Legislating Compassion: Why Does The Right Hate It So Much?

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of. - Confucius

Right Wing Watch:

     "Last month, the Family Research Council’s Kenneth Blackwell hailed House Republicans for passing a massive cut in food aid for low-income families, arguing that there is 'nothing more Christian' than kicking millions off the food stamp program."

A matter of "Dependency"

      Blackwell also suggested that there was "nothing more Christian" than "not locking people into a permanent dependency on government handouts, but making sure they are participants in their own upliftment and empowerment so that they in fact through the dignity of work and can break from the plantation of big government."

Using antebellum messaging has been the strategy of today's Right: people on welfare have been made slaves to government, their dependency locking them into a socialist system that is totally anti-capitalist and therefore un-American. It's the dependency that is destructive. It is the dependency they hate.

Or so they say.

However, whenever you take away something people have gotten dependent upon (or enjoy), you must replace it with something else, or else you invite insurrection, anarchy or ... heresy. Early Christians were wise in replacing pagan holidays with feast days and saint's days: Christmas, for example, replaced winter solstice festivities. So what should the poor become dependent upon?

Keep'em Poor And They'll Come To Jesus has been the strategy for the Right (OK, the Christian Right) for a very long time. Switch the dependency. Simple.

Luke 14:12-14 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Although Tony Perkins' comments might might seem ridiculously hypocritical to "bleeding heart" liberals (the Christian Right crying for a theocracy - through Reconstructionism - for many years), it makes perfect sense to people trying to hang on to their money in a taxless and minimum-government world. “The government has a responsibility to care for the poor? That’s not what Scripture says.” Grover Norquist gets the point, so why not the rest of America?

Luke 11:42 "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God."

Compassion Costs Money

Boiling down to money may seem too simple an answer for why so many on the Right seem to hate compassion and social justice, but it's unavoidable: Pope Francis I recently hit a nerve with his focus on it (capitalized by his new economical papal style). Money is not for the poor, but for rich people to dole out to the poor subjectively. Money is for large homes and Bentleys (see video) with which to demonstrate God's love. Money is for ministry administrative costs.

Yes, the contorted reasoning for not legislating compassion is based solely on money: the Puritan, bootstraps, God-helps-those-who-help-themselves mentality governs the Right and that form of self-government is driven by money. Everyone knows it, but the reasoning must be cloaked in compassionate terms or else no one buys it.

And certainly the most compassionate term today is "Christian." What Jesus would say to using His name in such a manner, is obvious:

From Andrew Sullivan:

In an interview with the novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson, Robert Long asked her about the too-frequent identification of Christianity with the religious right in America. She doesn’t hold back:

Well, what is a Christian, after all? Can we say that most of us are defined by the belief that Jesus Christ made the most gracious gift of his life and death for our redemption? Then what does he deserve from us? He said we are to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Granted, these are difficult teachings. But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away.

Legislating Compassion

The ever-widening gap between rich and poor in America should be proof that of religious institutions have not been willing fill to the gap. Rep. Paul Ryan once remarked that faith-based charities would pick up the slack left from budget cuts.* That remark must have made those institutions shudder: soup kitchens for the poor are one thing, but expensive programs are quite another matter.

It's their money, after all.

*The comic moment of his remarks came when his tax returns were release, revealing the fact that he gave far less in charitable contributions than the national average. 

The Winds Of Love: Portman's Change Of Heart Latest Blast To Republican DOMA Diehards

When Republican Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) came out of the same-sex marriage closet to state that his view on the subject had, like President Obama's, "evolved", the Right (especially the Christian Right) returned a volley of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of Brooks Brothers suits. Portman hit home particularly hard: 

      "The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said, adding that he feels that "in a way, this strengthens the institution of marriage."

Citing the Bible to bible-thumpers, has no positive effect: in fact, it created a very negative effect, giving people like Tony Perkins of Family Research Council the sadz:

       "Our unconditional love for our children should not override the historical and social science evidence which makes abundantly clear what is best for all children and for society - being raised by a married mother and father."

It would seem, however, that Portman is riding a wave of support from Republicans, since even Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, when asked about the issue of marriage equality said that there was "no doubt" young conservatives considered it basic and not "a disqualifying issue."




Walker's comment followed only a week after it was reported that 78 prominent Republicans signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the DOMA case. 

Hurt hardest with the news of defecting Republicans is Speaker John Boehner, who spearheaded an effort to defend DOMA in the courts and capped out last year with $1.5 million in lawsuits. He was, of course, the most prominent politicians to weigh in against Portman's decision by bolstering his own position:

John Boehner:

       "Rob [Portman] is a great friend and a long-time ally. And I appreciate that he’s decided to change his views on this.I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And I can’t imagine that position would ever change." - House Speaker John Boehner, appearing yesterday on ABC's This Week.

Boehner's base is eroding: if Republican changes of heart aren't enough, some evangelicals are switching as well. Former megachurch pastor Rob Bell: “I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man.”

