Earlier today, Democrats in Congress introduced legislation to raise the federal minimum wage, from $7.25 (the paltry amount it has been stuck at for almost 15 years) to $15. This is an admirable number, if still over a dollar below most estimates of a living wage rate in America. The legislation in Congress also rolls out this policy at an absurdly slow rate.
Nevertheless, Congress should pass, and Joe Biden should sign, this common sense legislation immediately. Of course, it won’t, because Republicans are strongly opposed to any policy that helps working people, even as they continue to push policies that would shovel money into the pockets of corporations and wealthy people.
As this debate begins, I just wanted to share this chart from Kevin Drum, showing where the US ranks amongst other nations in terms of our minimum wage, and where we would be if we raised it to $15.
Raising the minimum wage is an easy, common sense way to help out regular, working people. It would do as much, if not more, good than many other, much more complicated fiscal policy ideas. Nothing helps working people and families more than simply putting money in their pockets and letting them making choices about they spend it.
And as for the claim that raising the minimum wage would destroy businesses in America, it simply suffices to say that that is just not true, and it only takes about 5 seconds of Googling and reading to understand that. And, frankly, if a business can’t afford to pay their workers enough to actually live on, then that business maybe needs a dramatic rethinking.
There’s this persistent fear on the Right that liberal Democrats are always just moments away from somehow banning prayer/church/Christianity. Its a refrain we hear often from conservative Christian politicians during election campaigns, that their opponents want to criminalize prayer, or ban the practice of Christianity, or some other over the top, completely false insanity about the supposed death of religious freedom in America at the hands of the godless Left.
Joe Biden restricting religious freedom attending St. Michael’s Catholic Church on Inauguration Day.
This rhetoric has, predictably, heated up quite a bit since Joe Biden was elected President. Amongst the very irresponsible and inflammatory things conservative thought leaders have been pitching to their base in an attempt to stoke panic and fear is the idea that Joe Biden – a devout, church going Catholic, a man whose experience of faith far outstrips that of his predecessor – is going to sign an executive order greatly restricting religious freedom, especially that of conservative and evangelical Christians.
Of course, the Covid-19 public health measures being implemented don’t help tamp down this fearmongering, as many states around the country have made the common sense decision to restrict large gatherings, which of course includes church gatherings. I certainly have complicated feelings about the state putting restrictions on religious gatherings, even in the face of a global pandemic. But, nevertheless, I have never once interpreted the closing of churches in order to combat Covid-19 as some kind of specific attack on my religion. But I apparently am in the minority among my co-religionists, at least here in the more conservative parts of the country, where these public health measures are viewed as tantamount to Nero’s purge of Rome or Soviet destruction of churches. Historical context is in short supply amongst these folks, not to mention any sense of perspective.
Over the The Way of Improvement Leads Home, John Fea highlights what he is calling the “evangelical lost cause” movement among Trump’s former Court Evangelicals. Dr. Fea takes one for the team, and watches the video of Liberty University propagandist Charlie Kirk’s visit to Jack Hibbs’ Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, California. Check out his post for a blow-by-blow account of this farcical church proceeding.
Of course, one of the key talking points for Kirk and Hibbs was the alleged impending doom of Christianity in America at the hands of the Biden-Harris administration. Fea summarizes:
At around the 18:00 mark, Hibbs implies that those churches that have not stayed open during COVID-19 or failed to “stand” with Trump during the election will “not get a chance to stand again” in 2021. Notice how Hibbs connects the ability of the church to “stand” with those in political power. He then moves into evangelical fearmongering mode by suggesting that the “powers-that-be” want to shut down churches and are “sharpening their swords as we speak. He adds:
If you [are a church] that didn’t make the cross over into the new year standing, I don’t know if you are going to get a chance to stand again…I want to put a cry out to churches: you really need to open-up now because there is a high probability that you may never be granted the freedom to do that from the government again, and if you are waiting for permission from the government to open-up again I don’t think it is going to come from this administration.
I share all this because I want to do my part, as both a devout Christian, and as a member of the political left – and also as somebody who voted for Joe Biden, and has previously worked for the Democratic Party in several capacities – to help bring light to the intentions of Democrats and the Left in regard to religious freedom, and especially conservative forms of Christianity. So here it is:
Joe Biden, Democrats, and the Left are not going to close down your church.
No one is going to ban prayer.
No one is going to restrict your ability to practice your faith as you see fit.
No one is interested in oppressing your religious freedom.
Again, no one is shutting down your church.
I feel like these things shouldn’t have to be said. These are the kinds of things that generally have been taken for granted in our democracy. But, as with so many elements of our politics and communal life together, extremist claims and fear mongering on the political Right have whipped up a frenzy of panic, and caused many level headed people to think that a cabal of Democrats, liberals, academics, media members, minorities, and other Americans are intent of destroying the country, tearing up the Constitution, killing Christians, and otherwise insane, non-sensical things.
There are certainly extremists out there on the left who take a very poor and very militant view of religious practice in this country. There always has been. But, the key is, most of those folks are outside the mainstream of leftist political thought and practice in America.
