The recently revealed video of Governor Mitt Romney at a fundraising event last May is changing the election conversation. I hope it does, but at an even deeper level than the responses so far. There is certainly politics here, some necessary factual corrections, and some very deep ironies. But underneath it all is a fundamental question of what our spiritual obligations to one another and, for me, what Jesus' ethic of how to treat our neighbors means for the common good.
Many are speaking to the political implications of Romney's comments, his response, and what electoral implications all this might have. As a religious leader of a non-profit faith-based organization, I will leave election talk to others.
Others are trying to clarify the facts of Romney's video which spoke of 47 percent of the American people who don't pay income tax and are dependent on the government. Many have pointed out that the people singled out do indeed pay other taxes (payroll, sales, and more). According to the Tax Policy Center, of those who pay no income tax, half do not because the income from their work is below the taxable minimum. Three-quarters of the remaining people are senior citizens or low-income working families with children who receive specific tax credits, such as the child tax credit or earned income tax credit. Children from low-income families do indeed receive health care from Medicaid and nutritional support including, "free" breakfast and lunches at school. Many have also pointed out that those receiving some government assistance include not only the elderly on Medicare, but also veterans who get help after coming home from fighting our wars and college students who need loans to go to school.
There is also an irony which always attends these discussions of who gets government aid. Why don't we also talk about the billions of dollars of subsidies that go to oil and gas companies every year, the huge farm subsidies to agri-business, the billions of tax payer dollars that bailed out the nation's biggest banks after they help set our Great Recession into gear, or the corporations and banks who got public funds to build their sports stadiums and arenas? Or why don't we mention every American home owner who gets a very valuable mortgage income tax deduction every year when they file their tax returns? Are all of those bankers, corporate executives, and middle and upper-middle class home owners to be regarded as losers who depend on the government for their lives?
But at an even deeper level, there is the spiritual question of our obligations to one another. How do Jesus' instructions of the way to treat our neighbor, echoed in all of our faith traditions, relate to this conversation? All the focus has been on the Romney comments to a question, but what about the question itself, and the questioner, whoever that was. Is the person who asked the question a religious person? When the questioner asks, according to NBC News, when people will learn to "take care of themselves," does he know what his faith community says about our responsibilities to help take care of each other? Clearly, that is not merely a question for government, but for a whole society and its commitment to the common good. But the Bible does clearly specify government's role in promoting the common good--and for protecting the poor in particular. Read the Scriptural texts.
To believe that those in need are always "other people," as the questioner suggests, is both a statement of denial of the facts above, but a much more troubling expression of denying our fellow citizens the spiritual designation of our neighbors, and even our brothers and sisters. To the questions of whether we are our brothers and sisters keeper; the religious answer is an unmistakable Yes. That's what all of our faith traditions teach and it is absolutely central to a necessary recovery of the common good--which has seemingly been lost in our politics and in our society. How we best meet the needs of our fellow citizens and neighbors is a very important and creative conversation; but to suggest it isn't both our civic and spiritual responsibility to do so is very alarming.
Governor Romney spoke to these issues in another recently released video requested by the faith community's the Circle of Protection asking what he would do about the highest poverty rates in 50 years. He said:
President Obama also responded to the invitation of the church leaders with these remarks:
Both of those videos should be seen by everyone who has now watched the Romney donor video. And hopefully, this controversy could spark a national conversation about what we must do to respond to the painful numbers of Americans who are struggling so much no matter how hard they work. If this discussion could put the issue of poverty on the agenda of the national election and the debates which are soon to come; then this latest political incident might have some redemption for the common good.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners.Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
Billy Shore: Why the 47% Debate Could Define Both Candidates
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
The question today is, "Who are the poor?"
You provide a portion for the poor.
You tend the needy.
You prepare all able bodied persons for work, to stand on their own two feet as you would your own children.
The family has always been and will always be responsible to take care of the needs of their own first then the church. That is the Biblical model.
Some should take a page out of ROmneys book. He has given more than most that war against and try him.
“All of Romneys inheritance from his father was donated to the BYU Marriott School of Management’s Institute of Public Management…”
Contributed no less than 18 million over the years accounted for.
1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: $4,781,000
2. Brigham Young University: $525,000
3. The United Way: $177,000
4. Right to Play: $111,500
5. The George W. Bush Library: $100,000
6. Operation Kids: $85,000
7. Center For Treatment of Pediatric MS: $75,000
8. Harvard Business School: $70,000
9. City Year: $65,000
10. Deseret International: $50,000
Weber State University: $50,000
As reported at Forbes
As BIshop he contributed far more than cash. He contributed his time and enrgy.
