can hear about Gawd, where all charity comes from. Government is an instrument of satan. The poor don't need their devil money. We're lucky to have a Gawd-fearing man like George W. Bush keeping government from its wicked ways.<end RRR mode>
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
"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.

"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."

I think you are misinterpreting some of the article...there is no doubt that the religious right is very much hypocritical on a number of issues...but I agree with them on the two points above.

The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Exactly - and the Left's ongoing attempts to move most charity under the control of government is yet another attempt by them to force their personal morality on others. It is noble to establish a private charity to solicit funds for the care of the less fortunate, but to have the same thing mandated by gov't is inefficient and intolerable.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Originally posted by: EatSpam
<Begin RRR mode>The poor are only deserving in charity from a church where they can hear about Gawd, where all charity comes from. Government is an instrument of satan. The poor don't need their devil money. We're lucky to have a Gawd-fearing man like George W. Bush keeping government from its wicked ways.<end RRR mode>

Please tell me. Why is it that most charitable organizations are religion based? Why do you not see athiest charity organizations?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,983
34,189
136
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Exactly - and the Left's ongoing attempts to move most charity under the control of government is yet another attempt by them to force their personal morality on others. It is noble to establish a private charity to solicit funds for the care of the less fortunate, but to have the same thing mandated by gov't is inefficient and intolerable.

Nonsense. It is very efficient and completely tolerable. Ineffiencies creep in when ideologically driven or greedy politicians sabotage programs so they can then shreik about how the programs are failing.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: EatSpam
<Begin RRR mode>The poor are only deserving in charity from a church where they can hear about Gawd, where all charity comes from. Government is an instrument of satan. The poor don't need their devil money. We're lucky to have a Gawd-fearing man like George W. Bush keeping government from its wicked ways.<end RRR mode>

Please tell me. Why is it that most charitable organizations are religion based? Why do you not see athiest charity organizations?

That organization is government; the only difference is, your donation is NOT optional. You'll give whether you like it or not.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Exactly - and the Left's ongoing attempts to move most charity under the control of government is yet another attempt by them to force their personal morality on others. It is noble to establish a private charity to solicit funds for the care of the less fortunate, but to have the same thing mandated by gov't is inefficient and intolerable.

Nonsense. It is very efficient and completely tolerable. Ineffiencies creep in when ideologically driven or greedy politicians sabotage programs so they can then shreik about how the programs are failing.

If the War on Poverty worked, why is there still poverty? You've offered nothing demonstrating the efficiency of gov't-based charity other than your own conclusionary statements.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,792
6,351
126
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
"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.

"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."

I think you are misinterpreting some of the article...there is no doubt that the religious right is very much hypocritical on a number of issues...but I agree with them on the two points above.

The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

In the US it certainly doesn't work, but that seems more to do with design than actual truth of the matter.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Nonsense. It is very efficient and completely tolerable. Ineffiencies creep in when ideologically driven or greedy politicians sabotage programs so they can then shreik about how the programs are failing.
Or bloat programs with excessive bureaucracy in efforts to capture the voting loyalty of a particular demographic.

The system would be efficient and tolerable if we matched social welfare with programs that specifically target the root causes of the social ills in our society...unfortunately, no one seems willing to engage in that dialogue...conservatives don't want to divert financial resources to such programs, and liberals are seemingly unwilling to accept that sometimes, just sometimes, people are responsible for their own lot in life...and that sometimes you have to couple welfare with programs designed to change certain behavioral patterns.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
reminds me of that labor day weekend when bushco stated publically that companies should start calling all their employees managers, that way they can avoid paying overtime.

the truth? the truth is that they don't care about people, only themselves.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
the truth? the truth is that they don't care about people, only themselves.
Who is this magical "they" you keep talking about...your statement is applicable to much of American society.
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,664
0
71
Originally posted by: broon
Please tell me. Why is it that most charitable organizations are religion based? Why do you not see athiest charity organizations?

The cynic in me answers your first question, 'because no one is easier to convert/proselytize to than those already on their knees'.

You don't see 'atheist' charity organizations because you don't look for them. Last time I checked, there are legion secular charity organizations.
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Originally posted by: broon
Please tell me. Why is it that most charitable organizations are religion based? Why do you not see athiest charity organizations?

The cynic in me answers your first question, 'because no one is easier to convert/proselytize to than those already on their knees'.

You don't see 'atheist' charity organizations because you don't look for them. Last time I checked, there are legion secular charity organizations.

If you look at the number of organizations that are supporting medicine, science, and the arts, the vast majority of them is secular.
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wanna see a REAL war on Christmas? Take a look at Congress's Grinch-like end-of-the year welfare cuts. Now that's a war on Christmas. And I just love this particular quote by some jackhole at the Focus on the Family (a typical right wing Christian conservative group):

It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important. 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.

