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.
Here is the missing principle still absent in our current debate:
We must agree not to reduce deficits in ways that further increase poverty and economic inequality by placing the heaviest burdens on those who are already suffering the most.
Religious leaders do believe that massive deficits are moral issues, and that we must not saddle future generations with crippling debt. But we believe that how we resolve deficits also is a moral issue. And our society must not take more from those who already have so much less that the rest of us.
We understand the politics of this debate. We know that Republicans will resist reforming the private sector, because that is where their core constituencies and money lie. We understand that Democrats will resist reforming the public sector because that is where their key constituencies and money are.
We also understand that neither party wants to risk actually examining bloated Pentagon spending out of political fears that they might appear unconcerned about national defense or our military personnel. During elections, both Republicans and Democrats are almost entirely focused on middle-class voters and wealthy donors who all have special interests in the outcome of how government financing is determined.
And then there are the pollsters who tell both parties that talking about "poor people" and "poverty" will not be popular.
But we must agree with what a Catholic bishop told President Obama in a meeting we religious leaders had with him in the White House last year as the August debt crisis deal was being decided:
Mr. President, our scriptural mandate from Jesus does not say 'As you have done to the middle class, you have done to me.' It rather says, 'As you have done to the least of these you have done to me.'
We have no choice as to what our position will be in these upcoming debates. We are telling the leaders and legislators of both parties that they must form "a circle of protection" around the most effective and vital programs that help the lowest-income American families survive in such difficult economic times. With one clear voice we also are telling lawmakers that the global efforts, which literally mean life and death to the poorest around the world who are assailed by preventable hunger and diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, must be protected.
Some cuts kill. Others will destroy the small opportunities families have to lift themselves out of poverty.
We will be telling our legislators, for example, that if they really decide to take all of the proposed $36 billion in agricultural cuts from proven and successful nutritional "food stamp" programs that go mostly to families with children, while taking nothing from the rice, corn and sugar subsidies to rich agribusiness -- they should expect to hear voices like Old Testament prophets standing outside their halls.
Or when they plan to cut poor children's health care or the chance for students from poor families to go to college for the first time, but block any increased revenue from the wealthiest and keep corporate welfare checks flowing -- they should anticipate having to listen for the faith community's different priorities.
And if they cut "Meals on Wheels" feeding programs to our most vulnerable senior citizens, but keep paying for the wheels on outdated and useless weapons systems, they should expect to hear some words from the Scriptures.
How faith community leaders protected low-income entitlements in the sequestered automatic cuts agreed to in the August 2011 debt ceiling deal is an untold story in much of the media; and we will ask for those protections again.
Both Republicans and Democrats could agree to the principle of protecting the most vulnerable people -- as many budget-cutting processes have in the past -- and the Simpson-Bowles recommendations do even now. Then the parties could have their private-public sector debates and reach the compromises necessary to find fiscal integrity. 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.
Everything else may be on the table, but the fate of the poor and vulnerable should not be.
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
Dean Baker: A Wall Street Gambling Tax: The Remedy to Inequality
Yea it sucks that he may have a conservative stance on marriage but that doesn't change the fact that he wants to help the lower classes. This article had nothing about that, and marriage equality pails in comparison to this anyways.
If a law has no basis in religion it's good. We can use as much principle as we want.
I do appreciate the authors pointing out basically the - "What would Jesus Do?" criteria to the debate on budget resources. Clearly, he would help the poor. But (and note that I am pro-choice, pro marriage equality), he would more than likely also end abortion and gay marriage. I know I am saying this in a rather clumsy manner - but you cannot expect religious folks to embrace democrats on the hunger issue when Democrats are disdainful of the abortion issue. If you want faith based government, you're basically stuck with doing both.
Long winded way of saying that budget policy can be based in humanity and caring without necessarily being based in religion.
Try THIS mantra for your religion. It IS among the missing after all:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Try PRACTICING these principles in your religion. They too are long since missing:
"Honesty"
"Integrity"
"Ethics"
"Morality"
"Empathy"
"Sympathy"
"Compassion"
"Charity"
"Sharing"
"Love"
These are ALL completely missing from the CORPORATE/gop organized crime syndicate. As nearly as I can tell, fancy words and lulling BS aside, these qualities are also COMPLETELY missing from contemporary religion, regardless of its name and ESPECIALLY so-called christianity as well. From what I've heard, seen and experienced in my 75 years, religion and politics follow EXACTLY the same GODS...MONEY, POWER, HYPOCRISY and TYRANNY!
Religion?! BAH!!!
DECENT human beings who CARE don't need ANY stinking, hypocritical religion to be decent human beings. They simply need to CARE about others.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How do you mold "decent humans"? How do people begin "to care" for others?...It very easy to make broad sweeping generalizations without a game plan. It sounds like the "hope and change" campaign of 2008.
And you just can't got make so called religious quotes without context and expect to be effectual.
Remove those pressures and I would also wager that crime would sink like a stone, happiness quotients would rise, family unity would increase, tolerance instead of hate would prevail and the bible thumping bigots would be relegated to the trash heap. That's how I was raised, how my children were raised and how their children are being raised. And ALL with the strictures listed above, the ones that religion has OBVIOUSLY done their utmost to sidestep, abandon, or hypocritically talk up without using.
The do unto others quote that I use is NOT a religious quote. Study your history BEFORE christianity even existed and you'll find out for yourself. Religion. What a scam!
My most heartfelt thanks to Jim Wallis for being a strong and steadfast voice for the least of these.
The Hypocrisy of some of our political leaders is seemingly without limit.
Many of them "claim" to be devout Christians, yet their actions would indicate that they are either lying, or fail to understand what Christ was trying to teach.
Some of them have more in common with Judas, than Jesus.
They take their "30 pieces of silver" from the wealthy, and corporate interests, and sell their votes to the highest bidder, regardless of the suffering it causes to people.
I honestly don't know if there is an life after this one.
But I do know this.
If there is a Heaven, and a Hell.................and a final judgement day where we are held accountable for our actions?
I wouldn't change places with a lot of our political leaders for all the tea in China. Not after what they've done.