This new religious left does not expend its political energies on the cultural concerns that primarily motivate conservative evangelicals. Instead, working mostly at the state and local level, and often in lockstep with unions, its ministers, priests, rabbis, and laity exert a major, sometimes decisive, influence in campaigns to enforce a "living wage," to help unions organize, and to block the expansion of nonunionized businesses like Wal-Mart.Sounds pretty much like a praise - instead of just arguing about morals and culture, the above mentioned religious left actually does something to fight poverty, inequality and injustice. But is it really so?(Source)
WSJ may try to present the right to life and family values as mere "cultural concerns", which aren't worth the efforts when there are other issues to deal with. Yet fighting for social justice without noticing that the most vulnerable among us are denied their basic human right - the right to life, would be quite inconsistent, wouldn't it? If we deny justice to unborn babies - how can we expect justice and compassion for grown-ups?
And if you still think that fighting poverty is more important than fighting abortions - think again. If we don't challenge the notion that individual's comfort and wealth are so important that they're worth sacrificing the life of individual's own baby, then wouldn't it be naive to expect the very same individual to sacrifice some of his comfort and wealth for the sake of mere strangers? Like it or not, but you can't fight poverty without defending the unborn.
Neither can you fight poverty without defending traditional family. It's a fact: children are better off when raised by both a mother and a father. It's a fact: strong mother-and-father families have the lowest poverty rates. It's a fact: mutual support in the time of hardship is essential for a family which strives to recover financially. And it's a fact, that a vast majority of the unions (if not all of them) adhere to anti-family policies and offer their support to various pro-abortion, anti-marriage and anti-family groups. Thus, by supporting unions, the religious left is in fact perpetuating poverty.
So what kind of religious leaders are those? WSJ mentions ministers, priests and rabbis, not some daydreaming teens who simply don't have the life experience to see beyond the fancy words. Those are people who should know the difference between right and wrong, but choose to pretend there's no right or wrong. Instead of loving the sinner, yet fighting the sin, they believe that loving the sinner means ignoring the sin. They see the injustice, but unwilling to call it an injustice. They pretend to fight poverty, but all their efforts at the very best go nowhere (but most likely - just harm their cause). In other words - those are hypocrites.
1 comment:
Nicely said, Leonard.I particularly liked these two forthright statements.
"Like it or not, but you can't fight poverty without defending the unborn.
"Neither can you fight poverty without defending traditional family. It's a fact: children are better off when raised by both a mother and a father."
I'm afraid such logic still escapes far too many religious leaders of all stripes.
Post a Comment