Mr. Wallis would do well to follow his own advice and read the scripture. No where does it say that we must share half of the fish we catch. It says we should teach a man to fish. Mr. Wallis don't gather self glorification at someone elses expence.
It's not a matter of what's fair, because that's subjective. Liberals value the overall good, conservatives value rewarding achievement. The game of Monopoly simulates capitalism, the end result is one winner ends up with everything, the rest destitute. That is a fair game to conservatives, everybody has an equal chance to win. It may be fair, but it's a lousy way to run an economy. Fairness is irrelevant, only what works matters.
Mr Wallis makes the claim but fails to mention any verses. Matthew 25 isn't one!
You and I do not see things as they are.
We see things as we are. ~ Henry Ward Beecher
Transparency. Thy name is pocket media.
“very deep ironies”
A nation reliant on steel, isn't sustained by undermining hypocrisy.
“the common good.”
The final analysis: We're gauged on our bests.
“47 percent of the American people who don't pay income tax and are dependent on the government.”
While out-voted by 1% of the American people, who avoid paying income tax and have bought the government.
“There is also an irony”
in that those not deemed worthy of America, are the ones expected to lay down their lives for it.
“our obligations to one another”
now resemble a one way Wall Street. Where its better to receive than to give.
“people will learn to "take care of themselves”
when civilization's a shuttered shell. The law of the jungle will again be, eat those who have cake.
“the Bible”
is an attempt at compiling a survival manual. If it fails to function in that capacity, there will be no demand for a reprint.
“those in need are always "other people,"
And those not in need, need to do a deal of deep thinking while they still can.
“creative conversation”
Those who know of them, bring the questions. Those who believe they have them, bring their answers. To a community cookout, where we’ll all feast our ears.
“what we must do”
Climb to the top of human intellect mountain. We might just be able to see where we’re supposed to be going, from there.
As if they don't now?
I have the deepest respect for Buddhism, and many Westerners attracted to Buddhism are attracted because they see it as a compassion-based practice, but the picture with regard giving to the vulnerable is not entirely simple:-
In Theravada Buddhism (the more austere, older form), it's the other way round - monks sit in the temple meditating for enlightenment while working people support them (the monks are also praying for the working people, so that they too might be lucky enough to be born a monk next time, and therefore have a better chance of obtaining enlightenment). The later variant, Mahayana Buddhism, introduced the idea of the Boddhisattva, a kind of 'saint' who has obtained enlightenment but chooses to remain incarnated on earth so as to help others on that pathway. In Mahayana Buddhism, compassion for others is a foremost imperative.
Even so, it wasn't until mid-C20th that 'Socially Engaged Buddhism' took the monks OUT of the temples and put them out among the populace, providing services (education and social work activities). The monks who developed socially engaged Buddhism were influenced by Christian activism.
(Some might challenge this: Socially engaged Buddhism was 'formulated' in Vietnam during the Vietnam war, in response to the despair needs of villagers in the countrysides. Vietnam had a long history of French colonization, and monks such as Thich Nhat Hanh were very familiar with the France's Catholic tradition.)
Because Jesus actually argued having riches was an impediment to spiritual progress, he insisted those who followed him on the road divest themselves first of all their riches. He did have supporters who kept their fortunes but didn't follow him on the road; we meet them as his hosts en route, and helping with his burial arrangements. These people nonetheless were enjoined to do all they could to help the poor.
"The poor will always be with us" is a thought-provoking statement. My thinking is: unlike most Americans, maybe Jesus didn't see a world filled with material prosperity as the highest good. We know - or those who think like me assert - he didn't see riches as synonymous with quality of life. So might 'value' might he have seen in poverty? Some suggestions: a clearer sense of what matters; the opportunity to develop empathy; the opportunity to develop compassion; the opportunity to develop a sense of justice.
Some of the most admirable heroes in Church history famously gave away their fortunes to embrace a life of voluntary poverty, devoted to working with those in need. St Francis and St Clare, just for starters ...
"We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. Accordingly, we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you this act of grace. But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you—see that you excel in this act of grace also.
I say this as a command, not to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. It is to alleviate the poor, not to emulate our Lord Jesus Christ. And should you not be earnest in your love, Caesar should take a part of your goods and give it to Titus to complete his act of grace."
There will be many at the judgement who say "look at what I did in your name" and Christ will tell them to depart because he never knew them. Without the repentant committed life, Christian is just a meaningless name.
Since you are casting stones, is your house in order?