And Discuss...

Well, this was originally written as a response to Tommy's blog, but I was 500 characters over the limit, so I decided to post it here and let people discuss it.

I respectively submit my perspective on the events of last Wednesday, and I hope that you will take the time to read and thoughtfully consider what I have to say.

The purpose of the press conference and prayer at the steps of the Canon House Office Building in Washington DC was (as I understand it) to speak about the proposed budget cuts, specifically:

1) Budgets are moral documents that reflect the values and priorities of a family, church, organization, city, state, or nation. They tell us what is most important and valued to those making the budget. President Bush says that his 2006 budget “is a budget that sets priorities.” Examining those priorities - who will benefit and who will suffer in President Bush’s budget - is a moral and religious concern.

Religious communities spoke clearly in the past years about the perils of a domestic policy based primarily on tax cuts for the rich, program cuts for low-income people, and an expectation of faith-based charity. When 14.4 million families have critical housing needs and 12.1 million households are food insecure, it is no time to reduce key supports that can meet these needs. Using deficit reduction as rationale for reducing supports when 47% of our deficit is due to tax cuts -- but only 15% is due to domestic spending -- is not legitimate. This situation calls for moral vision and political will in setting priorities

2) The cost of the deficit is increasingly borne by the poor. The budget projects a record $427 billion deficit, and a promise to make tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest permanent. Religious communities spoke clearly in the past years about the perils of a domestic policy based primarily on tax cuts for the rich, program cuts for low-income people, and an expectation of faith-based charity. We must speak clearly now about a budget lacking moral vision. A budget that scapegoats the poor and fattens the rich, that asks for sacrifice mostly from those who can least afford it, is a moral outrage.

3) Low-income people should not be punished for decisions that placed us in financial straits. Rather than moving toward a “living family income,” the budget stifles opportunities for low-income families, which are vital for national economic security. Our future is in serious jeopardy if one in three proposed program cuts are to education initiatives (after a highly touted “No Child Left Behind” effort), there will be less flexibility to include working poor families with children on Medicaid, and reductions in community and rural development, job training, food stamps, and housing are accepted as solutions for reducing the deficit. Cutting pro-work and pro-family supports for the less fortunate jeopardizes the common good. And this while defense spending rises again to $419 billion (not including any additional spending for war in Iraq).

My point is that these people did not have a political vendetta against the right, or the left, or whatever, but more simply, they were Christians trying to follow Jesus’ teachings, teachings such as Matthew 25 or any of the thousands of versus in the Bible that call us to take care of the poor.

Of course people of faith across the country will keep doing the work of feeding, clothing and housing our less fortunate neighbors, but there will always be systemic problems in any form of government. Therefore, caring for the poor without addressing the issues of the budget would be like treating symptoms but not the illness that causes them. It may appear to be the correct thing, but eventually, if not properly dealt with, the illness will become much worse and be harder to deal with.

This brings me to your point about Romans 13 and having “a bunch of Christians purposefully sinning in order to do something that will, in all likelihood, have zero effect on how things go.”

I understand where you are coming from when you speak about Romans 13, and I struggle with my own views on this issue. Personally, for me a conflict arises between my duties and obligations to Jesus’ teachings of loving my neighbor and caring for the poor, and Paul’s words on submitting to authority. It is my belief that in the event that the government refuses to listen to its citizens, being arrested for peaceful protest is acceptable. This use of peaceful, direct action, such as sit-ins, marches, and so forth, will bring about negotiation by creating a tension such that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate, is forced to confront the issue. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. talks about this in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”.

I hope that I have been able to communicate my thoughts clearly and if you are interested there is more information available at:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display_c&item=051214_arrests