Chicago Trib Religion Blog Thunders From Online Pulpit with Rebuke of Proposed Budget Cuts
With the looming possibility of a government shutdown and today's Republican 2012 budget proposal, you can expect the media to be hard at work amplifying the complaints of liberal Democrats that conservative-proposed budget cuts are extreme.
Even newspaper sections or online features generally disconnected from politics are picking up on the meme. Take the Chicago Tribune's The Seeker blog, a religion news feature.
The last two blog posts have taken a liberal tack from a religious perspective on the federal budget.
"Faithful, legislators should ask, 'What would Jesus cut?'" Rev. Soong -Chan Rah argued in an April 4 post, echoing the rallying cry of liberal Christian activist Jim Wallis:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓A number of faith leaders announced a fast to protest the proposed budget cuts that would negatively impact the poorest and the most vulnerable in our nation. These are certainly questions that people of faith should be asking.
In the Old Testament, prophets held the responsibility of representing God’s truth to the powers that be. The prophets would often ask the difficult questions to call the powerful into account for how they treated the very least of these. In these times, faith leaders should continue to ask the difficult questions. The budget of our nation has the capacity to reflect the morality of our nation.
If you have the chance, follow @jimwallis (one of the faith leaders participating in the fast) and #WWJC (What Would Jesus Cut?) on Twitter. The Twitter feeds raise questions appropriate for discussion in the public arena:
“Do we cut $2.5 bil for low income heating assistance or $2.5 bil in tax breaks for oil companies?”
"Do we cut $747 mil from WIC, a program that feeds about 25% of U.S. children between the ages of 1 and 4?”
“Do we sacrifice the lives of 70,000 children and keep tax breaks for the rich?”
“What would Jesus Cut?”
Asking these kinds of questions is exactly what people of faith should be doing.
In another post the same day, Rev. Martin Marty explored "Why should [the] faithful care about budget cuts?" suggesting the prophet Isaiah would opposed to federal budget cuts for social services:
The ancient prophet said this more elegantly and with an authority that columnists cannot command, but his words should outrank other texts which are cherished by biblical literalists and their secular cousins during legislative and electoral conflicts.
Cheering the efforts of two liberals who are fasting in protest of proposed cuts, Marty cautions:
I hope both fasters savor their post-fasting food but stay on the cause. Those obsessed with budget-cutting will certainly stay on theirs.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Question for Rev. Soong-Chan Rah:
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:31pm.
What would Jesus tax?
Would Jesus order me to buy health care insurance or pay a fine? Would Jesus put a sales tax on food, like I pay in Virginia?
While Soong-Chan and Marty have a First Amendment right to speak their minds, perhaps they should be addressing the entire Big Government scheme.
I'm not a Christian, but I was confirmed decades ago in a Protestant Church. As I recall my education, Jesus Christ taught us to be personally charitable to our fellow men; I don't recall him telling Rome how to spend its treasure, or urging people to become dependent on government, or to encourage it to give them more than their brothers. But I could be wrong.
Bull's Eye
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:53pm.
As a former pastor, let me affirm that you hit the bull's eye. (And not only the bull's eye...!)
Unfortunately, closely akin to the "it's for the children" teary-eyed plea/trump-card, these pro-(make that RE)-gressive socialist types like to try to coopt the WWJD approach and/or anything that, to their limited understanding, smells remotely "religious" to twist to their purposes.
They would interpret "render unto Caesar" to include everything, since in their alternate-reality universe everything ultimately belongs to Caesar. How else could these twits view you keeping your hard-earned money to be somehow "cutting" potential spending and "robbing" the Treasury of its rightful resources? (Only robs the career politicians of potential vote-buying resources.)
As a Vietnam-era USAF aircrew member going through survival training, one "interrogator," upon finding out I was a Christian, attempted to use the Bible's New Testament example of everyone pooling their resources and sharing them with each other as a justification for socialism's "from each...to each" dictum. I quasi agreed, then suggested that universal distribution of Bibles and teaching every citizen its principles would even better enhance the socio-economic experiment. That pretty much ended that line of conversation!
