Dobson’s right, it is a matter of priorities

The WaPo had a must-read item highlighting the religious right movement’s highly-selective attention span. It helps further underscore the value differences between the religious right and religious left.

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?

Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.

“It’s not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important,” said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson’s influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. “But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.”

At first blush, this may sound like a vaguely compelling argument. With many religious ministries, a hierarchy of priorities develops and some initiatives generate more attention than others. With the Roman Catholic Church, for example, there’s staunch opposition to abortion and the death penalty — we may hear more about the prior, but that doesn’t make the latter untrue.

But the comments from Focus’ Hetrick are shallow and little more than defensive spin. Dobson & Co. can take an active role in opposing abortion rights, but they’ve also made it abundantly clear that the plight of families in poverty is of no interest whatsoever.

Consider some specific examples.

On the website for Dobson’s Focus on the Family, there are nearly three dozen pages that reference the “death tax” (what Republicans call the estate tax). In each instance, Focus wants the tax, which only affects millionaires, repealed entirely.

In contrast, there are half as many references to food stamps on Dobson’s site, and nearly all mention the most effective anti-hunger program in American history in a negative context. Such as:

Our welfare system, in the aftermath of the Great Society programs, rendered millions of men superfluous. Indeed, government assistance to women and children was reduced or denied when a father was present in the home. Food stamps put groceries in the pantry.

Focus isn’t worried about whether the food-stamp program is being cut (it is); it’s worried that the anti-hunger program undermines a man’s role as head of a household.

Indeed, Focus’ “news” page includes an extensive set of links along the left side where visitors can learn about the organization’s perspective on “family” issues, including all the hot-button political controversies you’d expect from any religious right group: abstinence, abortion, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, school vouchers, pornography, gambling, and of course, “gay activism.”

You’ll notice that there are no links for poverty or hunger, because that’s not part of the conservative agenda. Dobson, like his cohorts, isn’t committed to a religious agenda per se, but rather a rigid ideological agenda that borrows parts of Scripture that are politically convenient. It is, as Focus told the Post, “a matter of priorities,” and they’ve decided that feeding the hungry and tending to the sick aren’t on the list.

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today’s protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders “have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees,” he said. “They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They’re being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.”

I think the religious right knows this; I just don’t think the groups or its members care.

The article you link to quotes the Family Research Council saying:
“There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact. But it does not say government should do it. That’s a shifting of responsibility.”

What an unbelievable hack. They care about the poor, but they’ll let the market work on it. If the market fails, oh well, we have homos to attack. Sick.

  • In theory, this should be a great wedge issue. Regardless of how despicable the religious right is in the national political arena, at the ground level many of its “foot soldiers” do admirable work in their communities ministering to the poor. I’ve had conversations–often, but not always, arguments–with more than a few of them, and I can say with confidence that they’re at least sincere in the notion that “community” is better positioned to help the poor than is government. (They have no counter to my argument that only government has the resources to push for systemic change AND to render aid in the most efficient way, but that’s not the point here.)

    I think the problem with the Dobsons and Falwells, and those of similarly mean-spirited mindset, is that just as they see homosexuality as a choice that arises out of one’s inner moral want, they share the social Darwinism–ironic, I know–of those free-market fundamentalists who blame the poor for their poverty. It just fits neatly with their conception of God. Why the obvious disconnect between this worldview and the actual language of the Bible–where poverty seems a much bigger deal than gays–doesn’t bother them, I’m not sure. The quote Brian notes above comes across as almost Clintonian, though…

  • Their version of Christianity, there way.

    It sort of reminds me of an argument I had with may brother when he was in law school. It was when David Duke was running for something. We both agreed that Duke as Senator or governor would be disasterous, but because I didn’t agree with him on the exact reasons and only those reasons I was wrong….. I had to tell him to shut up in a rather loud voice.

    I have begun to think that their agenda is only partly about Christianity anyway. Really it is about their power, specifically over the GOP, ego, fame.

  • The difference in “priorities” between the various religious groups is easy to explain or, put differently, one explanation seems to suggest itself here.

    The religious right gave itself to the GOP’s corporate masters (i.e., promised to give religious sanction to anything the GOP did), I suspect, in return for promises of compulsory national religion. Imagine the profits for Falwell and Dobson when church/state are the same, when everyone has to tithe, go to religious theme parks, and buy religious souvenier junk to prove to the religious thought police that one is “religious enough.” We should always remember that religion, like any business, is amoral. Its purpose is profits.

    Where’s the profit in taking care of the poor? Fuck them.

  • I forgot to add after the “amoral” bit that Christianity has nothing to do with it. It never has. To call the religious right “unbiblical” is true, but it’s a characterization without consequence. The church business will never be Christian because, even assuming there is such a thing as “Christian values,” the only values that matter are those that enable profits.

  • And if good Christians can help the poor via their local churches then where is the incentive to contribute $$$ to a nation-wide advocacy group?

    Is it better in a financial sense for an advocacy group to represent the interests of the poor or those who will be hit by the estate tax? Which group will contribute more to the advocacy group? Easy question.

  • This only shows that these conservatives are hypocrites. As a catholic, I am a firm supporter of the consistent ethic of life, the seamless garment, which unites opposition to abortion with opposition to unjust war, and to poverty. Nobody put in better than the document from the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium Et Spes:

    “The varieties of crime are numerous: all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where people are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.”

    Sadly, a lot of catholics have entered an unholy alliance with Dobson and his cronies, and seem to have forgotten this core message.

    Tony.

