Why Don't Faith-Based Americans Care About Economics?

Townhall.com ^ | January 17, 2010 | Austin Hill

[Kaslin]

“…I only care about the moral issues…”

Have you ever heard this line before?

I heard it repeatedly on my radio talk show during the 2008 election cycle. Back then the Obama and McCain presidential candidacies were daily topics of conversation. And no matter what the issue was on any given day, there were those talk show callers who would make comments about Barack Obama’s enthusiasm for abortion and homosexual “civil unions,” or question John McCain’s “pro life” credentials.

In response, I would guide the conversation back to non-abortion and non-marriage related issues. “But what do you think of Barack Obama’s pledge to ‘spread the wealth around?’” I might ask. Or, “is John McCain right in his assertion that the financial crisis is all about ‘greed on Wall Street?’”

And to these questions - questions about economic policy issues - the answer I would hear was frequently the same: “I only care about the moral issues.”

Now, a year into the Obama presidency, I’m hoping that my fellow faith-based Americans are ready to acknowledge that economics is, itself, a “moral issue.” And I hope we’re all ready to start caring about it.

Some will be offended at my insinuation that maybe they don’t care about economics. Others will be perplexed by my use of the term “faith-based American.” Let me explain.

I’m talking here about that large, diverse bunch of us who, generally speaking, believe that the God of the Bible exists; believe in the moral precepts that emanate from the God of the Bible; believe that human beings are “made in the image of God;” and believe that our understanding of God can, and should, inform the ways in which we view the world.

As I’m defining it here, this group consists of, among others, a majority of America’s Evangelical Protestant Christians, a majority of American Mormons, some large of American Catholics, and at least some portion of American orthodox Jews.

Keen observers of politics may look at this definition and quickly conclude that I’m describing the “Christian right.” But I’m purposely avoiding the term “Christian right,” for at least a couple of reasons.

First, I’m not interested here in debating who is “really a Christian,” and who is not (that’s a theological debate, and I’m not arguing theology here). And furthermore, I’m not assuming that this “faith-based” category necessarily still leans to the political right. Indeed, many Evangelical Protestants, and many Catholics, people who may have had a prior track record of voting with the Republican Party, shifted gears during the 2008 election and voted for President Obama and the Democrats.

With this “faith-based American” category in mind, you may still be offended. “What does he mean that we don’t concern ourselves with economics?” some might ask in dismay.

So let me further clarify. Faith-based Americans frequently concern themselves with certain types of economic issues. I’ve observed plenty of evidence of this, just within the past couple of months.

In November I heard a Priest at a Catholic parish near my home, lamenting that the generosity shown to the poor at Christmas time doesn’t endure throughout the year. During a trip to Southern California in early December I heard the Reverend Chuck Booher of Corona, California’s gigantic “Crossroads Church” (think “mega church” with sporting arena seating) admonishing his audience to pay cash for Christmas gifts, and to remember that monetary debt leads to “spiritual” bondage. And while attending church with my in-laws in Santa Barbara after Christmas, I heard a guy named Britt Merrick, Pastor of a new church movement called, simply, “Reality” (yes, there is a church called “Reality” – do a web search if you don’t believe me), explaining that funding for the church’s new staffing and expansion had been developed before the expansion plans were executed. “To launch our new church without funding it first,” Pastor Merrick noted, “would be irresponsible.”

So, yes, faith-based Americans concern themselves with personal and private economic matters - “micro-economic” issues if you will - and they connect their faith to these issues. But this not the same as connecting one’s faith with economic public policy, or “macro-economic issues.”

But why would anyone care about something so “dry” and boring as macro-economics? How about a government that has spent itself so far in to debt that it threatens to send the value of our American dollar plummeting, and interest rates into double-digit territory? How about a government that is secretively crafting legislation to allegedly “reform” American healthcare, but will likely impose new taxes on the health insurance policy that you already have a difficult time affording? How about a government that pays banks to “assist” borrowers who are late on loan payments, while the banks ignore the needs of people who pay bills on time and have good credit?