On the legal front, the opposition to school-sponsored prayer and Bible study is not an extremist view. This is the general legal and social consensus in America for almost 75 years. And it should be! As a Christian myself, with a very particular view of my faith and how I want it taught to my children, the last people I want teaching them how to pray or read the Bible is their teacher, someone who is neither trained to do so, nor is someone who I may agree with religiously. Further, I don’t want faith being dictated from the courthouse. Again, my faith is a result of my connection to God and the teachings of the Church community I come from. Some of the last people I want taking a role in the public expression of my faith are judges and lawyers and politicians. I would think conservative Christians would agree with that assessment! So, when liberals and Democrats defend the strict separation of Church and State, and oppose the practice of prayer or religion in public schools and other public forums, it baffles me that conservative Christians – usually so skeptical of the government – would all of the sudden be so gung ho for it to take such an active role in faith.
So, let me say it again: no one is going to shut down your church, ban your prayer, or restrict your right to experience God in whatever way you deem fit. I am willing to stake a large amount of money on that. What they are going to do is continue to defend the separation of Church and State, not so that religion has no role to play in our common life together, but so that those who have no business making decisions about our faith are staying out of it. Is it a perfect system? Not at all. But its the best we’ve got, and the deranged rantings of political opportunists cannot be allowed to undermine it.
A group of pro-life evangelicals has issued a statement this week, and is soliciting signatures to add to it, titled “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden.” Headed up by evangelical leaders Richard Mouw, John Perkins, and Ron Sider, and including among the signatories former Trump voters and members of the late Rev. Billy Graham’s family, the group has issued a strong, Biblically-based called for pro-life voters to think more holistically and critically about their voting habits and choices this November. Here is the statement in full:
As pro-life evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe that a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end.
Many things that good political decisions could change destroy persons created in the image of God and violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty kills millions every year. So does lack of healthcare and smoking. Racism kills. Unless we quickly make major changes, devastating climate change will kill tens of millions. Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues. As the National Association of Evangelicals’ official public policy document (FOR THE HEALTH OF THE NATION) insists, “Faithful evangelical civic engagement and witness must champion a biblically balanced agenda.“ Therefore we oppose “one issue” political thinking because it lacks biblical balance.
Knowing that the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child, we appreciate a number of Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden: accessible health services for all citizens, affordable childcare, a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty.
For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.”
In an op-ed at the Christian Post introducing the group, Sider and Mouw explain the driving forces behind the group, and expand upon the ideas in the statement. In particular, they dig into the idea of a consistent pro-life ethic, and what it means for other areas of political engagement beyond abortion:
The statement points out that many problems that better politics could correct violate the sanctity of human life. Poverty, lack of health care, racism and climate change all kill persons created in the image of God. They are all pro-life issues.
Poverty and diseases we know how to prevent kill millions every year. The World Food Program estimates that by the end of 2020, 265 million people around the world could be pushed to the brink of starvation. PEPFAR (President George W. Bush’s President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) has saved the lives of 17 million people around the world. But in repeated budget proposals, Donald Trump has proposed cutting this effective program. Other effective US funded foreign aid programs have saved the lives of millions. But Donald Trump has also repeatedly tried to cut that help for starving people. Poverty is a pro-life issue.
Lack of health care kills people. Studies have shown that people without health insurance are less likely to visit a doctor, are more likely to have poor health, and die younger than persons with health insurance. The Affordable Care Act provided health insurance to an additional 20 million Americans – and prohibited insurance companies from refusing to cover persons with pre-existing conditions. Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to abolish the Affordable Care Act and has not offered any genuine alternative. Health care for all is a pro-life issue.
Racism kills. We know that racism killed African-Americans in slavery and then later in thousands of lynchings. But even today, African-Americans are several times more likely than white Americans to be killed by the police. And the death rate for African-Americans because of COVID-19 is 3.6 times that of white Americans. Tragically Donald Trump refuses to condemn racist groups and continues to stoke racism rather than uniting the country to struggle against racism. Racism is a pro-life issue – and it is on the ballot in 2020 in an unusually significant way.
Climate change already kills untold thousands and will soon kill tens of millions unless we change. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that unless we quickly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases causing global warming that we send into the atmosphere, many millions will die. The poor will suffer the most. But Donald Trump denies the near scientific consensus on climate change and has made numerous policy decisions that make things much worse. Climate change is a pro-life issue.
I am not an pro-life evangelical, and so I cannot affix my signature to this statement. That said, as a fellow Christian who thinks hard about the consequences of my faith on my political engagement, I heartily endorse everything these leaders have written. The issue of abortion is one that vexes me, as I believe the single-minded focus so many Christians have on it when it comes to politics ends up damaging the Gospel witness by reducing it and stripping away everything that makes the message of Christ so unique and powerful in the world. When we let the Gospel become held hostage to one issue – no matter the issue – then the Gospel becomes secondary to that issue.
Christian political engagement requires difficult decisions, a robust process of discernment, and a holistic view of the message of Christ and the historic example of the Church and its members in their engagement with the world. The evangelicals who have issued this statement have embodied that tradition well, using their faith to inform their whole selves, and applying that ethic consistently to the issues we face as a nation.
Neither political candidate is a “Christian” candidate. This means, in making a choice, voters must consider all the facets of their vote, and the consequences of that vote for a whole host of issues and people. It cannot simply be a rubber stamp for specific interest groups, political parties, or individual personalities. Kudos to this self-described group of pro-life evangelicals for engaging this debate seriously and thoughtfully. May we all do so.
Justin DaMetz 