So you're of the opinion that the current emphasis on controlling abortion rights and gay marriage is a more dire need in this country than the wide gulf inherent in the economic system as well as the fracturing of society into tribal groups based partly on religious "us vs. them" demarcation?
As far as abortion goes, yes - that trumps any economic consideration since it deals with the sanctity of life itself. Economic considerations are secondary - for Christ declared that man does not live by bread alone. A truely just economic system has to be based upon the sanctity of human life and the human person.
I strongly agree with Pope John Paul II's remarks in his last book
Memory and Identity:
"When a parliament authorizes the termination of pregnancy, agreeing to the elimination of the unborn child, it commits a grave abuse against an innocent human being utterly unable to defend itself."
-pg.135
Now economic injustice has not been neglected in Christian social thought, in fact it was a major concern among the various churches in the 19th century onwards.
Among Catholics there was plenty of activism on the part of the Church to advance the rights of workers in wake of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical
Rerum Novarum.
I can point to the two examples of Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel von Kettler and Cardinal Henry Edward Manning as men of the clergy active in the cause of social justice. Then there were the Worker Priests of France, not to mention Solidarity in Poland later on. Let's also not forget the numerous lay Catholics active in such affairs as well.
I could literally go on for hours about this.
As for the disintegration of society, that too has been addressed within Christian thought as well. Christopher Dawson especially wrote much about the importance of the Church's claim to universality as the key element that held much of Western Civilization together during the Medieval period. Of course that system collasped in wake of the Reformation; nevertheless the basic idea of a universal Christendom still holds the key to greater unity of our culture in wake of growing disintegration.
This basic notion was also key in the social analysis of the Neo-Thomist Jacques Maritain, who noted a democratic pluralism founded upon Christian precepts is the best possible road to go. He referred to this arrangement as a new "secular" Christendom:
"In the eyes of the observer of historical evolution, a new Christian civilization is going to be quite different from medieval civilization, though in both cases Christianity is at the root. For the historical climate of the Middle Ages and that of modern times are utterly diverse. Briefly, medieval civilization, whose historical ideal was the Holy Empire, constituted a "sacral" Christian civilization, in which temporal things, philosophical and scientific reason, and the reigning powers, were subservient organs or instruments of spiritual things, of religious faith, and of the Church. In the course of the following centuries temporal things gained a position of autonomy, and this was in itself a normal process. The misfortune has been that this process became warped, and instead of being a process of distinction for a better form of union, progressively severed earthly civilization from evangelical inspiration.
A new age of Christendom, if it is to come, will be an age of reconciliation of that which was disjoined, the age of a "secular" Christian civilization, in which temporal things, philosophical and scientific reason, and civil society, will enjoy their autonomy and at the same time recognize the quickening and inspiring role that spiritual things, religious faith, and the Church play from their higher plane. Then a Christian philosophy of life would guide a community vitally, not decoratively Christian, a community of human rights and of the dignity of the human person, in which men belonging to diverse racial stocks and to diverse spiritual lineages would work at a temporal common task which was truly human and progressive."
The Range of Reason 14
Again I could go further into this, but I think this shall suffice for now.
My basic assess is that what is masquerading as religious objection is actually more a fear of a loss of one's way of life in the face of a culture that is becoming increasingly diversified from an ideological stance; and these sort of culture wars are meant to try to preserve the subculture one feels comfortable within, rather than truly being some visionary manifestation of an inclusive kingdom of God.
Of course this is pretty much the basic liberal assumption, both politically and theologically. The problem is that is denies a very important element in the mix: the ability to discern friend from foe politically, and the ability to discern truth from heresy or falsehood on the other.
Karl Barth and other conservative Protestants fiercely denounced such an attitude and the political consequences of such. Namely the fact that liberal Protestantism by its very nature forfeited any right to condemn the Nazi regime. Not only did it fail to condemn it, it actually provided the theological basis for the Nazi conception of Christianity.
A good summary of this can be found at
Hitler's Theologians.
