The values debate we're not having

[rug]

By Richard Cizik, Published: November 10

Lost amid day-to-day coverage of the Republican presidential candidates’ jockeying is the question of what kind of values debate we need to have heading into 2012. The economy has so far overshadowed “culture war” issues in this campaign, but rumors of the religious right’s death are greatly exaggerated. This is underscored by more than last month’s “Values Voter” summit in Washington or a recent debate in Iowa hosted by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition (which drew all but one GOP presidential candidate). A group of wealthy donors has also announced an ambitious effort to swing the 2012 election by registering 5 million new Christian conservatives to vote. Conservative Christians have an enduring relevance to American politics.

As an evangelical Christian who believes the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values, I believe this discussion is long overdue. The “compassionate conservatism” espoused by President George W. Bush and many prominent evangelical leaders has been supplanted by a Tea Party ideology that bears more resemblance to the anti-Christian philosophy of Ayn Rand than it does to the Gospel.

Whether the Christian duty to love our neighbors is compatible with a political movement that embraces radical individualism and rejects the ethic of collective responsibility is a central question as the GOP attempts to cement the Tea Party and the religious right into a cohesive base. Tea Party activists and Republican leaders have consistently targeted for cutbacks vital government programs that protect the poor, the elderly, children and other vulnerable Americans. Yet calls for shared sacrifice and proposals to modestly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to fund investments and protections that promote the common good are derided as “class warfare.” This is what passes for family values?

Social conservative leaders have shrewdly recalibrated for an election in which the economy is the top concern for voters. Baptizing as a “moral agenda” tax cuts for the wealthy, steep budget cuts to programs that save lives and deregulation of Wall Street takes a lot of nerve. But the Family Research Council — which organized last month’s Values Voter summit — and Christian conservative operatives advance a political agenda by suggesting that the priorities of corporations and the GOP fit snugly with the teachings of Jesus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-values-debate-were-not-having/2011/11/02/gIQAaH3t9M_story.html?wprss=rss_on-faith

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Either you want harmony or control.

[Warpy]

10. Or cooperation versus exploitation/subjugation.

The problem is that authoritarian thinkers think the only way to the good stuff is to institutionalize the bad stuff. It's a basic flaw in their thought processes that has little to do with religious affiliation or lack of it. Without a clear cut hierarchy with a supreme big boss at the top controlling everything, they see no possibility but chaos and that terrifies them.

[MarkCharles]

2. Nice to see there is at least one evangelical leader who is

more concerned with reminding us of humanitarian values rather than something like pushing person-hood beginning at conception.

Of course, there had to be a couple of swipes at those who are NOT Christian, like Ayn Rand, (presumably an Atheist, so described as "anti-Christian"),whose writings were not AGAINST Christianity, but against too much government, what we generally refer to as "Libertarianism" or in her words "objectivism". She didn't write books about the evils of Christianity, she hardly ever mentions religions, and wanted a government that exerts less control and grants more freedoms to believers and non-believers alike.

Although I don't agree with Ayn Rand in the least, she was hardly "anti-Christian", she was an anti-government Libertarian.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. 'Rev' Dick Cizik is another anti equality bigot nothing more.

This monger of superstition based hate of one's neighbors not only supported and promoted the passage of Prop 8, he ran an ad in the NY Times accusing gay people of being bigoted against Mormons for opposing Prop 8. Liar, hypocrite, divisive and self interested con man.
No one can convince me that bigots are good people with 'values'. Sorry, not buying what you are selling.

[rug]

4. Who's selling?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Promoting, propagating, spreading, you pick the word...

He's a bigot. The thread is filled with 'one of them is sane' comments, and thus, his political activism against the GLBT community had to be noted.
He was a huge promoter of Prop 8, although technically he was not selling it he just promoted it. How do you feel about his actions in that regard?

[MarkCharles]

6. I learn something new every day. I had never heard of

this man and his writings before this article.

Thanks for the info.

[MarkCharles]

7. Looks as though this guy is quite controversial among evangelicals

"Richard Cizik resigned Wednesday night as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) during a week of growing uproar over his comments that he is shifting his views on same-sex unions.
"Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized, and affirmed our values, there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituencies," Leith Anderson, president of the NAE wrote to board members today. Cizik did not return calls for comment. Last year, more than two dozen evangelical leaders sought to oust Cizik, who worked at the NAE for 28 years, because of his "relentless campaign" on global warming."

'''

"In a short portion of the program, Gross asked him, "A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?"
Cizik responded, "I'm shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/decemberweb-only/150-42.0.html

Still a bigot concerning equality, but an opportunistic and controversial one, in evangelical circles, I guess.

[onager]

8. 100 years from now...

The Xians will be claiming they invented gay rights.

As Mark Twain and many others have noted: Xianity is almost always the last holdout when it comes to social progress, then the first in line to try and take credit when society finally makes progress.

[MarkCharles]

9. YES, I seem to recall some hell fire and brimstone pastors who

couldn't really get behind women's suffrage or "mixing of the races" through inter-racial marriage, just as so many today have a hard time with equality of all under the Constitution.

But now, no rational Christian pastor would argue against women voting, (except maybe as church "elders" of some churches), and few rational Christian (but SOME not-so-rational) organizations preach against the "mixing of the races" these days, either.

Of course, racism and misogyny is not exclusive to Christianity, other religions and even other non-believers have a hard time with race and women's equality.

[NMMNG]

11. They did get rid of slavery

It's only natural they'll be the ones who eradicated homophobia, when the time comes.