Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Earlier this week a coalition of dozens of progressive Christian leaders led by Jim Wallis of Sojourners launched a campaign, "What would Jesus cut?" with a full-page ad in Monday's edition of Politico, and the group is following it up by sending e-mails and orange wristlets with the slogan to all members of Congress in an effort to prevent cuts for the poor and reduce defense spending

As a recent Pew survey showed, evangelical Christians in particular are significantly more likely than other Americans to favor spending cuts on aid to poor people in the United States and overseas, and cuts on spending on behalf of the unemployed, environmental protection, scientific research, health care and education.

"I would say that we need an ongoing biblical dialogue with my brother and sister evangelicals," is how Ron Sider diplomatically phrased his reaction to the survey.

Shane Claiborne of The Simple Way, another speaker at Thursday's press conference, was more direct:

"I think that much of evangelical Christianity has lost the centeredness of Jesus and Jesus' heart for the poor and Jesus' Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount," he said. "We're starting with Christians because in some ways we've forgotten the 2,000 [Bible] verses that dare us and challenge us to remember the poor."

Likewise, Gideon Strauss, president of Center for Public Justice, seemed to reject the philosophy of the tea party movement -- which surveys show is disproportionately composed of conservative white evangelicals -- when he declared Thursday that "those who disdain government and the political process dishonor God and their own humanity."

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/03 ... ans-and-e/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ivytalk wrote:Jim Wallis led it. Nothing more needs to be said. Move along.

Ivytalk wrote:Jim Wallis led it. Nothing more needs to be said. Move along.

dbackjon wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Jim Wallis led it. Nothing more needs to be said. Move along.

Most Christian Leaders could stand to take some lessons from Jim Wallace...

SDHornet wrote:It’s thinking outlined in the article above which makes me thank God that the founding fathers put in a “separation of church and state” clause in the first amendment.

citdog wrote:

SDHornet wrote:It’s thinking outlined in the article above which makes me thank God that the founding fathers put in a “separation of church and state” clause in the first amendment.

the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution of the 'late united states'. you have "'s around a passage that does not exist.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Jim Wallis led it. Nothing more needs to be said. Move along.

Except if you read the article it talks about the evangelical movement as a whole citing numerous leaders about the issue.

SDHornet wrote:

citdog wrote:
the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution of the 'late united states'. you have "'s around a passage that does not exist.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... ted_States
You are correct, and that is why it is a clause. You can't tell me you read the above quote and then claim it isn't clearly stating that it isn't inferring separation of church and state. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

citdog wrote:the 1st protects against the establishment of an "official" religion. Article VI states that no test be required to hold office. the Constitution says what it says. no inferring is EVER "necessary and proper" if it doesn't say it....it does not exist.

SDHornet wrote:

citdog wrote:the 1st protects against the establishment of an "official" religion. Article VI states that no test be required to hold office. the Constitution says what it says. no inferring is EVER "necessary and proper" if it doesn't say it....it does not exist.

Thereby keeping state and religion (church) separate.

SDHornet wrote:

citdog wrote:
the words separation of church and state appear nowhere in the Constitution of the 'late united states'. you have "'s around a passage that does not exist.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... ted_States
You are correct, and that is why it is a clause. You can't tell me you read the above quote and then claim it isn't clearly stating that it isn't inferring separation of church and state. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

kalm wrote:Question for you christian conks: What would Jesus cut?

LeadBolt wrote:Christians are commanded to help the poor, the orphans and the widows, from their own abundance. No where are they commanded to stick their hand in someone else's pocket to do so.

I support government programs to provide a safety net, but I'm not sure of the morality of taking from one person under the compulsion of the law to give to another.

This one presents a moral dilemma.

LeadBolt wrote:Christians are commanded to help the poor, the orphans and the widows, from their own abundance. No where are they commanded to stick their hand in someone else's pocket to do so.

I support government programs to provide a safety net, but I'm not sure of the morality of taking from one person under the compulsion of the law to give to another.

This one presents a moral dilemma.

Grizalltheway wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:Christians are commanded to help the poor, the orphans and the widows, from their own abundance. No where are they commanded to stick their hand in someone else's pocket to do so.

I support government programs to provide a safety net, but I'm not sure of the morality of taking from one person under the compulsion of the law to give to another.

This one presents a moral dilemma.

Are Christians (catholics in particular) who give money to an organization that knowingly and willfully defends pedophiles faced with a moral dilemma? Food for thought.

GannonFan wrote:Seriously, man, are you just new to the debate? You really think that the separation of church is state is that cut and dry? Have you read anything on the issue other than the wiki page?

LeadBolt wrote:Christians are commanded to help the poor, the orphans and the widows, from their own abundance. No where are they commanded to stick their hand in someone else's pocket to do so.

I support government programs to provide a safety net, but I'm not sure of the morality of taking from one person under the compulsion of the law to give to another.

This one presents a moral dilemma.

kalm wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:Christians are commanded to help the poor, the orphans and the widows, from their own abundance. No where are they commanded to stick their hand in someone else's pocket to do so.

I support government programs to provide a safety net, but I'm not sure of the morality of taking from one person under the compulsion of the law to give to another.

This one presents a moral dilemma.

I took a trip to Seattle on interstate highways, rode on a ferry system overseen by the DHS, ate a USDA inspected steak, and took FDA approved medications. How much do I need to put back in yours and Hogan's pocket? And can I, in turn petition Exxon, Haliburton, BofA, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul for the money they took out of mine?

I agree its a moral dilemma and I'm all for welfare reform. But I'm not so sure Jesus was a libertarian.

SDHornet wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Seriously, man, are you just new to the debate? You really think that the separation of church is state is that cut and dry? Have you read anything on the issue other than the wiki page?

Nope. Read Amendment 1 and decided no more info is needed.