Well, I don't see it as a surprise. You can unite (read: control) a lot more people if you offer them an enemy. That's the whole point of the anti-abortion and anti-gay movements. It's not about protecting people, or about supporting morality... it's about creating an enemy (liberals in this case and many others), and rallying the sheep into battle.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I don't see it as a surprise. You can unite (read: control) a lot more people if you offer them an enemy. That's the whole point of the anti-abortion and anti-gay movements. It's not about protecting people, or about supporting morality... it's about creating an enemy (liberals in this case and many others), and rallying the sheep into battle.

It's a cheap and useless tactic to suggest 'the other side' is merely mindless drones (sheep), and your side consists soly of intelligent, thoughtful people exhibiting nothing but deliberate free will. But if that's all you've got, I guess you've got to go with it.
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
I'm going to go send Jim Wallis at Sojourners a donation FFS...well said. And I'm an athiest for god's sake!!

Future Shock
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So what are you doing to help the Poor?

I gave like 2 bags of food to the Boy Scout Food Drive. (Not stupid Stuff) I gave a variety of things for a giant can of chilli beans to canned vegetables speghetti and a giant can of tomato sauce. Call it a Sams Food Storage Kit. That would make enough speghetti for at least 3-5 dinners. So hopefully someone ate well at least a few days.

Give to the United Way! They help the poor and the needy in a wide variety of ways.

Donate to a Women's Shelter.

Donate to the Church Welfare Fund.

"Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!"
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
So what are you doing to help the Poor?

I gave like 2 bags of food to the Boy Scout Food Drive. (Not stupid Stuff) I gave a variety of things for a giant can of chilli beans to canned vegetables speghetti and a giant can of tomato sauce. Call it a Sams Food Storage Kit. That would make enough speghetti for at least 3-5 dinners. So hopefully someone ate well at least a few days.

Give to the United Way! They help the poor and the needy in a wide variety of ways.

Donate to a Women's Shelter.

Donate to the Church Welfare Fund.

"Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!"

Good ideas.



I throw a balled up dollar out in the street next the homeless guy with a sign, I want to see if he'll run out in traffic... I keeeed I keeed.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Complete an utter bs. Typical RW nonsense. :thumbsdown:
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I don't see it as a surprise. You can unite (read: control) a lot more people if you offer them an enemy. That's the whole point of the anti-abortion and anti-gay movements. It's not about protecting people, or about supporting morality... it's about creating an enemy (liberals in this case and many others), and rallying the sheep into battle.

It's a cheap and useless tactic to suggest 'the other side' is merely mindless drones (sheep), and your side consists soly of intelligent, thoughtful people exhibiting nothing but deliberate free will. But if that's all you've got, I guess you've got to go with it.
It's an even cheaper tactic to put words in my mouth that I never uttered.

However, if you insist that those who follow the "war on christmas" and "intelligent design" doctrines are not sheep... oy... I don't even know how to respond to that.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Complete an utter bs. Typical RW nonsense. :thumbsdown:

Really? What government "welfare" program works at least 85% effiecence*?, 70%? 50%? To give you an idea, the marines Toys for Tots program works around 92%. I know of a local church here, that supports an orphange in India. 100% of money given by people to that ministry goes there, minus the wiring fee.

No government agency can come close to that, but ifyou look at the numbers, on a federal level 20 to 5 cents on the dollar will make it to the people who need it - the rest go toward overhead and administrative costs.


*how much of the dollar spent, reaches the individuals.
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Complete an utter bs. Typical RW nonsense. :thumbsdown:

Really? What government "welfare" program works at least 85% effiecence*?, 70%? 50%? To give you an idea, the marines Toys for Tots program works around 92%. I know of a local church here, that supports an orphange in India. 100% of money given by people to that ministry goes there, minus the wiring fee.

No government agency can come close to that, but ifyou look at the numbers, on a federal level 20 to 5 cents on the dollar will make it to the people who need it - the rest go toward overhead and administrative costs.

*how much of the dollar spent, reaches the individuals.

Medicare actually works at about 70% efficiency. That is opposed to the insurance companies, which work at sub-30% efficiency.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
"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.

"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."

I think you are misinterpreting some of the article...there is no doubt that the religious right is very much hypocritical on a number of issues...but I agree with them on the two points above.

The welfare state simply does not work...the government simply cannot solve everyone's problems for them...local communities, and charitable citizens, are what create the climate for social change...and charitable causes need not be church based...but charitable, private organizations are infinitely more effective then any government program.

Hurricane Katrina was an excellent example of how BAD government will lead to failures. The notion that churches, the Salvation Army, and corporations MET the needs of MOST people is a farce. The Red Cross delivered the overwelming amount of aid to the people that literally kept them alive over the first few weeks. It is quite reasonable to believe competent leadership of FEMA would have dramatically affected the FEMA preparation/response to Katrina.

The second quote is fundamentally dishonest and the epitome of the BS agendas of these fake Christians. Allegedly their (version) of the religion calls them to rally for politicians that oppose abortion, support the advocacy of Christianity, etc. Yet somehow the Biblical "mandate" to care for the poor demands less (if any) political advocacy?! The Bible doesn't say government should be the vehicle for spreading Christian theology/ethos for any particular issue . . . yet these hypocrites clearly feel comfortable to pick and choose.