These are only a few of the dilemmas that we face as Americans right now, and they are “moral dilemmas.” And connecting the ancient wisdom of the Bible to the dilemmas of our global, information-based economy can be a challenge – but that’s why my co-author Scott Rae and I wrote a book on the subject.

So – are you a “faith-based American?” And are you ready to start caring about yet another “moral issue?”

[bert]

It is tunnel vision.

The focus is so tight that nothing peripheral is seen. If the only thing in sight is not really important, other issue will never register because it doesn’t exist because it is not seen.

It happens here 24/7/365

[freedumb2003]

Yes, we have many “I ain’t gonna support no Gol-durn abortion and fag-marriage supporting RINO!!” here.

I call them “obama supporters” since their attitude (and especially voting or lack thereof) resulted in obama AND his reichstag getting the win which is causing us to lose our country.

[BelegStrongbow]

I have been making these exact points since the middle of ‘08, but most people just stare. They say I’m just being selfish and way too harsh into the bargain.

The problem is that many Americans have been convinced that supporting social needs via taxation is the same thing as charity, so they give less to the Church and don’t mind paying their taxes. So, the government gets the money and controls which people in need are helped and the Church withers away because its social role has been usurped.

[Tribune7]

Or, “is John McCain right in his assertion that the financial crisis is all about ‘greed on Wall Street?’”

It's about greed in Washington.

A social liberal/fiscal conservative is far more likely going to end up not being a fiscal conservative than a social conservative/fiscal conservative.

[1rudeboy]

There ya' go . . . how some people come to the conclusion that having money taken from them by force is equivalent to giving money of their own free will is mystifying. And when their money taken by force is then given to someone else, the government is assumed to be acting in a "moral" fashion.

I really can't figure them out, it has to be tunnel vision.

[Tribune7]

Yes, we have many “I ain’t gonna support no Gol-durn abortion and fag-marriage supporting RINO!!” here. I call them “obama supporters” since their attitude (and especially voting or lack thereof) resulted in obama AND his reichstag getting the win which is causing us to lose our country.

It's far more often the other way around. The David Brooks and Michael Smerconishes of the world did not want to associate wit the Sarah Palins; and actually were snowed into thinking Obama was fiscally sane.

Obama won the Wall Street crowd remember, and largely because of his stand on social issues.

[freedumb2003]

>>It’s far more often the other way around. <<

Perhaps, but that wasn’t my point.

[UCFRoadWarrior]

A social liberal/fiscal conservative is far more likely going to end up not being a fiscal conservative than a social conservative/fiscal conservative.

---

Good point.....I find that those who call themselves “fiscal conservatives” turn out to be neither.

Considering what “fiscan conservatives” support, on economics: Free Trade, bank and business bailouts with taxpayer funds, taxes on US wealth but not foreign wealth, using tax revenues to pay companies to ship jobs out of America (USAID, etc)...I find the fiscal conservatives neither fiscal nor conservative.

Also, social conservatives are more likely to be fiscal conservatives than so-called fiscal conservatives.

[HiramQuick]

This is overgeneralization stereotyping claptrap. I consider myelf a part of a large faith based org. and never have I heard the statement the author proposes. He sights “talk radio” ... could he please be a bit more specific and give examples and from a particular host. Talk radio is huge.

It is like saying the internet is full of anarchists. Oh really, please give me the sites. I’m sure they exist. The connotation in that statement is that that is the only thing the internet has for content.

Perhaps the tunnel vision exists in some groups, I can’t speak for them nor do I know of any. But my lack of knowledge of them does not mean they don’t exist, any more than the author’s statement that faith based orgs are singular issue groups.

Poorly written, unidentifiable facts seem to permeate all writers these days. Nothing wrong with stating opinion, but have the courtesy of telling why you believe what you believe. But then again, facts have a silly tendency to get in the way.