Anyway, you're right that Government was never to be the "solution" to meeting needs, but individual hearts properly motivated by love should prompt sharing one's personal resources at the lowest, most local level to meet the specific need. Cuts out 37 "middle men" and maximizes the impact. Also tends to neuter the politicians, which explains the loudness of their squealing!
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Chuck Schumer sez:
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:19pm.
Use the word "extreme" a lot, 'cause that's what the caucus wants you to do.
If I remember my Bible readings correctly...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:25pm.
...Jesus taught that stealing from others was wrong, and could land you in a very hot place.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Right. And His kingdom is not
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:34pm.
Right. And His kingdom is not of this world.
Christians of good conscience can sincerely disagree on political matters without being sinful or un-Christian.
There's no biblical command to use government for social welfare nor is there a ban on doing so.
What would jesus cut?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:27pm.
His wrists with the current situation. LOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Jesus would cut it all
Submitted by c5then on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:32pm.
Because only when each individual has complete ownership of all their property, including the money they make, can they truely have the choice to be charitable and help their neighbors who might be less fortunate than themselves. When the government forcibly takes their money and then gives it to others there is less possibility and moral drive to be charitable.
It is not the government's place to be the charity monopolist of society. That duty is for the individual. By removing the individual's necessity to see the need and personally do something about it, government undermines the individuals ability to live acording to the tennents of their faith and removes from them their ability to choose. Forced "charity" is not charity at all, it is theft.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Explain the funding of the military, roads...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:43pm.
Just playing a little devil's advocate- I understand what you're trying to say but what about infrastructure built before your time and used for your commerce, security, etc. There is upkeep to highways, water treatment plants, the security of the Nation. How does it get paid for?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Military & Roads
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 4:32pm.
They don't fall under the category of charity, they fall under the domain of government. These are specifically in the Constitution to be paid for by the federal government.
Oh I see.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:13pm.
Rad1979,
The individual may also join a group of like minded individuals and distribute the funds according to the groups wishes. I remember not too long ago in DC the Catholic Church was contracted by the City to provide assistance to the homeless. The Church didn't like the gay marriage movement going on in DC, so decided not to provide their "charity" to the homeless. So, here is a group not agreeing with one aspect of society and withdrawing their support by making others suffer. Hmmm, doesn't sound very charitable to me. It's probably better to provide services that have no strings attached. If you want to be charitable- do so. It's about giving without expecting a return on your investment. As for the more money you make, the more charitable you are- I wouldn't want to count on a charity that gets it's proverbial panties in a twist.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Jesus said "render unto
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 3:48pm.
Jesus said "render unto caesar what is his".Start taxing churches how much longer leftist clery supports obama's scam governemt.
budget cuts
Submitted by ferv888 on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 4:03pm.
"A number of faith leaders announced a fast to protest the proposed budget cuts that would negatively impact the poorest and the most vulnerable in our nation. These are certainly questions that people of faith should be asking."
Hey guys, I have an idea, Why don't Wallis and his ilk donate the money they saved from the fast to the local church to the food bank. That is what the Savior would want them to do. But, like most LIB'S, they look for the govt. to do it. They are too busy making money to give any to charities.....donating underwear, Clinton's, Biden donating less than a 1000.00 bucks out of hundreds of thousands, same thing for Al Gore, millions and very little to charity.
Go read what it says Wallis, 10% or in your words, tithe 10% of your income. Oh, why do that the govt will take care of them.
Be like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, every 1st Sunday of the month the members fast, donate the amount saved, if your are more well off, even more than the amount saved and take care of the poor.
FERV888
Slightly off topic but related
Submitted by Prester John on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 4:18pm.
I am in the financial planning business and get into our clients' spending habits in pretty good detail.
It is APPALLING how the vast majority of people, especially two income couples who by BHO's definition are "rich", give so little to charities.