  • Our welfare system, in the aftermath of the Great Society programs, rendered millions of men superfluous. Indeed, government assistance to women and children was reduced or denied when a father was present in the home. Food stamps put groceries in the pantry.

    Focus isn’t worried about whether the food-stamp program is being cut (it is); it’s worried that the anti-hunger program undermines a man’s role as head of a household.

    I love your site but I think you hurt yourself when you go overboard.

    The quote you site DOES NOT support your statment that Dobson is concerned about a man’s role as head of a household. The quote supports Dobson’s concern of having a father present in the home.

    I think that is a significant difference and allows people who disagree with you to dismiss the point you are making as coming from an unfairly biased person.

    You have the facts on your side. Don’t weaken those facts by overstating your conclusions.

  • Dobson, Falwell, Robertson are nothing but millionaire crooks robbing poor old ladies of their nickels and dimes. If their is a hell they will all burn. Their only care is raising money for themselves.

  • The quote you site DOES NOT support your statment that Dobson is concerned about a man’s role as head of a household. The quote supports Dobson’s concern of having a father present in the home.

    Neil, you raise a good point. My assertion was made after reading the entire Dobson piece from which I used one paragraph. I felt comfortable with the description of Dobson’s thoughts on family structure after reading additional thoughts from the longer essay including the idea that it’s a man’s responsibility to “build a home”; men are supposed to “providers and protectors”; and women are dependent on marriage to a man for her “self-esteem, contentment, and fulfillment.”

    But as for the paragraph I used, without the larger context, your point is well taken.

  • I think you all are missing the point of the “food stamps” quote. It’s not about “head of household”, and it’s not about “having a man present” either.

    The reason Dobson doesn’t like food stamps is that food stamps and AFDC undermines the man’s AUTHORITY, his ability to impose his iron will on his personal property– his “little people”–, to greenmail them with “my way or the highway, or else you’ll all starve to death! Muaaahaaha!”

    Indeed read some social history; that’s the way it was in the Bad Old Days. Any woman alive today above a certain age (or even some young ones still, too, sadly) who has been trapped in a nightmare, abusive marriage just because they had no skills or ability to support their children in the work world (or who just didn’t want to stick them in daycare), would find Dobson’s statement disgusting and even ominous and threatening. It’s not a chador or a burkah– yet– but it’s chilling just the same.

    The “food stamps” quote reveals what the American Taliban is all about. They are tired of the state taking away a Man’s God-Given Role as Absolute Lord and Master of his Property and Progeny. Cane your children, keep the little woman barefoot and pregnant (don’t dare let them earn their own money– that’s the work of Satan!)… that’s what I hear when these guys speak. I’ve never had much love for the feminists but I can see why so many of them are scared to death of these Taliban whackos.

    Even progressives sometimes forget how much cover the modern state provides for so many people, and how recent this development is. These programs are not just economic, they also have a political effect: bringing not just money but POWER to those who were weak and disenfranchised in a “traditional” world: the elderly, minorities, women, and children. I’m quite happy about this, but I’m not surprised to see the Christian White Males in the Dobson contingent doing everything in their power to stop it.

  • It really does underscore the absolute hypocrisy of the “religious right”. They really don’t espouse the true spirit of Christianity – or any legitimate religion, for that matter. It’s all about selfish, politically-driven motives that ultimately will put more money in their pockets. They’re frauds, plain and simple. But many people are just too ignorant to figure that out.

    As P.T. Barnum allegedly (the originator of the quote is disputed, but I digress…) put it over 100 years ago, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Some of the more prominent of the religious right know this very well and they exploit it for all it’s worth. And it IS worth a LOT!

  • You people all forget that God demonstrates who is one of “the elect” by granting them success in this life. The poor are poor because they are sinners, and that’s the lot of sinners.

    It’s just simple 17th century Puritanism, later evoked as “The Protestant Ethic” that underlies capitalism.

    The fact it’s utter bullshit is irrelevant.

  • “When I fed the poor they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry they called me a Communist.”

    – Dom Helder Camara

    Too many people don’t understand the difference between charity and justice.

  • In re: the religious right’s concern with abortion ahead of caring for the poor….

    I’m reminded of the comment (from Barney Frank, I think) that for Dobson et. al. their concern for life starts with abortion and ends at birth.

    My favorite slogan is: the religious right is neither.

  • What I find troubling about the so-called religious right is not the hypocrisy. After all, that is in our nature. I find fur coats disturbing, but I eat read meat and have leather furniture… 😉

    What I find disturbing is that that these groups seem to never call on their members to take the difficult path. Rather you accept him as the Messiah or not, Jesus did not ask us to do what is easy, he asked us to do what he said God felt was right.

    Get your members all fired up about ‘baby killing’, no problem. Get them all fired up about felon killing? Funny thing though, Jesus spoke clearly about the latter but not the former.

    Similiarly, it is easy to get your followers irate about the display of the 10 Commandments in public places, but what about getting them fired up about public officials breaking them? The last time I checked, homosexual sex was not on the list, but bearing false witness does.

    Repeating lies for powerful friends is easy, but where in the New Testament does Christ ask us to take the easy path? I seem to recall some warnings that following what comes naturally to us, lust, greed, hypocricy, moral smugness (three parables touch on that one), takes us away from God’s grace.

    Seriously, I can understand the appeal of someone telling you what you already want to hear and that you are blessed for it. But I find it surreal that some people, down to their bones, feel that Jesus would support politics of division, persecution, and hate. Or, that he would applaud policies that reward the wealthy and persecute the poor. I won’t even touch the idea of a pre-emptive war launched under false pretenses that has killed 100,000 people and plunged many more into desperate poverty.

    -jjf

  • Comments are closed.