My reality of those I associate with is a very balanced view of economics, national defense, and not what the government can do, but what we as Christians must do.

But then again, I never believed that the color yellow exists, It has always been red.

[Blue Collar Christian]

“The problem is that many Americans have been convinced that supporting social needs via taxation is the same thing as charity, so they give less to the Church and don’t mind paying their taxes. So, the government gets the money and controls which people in need are helped and the Church withers away because its social role has been usurped.”

YES! That is the “I gave at the office” attitude prevalent in our society. To truly know your “charity” giving is effective, you have to put TIME into you giving also. Time into research, time into service, and time into follow up to oversee accountability.

We as a society have become too selfish to give up any of our time to see to the care of the “needy” and have left the job to bureaucrats who, for lack of personal investment, direct the care down pipelines that lead to the abyss of a social worker profession that does nothing to cure the need for its payroll.

[ridesthemiles]

Ask them if they can buy a house with ‘moral issues’.
Ask them if they can write a check at the grocery store with ‘moral issues’.

Or buy a car.

Or pay college tuition.

Or pay for the cost of that new baby who is about to be born.

I have lots of people who don’t want to talk politics at all, and say it does not apply to them.

This is beyond tunnel vision. It is deliberately avoiding issues.

[Altura Ct.]

I think this is a great point but I would suggest not just financial considerations to be thought of but other considerations as well. There is no doubt that this 100% unrestrained emotive drive that many act can be dangerous. Compassion is an awesome & necessary human trait. But unrestrained compassion/emotiveness ignores certain realities of which financial concerns are certainly one. Also pretending that all humans are altruistic or that we all the same. Compassion is certainly one of the better parts that makes us human but devoid of reason is a path to destruction and chaos. Like putting 30 people in a lifeboat that will only hold 25. Like destroying countries to feel good i.e. Rhodesia because it made some feel good to do something about the evil oppressors and yet turned it into a third world shit hole in about ~35 years. Took one of the most prosperous African or for that matter countries anywhere and destroyed it. Like insisting we must allow for massive invasion into this country or bringing tens if not hundreds of thousands of Haitians here.

[Tribune7]

Or buy a car. Or pay college tuition. Or pay for the cost of that new baby who is about to be born.

If you put moral issues first paying for those things becomes a whole lot easier.

[Arthur McGowan]

Guess what. If more people WERE single-issue voters, and voted pro-life, almost every one of the big spenders, big taxers, and anti-Constitutionalists would out of office.

Vote pro-abortion, and you are voting to destroy EVERYTHING that is good.

[Graybeard58]

All issues, including economics, have a relationship to morality or immorality.

[Graybeard58]

So, the government gets the money and controls which people in need are helped and the Church withers away because its social role has been usurped.

I believe that is one of the main goals of the left.

[bert]

If..... If pigs could fly, ham would be very expensive

[BikerJoe]

There ya' go . . . how some people come to the conclusion that having money taken from them by force is equivalent to giving money of their own free will is mystifying. And when their money taken by force is then given to someone else, the government is assumed to be acting in a "moral" fashion.

...and don't forget the "handling fee" kept by the government...what is it for welfare, like 70%?

You are also correct in observing that it's not really "charity" if they can send people with guns to your house to collect it.

[mad_as_he$$]

Many years ago I worked with a wonderful women who was a devoted Catholic. One day the conversation wandered around to the living condition of many kids in this world. She was steadfast in her position that as long as their soul was saved the condition of their life on Earth did not mater. I was stunned beyond words. It ok with her if kids lived in squalor and filth with uncaring parents as long as they were Catholic. Never discussed it again with her. I see many “conservatives” who seem to feel the same way and do not understand that a free market gives people opportunity to be fulfilled and let them raise kids in a safe and cared for manner which helps all future generations be safer and have better lives.