On the other hand, it is even more appalling how much these same couples pay in federal income tax, state income tax, Soc Sec tax, Medicare tax, personal property tax, real estate tax etc.
I wonder if the low level of charitable giving has anything to do with the fact people see themselves as being thoroughly raked over the coals tax wise and simply don't have that much more to give (assuming they want to course).
Perhaps if the tax burden was lightened and giveaways stopped, people would then be able to pick the charities they have an affinity for and actually help people they way they should be at a lower cost.
My wife always asks rhetorically (because she knows the answer), "How were people taken care of before all these welfare programs began"? Simple, their families, communities and churches took care of them. And I bet they were taken care of a lot better than they are now by a army of impersonal government bureaucracies.
Herman Cain 2012
www.hermancain.com
The tax rates are much lower today, less revenue.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:26pm.
("How were people taken care of before all these welfare programs began"? Simple, their families, communities and churches took care of them. And I bet they were taken care of a lot better than they are now by a army of impersonal government bureaucracies.)
I guess my question would be at what period of time? The tax rate is lower than 1960. The past 30 years of tax cuts have reduced the overall revenue the country has. I'd like to know why there is unemployment with the amount of corporate tax cuts and incentives and "trickle down economics". I guess it's Obama fault.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Hey Krugman: it's OK to use your real name here.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:34pm.
.
Blofeld
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:42pm.
1960 was a long time ago. And you skipped the 1970's entirely. Why did you do that? What about 1932? Top marginal tax rate was 62%.
1936 it was 79%
1940 it was 81.1%, and those were very lean years with very high unemployment rates and very low revenue.
In 1960, it seems that the top marginal rate was 91%.
For 2010 it was 35%.
Now please explain to me how the tax rate is higher now than it was in 1960 with a 91% tax rate!
Do you really think people on here are so stupid they can't check this stuff out? and see just how full of it you are?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Tax money is for national defense and buiding commerce
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 4:53pm.
Here's an idea. If you want more public money for poor folk, spend less of it on Democrat political campaigns, Wall Street bailouts and union payoffs. The poor will be grateful.
The whole question is a lie.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 6:12pm.
Christians tell the truth. If the question is "do we sacrifice 70,000 children..." then you know that the people asking the question are not telling the truth. But really, you libs, what's so bad about sacrificing a couple of thousand children, since you've aborted millions? Seriously, now you care?
Visions and Principles blog
The Trib
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 10:47pm.
actually editorialized repealing the Second Amendment a few years ago. Hilariously, a Mexican reporter recently asked Soetoro when he was going to veto it. It is not surprising that the Trib would swim in these religious waters too.
I wonder if they realize doing so is as radioactively dangerous as swimming off the coast of Japan right now?
I submit that we are witnessing the last throes of a dying entity known as the print media newspaper.
What would Jesus cut?
Submitted by Zepppo on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 8:05am.
Well what would Jesus cut? He was very much in favor of ever individual taking persoanl responsibility for their life. He encouraged private giving and volunteerism, while never encouraging growing government and in fact the New Testament only credits government with one responsibility and that is to enforce laws and what could be interpreted as defense.
The Bible never asks for government to take care of the poor since it seems to imply that it needs to come from the heart. In fact, it says that God loves a cheerful giver and that we shoudl nto give grudgingly. Still Jesus did say we should pay our taxes.
So a glance at the Bible says that Jesus would cut entitlements to nothing. And expect churches and other people of good heart to take care of those in need, not the government. Kind of like it was before the New Deal when our counrty was growing and rewarding excellence, not like now where it punishes excellence and rewards lethargy and complacency.
"if a man will not work, he shall not eat" That is in there as well. Though you have to realize the verb "will" is not the same as "can". It means the person makes a decision to not work, not that they cannot find work. So Jesus would work towards programs that helped people find work, not programs that discouraged that looking
What would Jesus cut?!? The Jesus
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:51am.
that I know would charge into Congress with his cord whips and drive everyone of them out. Then we could start all over.