From an article By J. Weisman/A. Cooperman:
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."
Hmm. But not as important, eh?
Barack Obama, US Senator from Illinois, and author/activist Jim Wallis have both observed, as it seems inconsistent with the Christian pro-life stance, that conservative-republican-God-fearin' evangelicals subscribe to a social darwinism once the baby gets out of the womb. They happily cut the umbilical cord and the programs that would help that now-born child stay alive, and develop a life. I like "pro-out-of-the-womb" as more consistent with their policies. It sounds like, as Wallis has said, republican christians are comfortable balancing our country's budget on the backs of the poor. Jesus wouldn't stand for that.