Christian Values at Christmas Time

Yes, as noted previously below (such as here and here), Christmas is under attack by Liberal HAFers (Hate America Firsters). But this WaPo article calls into question what, really, are the values that Christians

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?

[...]

"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."

So the less fortunate should be ignored in favor of an embryo (which, if born to a woman without means, could push that woman into an ever-revolving cycle of poverty because of high medical costs and no child care). This smacks of social darwinism to me (see previous post on Senator Barack Obama's linking of social darwinism and the conservative ideal of the "ownership society"). Here's more from the WaPo article:

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."

The Right, as you would expect, does not agree:

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.

[...]

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."

Look, I'm all for bringing an end to sex trafficking and slavery and for getting our government and the larger global community to recognize that they are needed to bring an end to the horror that is Sudan. And I'm not even a Christian. But in this season of celebrating the birth of Christ (which, I believe is what Christmas is all about, from what I've been able to glean from O'Really, Gibson, et. al.), this doesn't seem at all "Christian." And this legislation is not only wrong, it's also jaw-droppingly ludacris and hubristic. Here's a little bit more from Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine (an evangelical Christian publication that focuses on such wildly liberal notions as social justice, racism and poverty):

“The bible does not condemn prosperity; it just insists that it be shared. Our basic moral principles tell us that caring for the vulnerable should be our first order of business before we provide more to the wealthiest. The House, in approving a budget bill last month that cuts food stamps, health care, child care and more, ignored the needs of the poor. Yesterday, it followed the recent pattern of designing a tax bill that foremost benefits the wealthiest. These decisions do not reflect that best of our nation’s priorities. And arguing that these budget and tax reconciliation bills reduce the deficit, when that is clearly not the case, reflects lack of respect for Americans looking for better political leadership.”

“Budgets are moral documents that reflect what we care about. Budget and tax bills that increase the deficit put our children’s futures in jeopardy – and they hurt the vulnerable right now. The House’s decision to cut social supports and tax cuts represents a disconnect from rising poverty all around us. Are these leaders listening to faith-based service providers, who are saving lives every day, tell them that charity is just not enough? Or are they patting them on the backs for their good work, smiling for the photo, and then heading back to Washington where they forget what they have seen and heard?”