December 15, 2005
Thanks for asking

I recently remarked that I thought the Pat Robertson/James Dobson types often get a free pass on questions of reconciling their stated religious beliefs with social justice. Turns out the Washington Post has an article on this very topic.

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?

Read it for yourself and see what you think of their responses. Link via TAPPED and The Stakeholder, both of which have a few thoughts on the matter.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on December 15, 2005 to Show Business for Ugly People | TrackBack

How Republicans View Charity:

Jack Abramoff claimed to the IRS that he gave $300,000 worth of grants to childrens' charities, but didn't.

Posted by: citizen Able on December 15, 2005 10:45 AM

Dear Kuff,
Former Lt. Gov. and liberal Republican Bill Ratliff discussed this issue in the Austin American Statesman earlier this week, lamenting that reducing government social spending somehow violated biblical commands to help the poor.

I propose that the biblical directives on helping the needy are admonishments for the church and individual believers, not the government. I suspect that is why Mssrs Dobson/Falwell/Robertson are circumspect about government assistance.
Read more here

Posted by: Travis on December 15, 2005 10:39 PM

Probably because only someone who is willfuly ignorant could make the case that the domestic cuts endanger the poor. The welfare state operated in the US is massive and these "cuts" are an attempt, albeit a poor one, to control the black hole that is Medicaid. When 45% of the budget is used up on entitlement programs before there is any discretionary spending, something needs to be done.

Posted by: snrub on December 17, 2005 11:00 AM