Although this may be a more loving prayer, it is so vague and unspecific that it would be meaningless to many. Yet, I have also heard prayers such as this.
I can imagine nationalist prayers that would insist on our complete loyalty to our president, even when he is lying and covering up treasonous or illegal or immoral activities. Do we really want to be saying state-sponsored prayers that keep us from questioning Watergate? Or the Iran–Contra illegal deals? Or the prison abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay?
What about classrooms where most of the students are not Christian but Jewish, or Buddhist or Muslim, or not religious at all? Does the majority rule? Will we all be asked to chant or will the non-Christians be forced to pray “in Jesus’ name”?
Luis Palau, an evangelical preacher who is close to Billy Graham, bristles at the coarseness of these calls for absolute power. Palau is concerned about the ways this influential Republican Christian group belittles homosexuals, “effete” intellectuals and secular humanists. Palau says, “If we become called to Christ, we will build an effective nation through personal ethics. When you lead a life of purity, when you respect your wife and are good to your family, when you don’t waste money gambling and womanizing, you begin to work for better schools, for more protection and safety from your community. All change, historically, comes from the bottom up.”19
Other evangelical Christians are equally concerned about this movement. Former Senator Mark Pryor, an evangelical Christian, says, “It is presumptuous of them [the Christian Right] to think they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians.”20
C. S. Lewis, the Protestant writer and theologian, said he believed in democracy “because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people [want democracy] for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people … who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true.… I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people.… The real reason for democracy is … Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”21
Upholding True Conservative Values
Jesus was both conservative and liberal. A conservative value that Jesus affirmed was the value of accountability and responsibility. Leaders are to rule justly, not be beholden to the rich, the powerful, or the influential. Justice transcends political parties.
Both political parties have had a number of presidents, and members of Congress, who have lied, deceived, and tried to get away with breaking laws. It is a right and righteous act to hold these people accountable. In these circumstances, unfortunately, instead of truth-telling, blaming became the focus of the discussions.
The Bible also begins with a commandment that none of the prophets, nor Jesus nor Paul, have overturned—the commandment to tend the environment that God has given us. Although this is a conservative value, it has been adopted by those considered liberals. We are asked to conserve, preserve, and care for the world. Noah went to considerable trouble, under God’s command, to make sure that the animals didn’t become extinct. Jesus extols the beauty of the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, telling us that God will care for us, as He cares for nature. If there is one Christian value that should transcend political parties, it should be our care for the environment.
There is a great deal said about money in the Bible—much of it about giving money to the poor and about letting our money work for us.22 Our country rarely follows these values—spending more than it has, not caring enough for the needy, only rarely creating surpluses.
We love money. It defines us as powerful and comfortable and important. We use it to gain political favor and to increase our clout. We spend it easily. We deny it to some, give a great deal of it to others. We hide and waste a great deal of it. Elections are often funded by the very rich exerting considerable control over the outcome, far out of proportion to their numbers.
Have we been good stewards of our money? The Republican Party used to be considered the party of fiscal responsibility, but this has not been true since the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. President Reagan ran up the national debt to historic proportions, followed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
Fiscal responsibility is usually considered a conservative value, although the Democratic Party has been more fiscally responsible than the Republican Party for more than thirty-five years. From 1981, when Reagan’s first budget took effect, until 1993, when Bill Clinton became president, the Republicans ballooned the debt. Part of the debt under Clinton was 2.2 trillion dollars of interest because of the Reagan–Bush debt. Clinton left a surplus of about 523 billion dollars by the end of his term. Economists projected that at the rate we were going, we could pay off the entire national debt by 2012. But George W. Bush stopped this process and again ran up the debt.
When George Bush took office, the House was Democratic and the Senate was split 50–50. The Congress suggested a budget that was 20 billion dollars less than what Bush requested. George Bush then ran up the debt because of the two wars that he began and his tax cuts which mainly benefited the rich. George W. Bush took control of the budget on October 1, 2001 when the debt was 5.8 trillion dollars, and his last budget year ended October 1, 2009, leaving the next president, Barack Obama, with a debt of 11.9 trillion dollars. Since Obama’s first budget in 2009, the debt has continued to grow, partly because of the recession which began under Bush, partly because of the interest on the debt, and entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. If Bush had not taken us into two expensive wars, we would have had a surplus and we would have been able to pay for the social programs that have suffered many cuts in the last few years.23
It is estimated that the policies of the 2016 Republican candidates would balloon the debt, favor the wealthy, and further cut social programs. All of the major candidates believe their policies would stimulate the economy by giving money to the wealthy, which would create jobs, and the money would trickle down to the middle class. This is called “trickle down economics,” and during the last 35 years it’s been proven wrong.
Pope Francis has denounced this “trickle down” economic theory on moral grounds and sees it as part of an overall policy that puts money above people. Certainly, it favors the rich and diminishes the importance of the poor.
According to the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Tax Foundation, Donald Trump would swell the National Debt by 10–12 trillion and the “richest 1% would receive a 27% increase in their incomes.” Trump’s idea to complete the wall between Mexico and the United States is estimated to cost over 12 billion and perhaps as much as 15–25 billion dollars. It would then take another 750 million a year to maintain the wall and another 1.4 billion dollars to add the necessary border patrol personnel. Trump intends to have Mexico pay twelve billion dollars to build the wall, something they couldn’t afford. He would threaten to change our trade agreements if they didn’t, which would leave Mexico even poorer and Mexicans more desperate and more eager to emigrate. This is not feasible for improved international relations nor for helping the poor and dispossessed.24
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to increase the taxes for the wealthy, who are often defined as those in the top one-tenth of 1% or 1% of the population, or sometimes defined as those making more than $250,000 a year.
The plans of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz would add between 768 billion and 12 trillion dollars to the National Debt over the next decade, and both these plans would favor the most wealthy.25
The
