Lighting the Christmas Scandals
Christian activist Rev. Jim Wallis told hundreds of religious protesters gathered near the Capitol on Wednesday that there is a scandal this December, but it isn't the conservative-stoked controversy about retailers and others using "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."
"The Christmas scandal is the budget out of this House of Representatives, a budget which is an assault on low-income people, on poor families," said Wallis, who was arrested by Capitol Hill police along with 113 other protesters--as they knew they would--for blocking the building's entrance.
Budget legislation under consideration by House members and senators has angered many religious people who see caring for the poor as central to their faith, because of nearly $50 billion in spending cuts to programs such as food stamps and child care subsidies.
Comments
There is so much talk about the Christian Right that there seems no air left to talk about the Christian Left, which does exist and ought to get more vocal (as the activists in your post have).
And while I certainly believe that the federal government is the best funded and most powerful institution for helping the less fortunate and most vulnerable in our society -- and that the government SHOULD help -- I see a dilemma. If I don't want the Religious Right forcing legislation to further its goals, can I want the Religious Left to do the same simply because its goals are more similar to mine? Maybe it's not a dilemma. I don't know. I'm not very clever.
Posted by: pablo | December 26, 2005 10:21 AM
I'd hope there was such a thing as the Christian Middle and that I could find it. But isn't that supposed to be what the two party / two world-views are supposed to bring: balance between the extremes? This is hard to come by in a Republican party dominated by the Christian right and a goverment dominated by Republican corporation-first trickle-down votes. I see that eroding though, and find Christian left intrusions like this encouraging. Perhaps the pendulum has swung as far right as it will go. Perhaps.
Posted by: fred1st | December 26, 2005 11:35 AM
Any democratic system works best when it is working via compromise. It is compromise that brings that irratic pendulum more to the center. Compromise from both sides. That is why having both houses of Congress heavily dominated by one party is not good no matter who is in the POTUS chair.
Independent voiting in 2006, is what I want to see happen. Less of the party focus which is destroying American democracy.
Posted by: Steve | December 27, 2005 11:05 AM
To win in politics, you must be willing to move to the political center. Economists call this dilemma Hotelling's Principle. For example, if you have 2 political parties at separate ends of the spectrum then you may pick up additional votes by moving more towards the center and still retain your original voter base. Each party will move more and more towards each other until they are side-by-side, or have about the same platform.
Republicans picked up the Christian base for an advantage over a political draw or defeat that could have resulted. This is similar to how the Dems pick up left-wing whacko groups to bolster their base. Because of these realities, most people are aware that a vote to an independent party is a wasted vote.
Well, regardless of who wins this is still a good place to be for the majority of its populace. Similar to the fear of globalization homogenizing the world's cultures, we should also fear reducing America to another stagnant welfare state through wealth re-distribution like so many of the proclaimed "civilized" nations. Somewhere in the world let there be a "wild west" complete with the opportunity to succeed beyond the average for those with ambition. Let an engine for economic growth idle a little faster than the rest. Let's call it America.
Posted by: Jim | December 28, 2005 2:58 PM