Obama meets with Circle of Protection leaders (Wallis, et al)

[Recursion]

From the Sojourners email:

Today, I alongside other faith leaders met with President Obama about the critical budget debate. We are grateful and hopeful leaving this meeting. Please pray for us as the conversation continues.

Since early this spring, Sojourners, with your invaluable help, has strongly advocated with the president and Congress, asking for a responsible plan to reduce our nation’s deficit -- a plan that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. We have asked, “What Would Jesus Cut?” We have prayed and fasted, and now thousands of you have signed on to the Circle of Protection: a statement on why we need to protect programs for the poor.

The president and Congress are engaged in an intense debate over the national budget -- with an upcoming vote on raising our national debt ceiling being used as a tool in a political and ideological battle. The result? Programs for the poor and vulnerable are caught in the middle. But risking our social safety net for political advantage isn’t just irresponsible -- it’s immoral.

It is important to magnify our message to the president with thousands of citizens across the country. Our political leaders need to hear from those who will be affected by these proposed spending cuts -- real people who are struggling, some of whom are poor; families, children, and the elderly.

Will probably be up on the blog soon, but it isn't yet.

[pscot]

1. What does the deficit have to do with religion?

[Recursion]

2. Public spending has everything to do with religion (nt)

[trotsky]

3. That's what the right wingers say too, oddly enough.

Considering Christians have had 2000 years to settle their differences but have only succeeded in splitting and fracturing more and more, perhaps we would do better to base our policy decisions on something other than one particular reading of an incredibly contradictory religious text?

[Recursion]

4. I love someone with the screen name of Trotsky talking about splitting and fracturing on the *right*

But, you have a point

[trotsky]

5. If my username had anything to do with the historical Trotsky, yup, it would be funny.

But it doesn't, so it isn't.

[pscot]

6. Sorry! I commentted off the headline

Having now actually read the piece (hangs head) I understand your post.

[skepticscott]

7. So why the cowardly euphemism

"faith leaders"? They're religious leaders. Why are they afraid to call themselves that? What the freak is a "faith leader" anyway?

[onager]

8. Uh...because it sounds better than "pompous ignoramuses?"

n/t

[Recursion]

9. Well, not all people with faith participate in a religion (nt)

[trotsky]

10. Then how could they be a "leader"? n/t

[Recursion]

11. By organizing petitions like this? (nt)

[trotsky]

12. So they don't belong to an organization, but they organize.

Got it.

[Recursion]

13. Who said they don't belong to an organization?

I think they're all on the board of Sojourners.

[trotsky]

14. Okey dokey.

If you think so. I still think if it's wrong for the right wing to do it, it should be wrong for the left wing as well. I guess a liberal theocracy would be a little more tolerant... for awhile.

[Recursion]

15. You think it's wrong for religious groups to voice political opinions?

*shrug* Glad you didn't convince MLK of that.

[trotsky]

16. Did I say that?

Nope.

[skepticscott]

17. And is that the case for all of the people mentioned here?

And all of the people getting government handouts for "faith-based" initiatives?