I don't believe you can effectively argue they have "turn[ed] their back[s] on helping the poor." Forcing tax-paying citizens to cover for those unable to help themselves, regardless of their circumstances, has nothing to do with Christianity. The Bible does not dictate how a state should care for its own, or how a Christian leading a state should do so. Obviously, he should act in a manner befitting his beliefs. Cutting social programs doesn't disregard or break those beliefs. If he believes faith-based programs should cover the needy, and states so and encourages it with his own charitable gifts, how is that acting against his Christianity? Just because he diverts government money from doing so says nothing about his love or lack thereof for the poor. There comes a point when you can only throw so much money at people before it becomes a sink. Rather than increasing spending, perhaps time should be taken to clean up the bureaucracy, or some other solution that would make the programs more effective.
If it is so important that Bush delegate government mone for the care of our poor, wouldn't it also follow that he should do so for all underprivileged everywhere. The Bible cares not for nationality or race - take for example the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. He asked her for water, and then proceeded to help her with her tasks, which was unheard for a Jew at the time. Doesn't it follow that if Bushes Christianity dictates he must use government money to care for our poor, he should do so for all poor everywhere? Of course this is ridiculous, but that is because it is not Bush's job to do so, according to our way of governing. You can argue he has a moral, or Christian obligation to make sure it is so, but that should be from his own pocket, not yours and mine. This is not to say that the government should shut off all aid to our own underprivileged, but I don't think that you can effectively argue that by making cuts he is turning his back on his religion. In all reality, if that was really the issue, all the aid given to our poor should instead be diverted the actual food and shelterless in other parts of the world. Our "suffering" have it quite easy compared to the poorest of the poor in Haiti, Cuba, and even Mexico, not to mention vast numbers in Africa.
I did not mean to come across rude or harsh in my previous post, but I still feel this is being used more as another issue to bash Bush on than something you really care that much about, for the reasons I stated above, i.e. why the US and why not the world, etc.
Also, I must ask, are you Catholic? The teachings, thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, and declarations of the Pope have little bearing outside of Catholicism. The Pope is surely learned and knowledgeable in his beliefs, but a non-Catholic really has no reason to respect his teachings any more than any other learned Evangelical pastor or Episcopalian priest. Bush, as I understand it, is a Methodist...what does it matter if "the teachings of the Pope as he understood Christianity and the actions followed by our president and the conservative Republicans are totally disparate?" My parents are strong evangelical Christians, and the pope has no bearing on them or their beliefs whatsoever, nor does he on Bush, or any conservative Republican or liberal Democrat who doesn't follow Catholic teachings.
Many of the Bishops in the United States did not agree the Pope on a number of issues, even though they were part of his clergy and indirectly under his command, so to speak. That doesn't mean they were unable to maintain different beliefs and interpretations of various issues.
The Pope is not the end-all be-all of Christian correctness.