Justice Roberts' Second-Best Option

The leader of a prominent anti-gay organization called Supreme Court Chief John Roberts' decision to adopt children the "second-best option," the AP reports.

Desperate times seem to call for desperate rhetoric from anti-marriage equality groups, and the most inept of late, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) held a panel at CPAC to an almost empty house. That's when NOM's chairman, John Eastman, made the now-infamous remark about Justice John Roberts' family. The back-peddling, of course, described adoptive parents as  "heroes" but the damage was done. In response, one ten-year-old adopted boy with two dads has fashioned a YouTube "letter" to Justice Roberts that has gotten wide attention (see below)

The Winds Of Love and Change

       Support for gay marriage reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade. Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The poll also brought another significant number: only 24 percent of Americans think that being gay "is a choice." The Supreme Court may have to weigh in on the immutability of homosexuality on the grounds of discrimination.

A ton of amicus briefs from members of Congress, corporations, notable politicians and celebrities. Reversal of opposition by prominent Republicans. A poll showing a dramatic shift in the national psyche.

John Boehner and his supporters are crying again.

Boy Scouts May Accept Gays. Christian Right Heads Explode. News At 10.

Beware A Severe Outbreak of Pedophilia!

Shock waves are running through churches and pastors across the country are redrafting their Sunday Sermons.

The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.

If adopted by the organization’s board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial -- one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.

It was a WTF moment with wailing, rending of garments, and gnashing of teeth never seen since Biblical times. For some, it has taken a full 24 hours for the shock to attach itself to reality, while others have been quick to respond:

American Family Association:

     "You're signing a death warrant when you say you're going to allow open homosexuals to participate in a program with young boys."

Southern Baptist Convention:

    "This decision will lead to a mass exodus of traditional, orthodox Christianity from Boy Scouts, including thousands of Catholic, Baptist and other traditional faith congregations."

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality ("Porno Pete" Peter Labarbera):

     "If you capitulate to the homosexual lobby, you're capitulating to immorality; and you're not being 'morally straight,' as the Boy Scout Creed says."

Family Research Council:

     "If the Board capitulates to the bullying of homosexual activists, the Boy Scouts' legacy of producing great leaders will become yet another casualty of moral compromise."

And while the above may represent the most homophobic of the lot on the side of the Christian Right, there are sure to be responses from the likes of:

Pat Robertson, "Bishop" Harry Jackson, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (San Francisco), Cardinal Timothy Doyle (New York), Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Linda Harvey (Mission America), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Cindy Japan-is-shaped-like-a-dragon Jacobs (Prophetess), Lou Engle (Prophet), Scott Lively (instigator, Kill-the-gays bill in Uganda), Rick Joyner (went to heaven and told everyone about it), Bradlee Dean (wants gays executed, like in Iran), Michele and (oh-so-masculine husband) Marcus Bachmann, "Bishop" Eddie Long, Janet Porter (Faith2Action), fake historian David Barton, World Net Daily,

... and ALL of FOX News (with the exception of Shep Smith). 

What Prompted The Shift?

      "The move also shows the growing influence of gay-rights groups and their backers. Throughout 2012, the Scouts were lobbied by organizations that collected more than one million signatures asking it to overturn the ban. Amid the tumult, several major corporate donors pulled their support from scouting organizations."

One million signatures on a petition. The pullout of corporate donors. 

And the need for transparency? 

OpEdNews reported the cover-up in child abuse last September, a factor that may have led to the proposed revision in policy: the BSA needs more transparency than ever to regain those corporate donors.



Gay Scout Troops?

"BSA spokesman Deron Smith said "the Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. ... BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit which best meets the needs of their families,” the BSA told Fox News Latino in a statement."

Reaction to the news of the policy shift has been surprisingly optimistic on the local levels:

OMAHA:

• "I think we are missing out on a lot of kids who are gay that just want to have the Boy Scout experience and I don't think that's fair. As far as leaders, there are a lot more problems coming out about straight leaders who are pedophiles than any problems with gay leaders." -- Mikki Nagel, a Lincoln parent of a Boy Scout nearing Eagle Scout

It certainly seems there is plenty of "wiggle room" in the policy change: Christian Right groups can put pressure on troops locally to their heart's content and create "no gay no way" troops. Certainly states like Tennessee will not likely be known for any gay-inclusive troops (nor Texas, nor North Carolina, etc). Ditto sponsors like the Catholic Knights of Columbus, a mainstay of Catholic scouts. But many local congregations see active discrimination as another necessary evil and a chore: a blanket "no gay" policy was easier to site.

Also easier to litigate: local lawsuits are quite the possibility.

Parodies of the "gayness" of scout troops have existed for a long while (see below), but totally gay BSA units are certainly far off in the future. And another problem: how would a totally gay unit fare in national conventions and events dominated by "family oriented" Christian Right units? The Christian Right has a lot of ferocity to distribute. It just can't do it nationally anymore.

Intolerance in the BSA will still exist. After all, the Christian Right will not be far behind.