Even in the 19th century, liberal theologians believed in the "evolution" of religious understandings over time. Because of such, they often tended to regard the Old Testament as viable in its day but no longer relevant to modern day concerns. The Bible and the faith had to reinterpreted to fit modern concerns. As the Liberal theologian Adolf von Harnack is cited:
"To reject the Old Testament in the second century perhaps was a mistake which the great Church refused rightfully . . . but to conserve it after the nineteenth century as a canonical text in Protestantism, was the result of a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis."
So it followed that not only the Old Testament, but even the Jewish people themselves, should be regarded as outdated. This fit perfectly into the Nazi conception of Christianity, which regarded Christ as an Aryan savior who broke with the barbaric Semitic traditions of the Old Testament.
We can bring up the Nazi conception of "Positive Christianity", which had its main emphasis on uniting the various Christian groups in Germany under one banner - ie a Reich Church.
The relationship between liberal Protestantism and Nazism can be further read about in
The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 by Richard Steigmann-Gall, as well as
Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and Politics, from the Great War to the War on Terror by Michael Burleigh.
It was after the war that much of the nature of liberal Christianity began to shift into the form we recognise today.
One very interesting example I know of was that of Raymond de Becker, who was an active leader in pro-Fascist movements in Belgium and was a darling of liberal and progressive Christians throughout Europe. After the war, however, he came out as a homosexual and reinvented himself as an advocate for Gay rights.
Which is why I find it highly ironic when liberal Christians try to bring up analogies to Hitler and Fascism.
The problem I find is that much of the basic logic that lead many Christians into the arms of the Nazis is very much still with us today, especially the notion of changing theological understandings to fit the times.
To be fair, this notion has even been challenged within the liberal camp. Martin Luther King Jr. being a good example , who agreed with much of Barth's criticisms of Liberal Christianity - despite being a liberal himself.
And he noted very much that scientific progress is a poor substitute for eternal moral values, which lay at the heart of any true religion and man's overall well-being. He even stated that moral laws are as binding on man as the laws of physics; you simply cannot defy them.
This is very much in line with the more conservative understanding of the faith.
And by saying morals are eternal, it does not necessarily mean static in nature. Certainly the basic logic behind such morals have a dynamic and perennial nature and significance, regardless of the original context it's addressed.
Take for example the Biblical verses concerning slavery. Yeah the Bible teaches about slavery and that slaves should obey their masters. It also tells masters to treat their slaves with kindness and respect, since they are also created in God's image. The basic concept of mutual respect between master and slave is still with us in many Christian social commentaries on labor relations between employers and employees.
As even the video in the OP states, many of the laws concerning marriage in the OT were designed for the continual survival of the Israelite nation. That basic logic still applies in regards to the Christian attitude of the family being the basic building block of society.
Pope John Paul II talked about the key link between the family and the nation in his 1994
Letter to Families:
"In the first place there is the almost organic link existing between the family and the nation. Naturally we cannot speak in all cases about a nation in the proper sense. Ethnic groups still exist which, without being able to be considered true nations, do fulfil to some extent the function of a "greater" society. In both cases, the link of the family with the ethnic group or the nation is founded above all on a participation in its culture. In one sense, parents also give birth to children for the nation, so that they can be members of it and can share in its historic and cultural heritage. From the very outset the identity of the family is to some extent shaped by the identity of the nation to which it belongs.
By sharing in the nation's cultural heritage, the family contributes to that specific sovereignty, which has its origin in a distinct culture and language. I addressed this subject at the UNESCO Conference meeting in Paris in 1980, and, given its unquestionable importance, I have often returned to it. Not only the nations, but every family realizes its spiritual sovereignty through culture and language. Were this not true, it would be very difficult to explain many events in the history of peoples, especially in Europe. From these events, ancient and modern, inspiring and painful, glorious and humiliating, it becomes clear how much the family is an organic part of the nation, and the nation of the family."
This intimate tie between families and nations is also touched upon in his last book
Memory and Identity; where he contemplates on how the OT shows us the importance of nations and national identities in God's designs for humanity.
Anyways, I think that's enough for now. Whew!