Who has better moral compass in debt debate?

Religious liberals and religious conservatives agree on one thing: In the debt fight, what matters more than money and politics is morality.

And even if Congress approves today's deal and default is averted, these moral considerations will continue to play a role in the continuing debate over debt, taxes and spending cuts.

But which side has the better moral compass?

The dominant view from the left: It's immoral to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly.

The dominant view from the right: It's immoral to saddle our children and grandchildren with debt.

Each side has quoted biblical passages to support their cause.

In fact, both even quoted from the same book in the Bible.

In a radio ad campaign launched last week, Sojourners' Jim Wallis and other liberal Christian leaders attacked a House Republican plan by saying that Proverbs "teaches that where there is not leadership a nation falls and the poor are shunned while the rich have many friends."

Meanwhile, earlier this year, on "The Coral Ridge Hour," a TV program broadcast by the conservative Coral Ridge Ministries, author William Federer cited Proverbs 13:22, which says that "a good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children."

Then, in case you're keeping score, another group weighed in that tends to agree with conservative Republicans on some issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and with liberal Democrats on others (immigration, budget cuts affecting the poor.)

I'm talking about the U.S. Catholic Bishops. In a letter last week to the GOP-controlled House, they said that "the framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.”

Also entering the debt drama -- but from stage right -- was another heavyweight religious group: The Southern Baptist Convention. Its Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission joined more than 200 other conservative groups in sponsoring a "Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge" that amounted to an endorsement of the House Republicans' plan.

"Our government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends," said ERLC President Richard Land. "That is generational theft. We're stealing our children's and our grandchildren's future. If something drastic isn't done and done quickly, our grandchildren will spend their entire working lives paying off our debts."

So: Which moral compass should guide Congress and the Obama administration in the months ahead?

Is there a middle way that enshrines compromise? Or would that amount to an abandonment of principles?

Will the religious left ever admit that, for Medicare to be available for future generations, some shifts in benefits may be necessary?

Will the religious right ever see that part of the reason for the big deficit is that some programs championed by conservatives -- the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were put on a the federal credit card?

And where does statesmanship figure in this discussion over what's moral and what's not?

One last question: What do you think?