It’s 1856. The American presidential race is on. What would you say to me if I told you that I am opposed to slavery, but was prepared to vote for a political candidate who personally supported it, or who was part of a political party whose platform included support for it?
While there would be no reason to question the sincerity of my personal belief/position, one would be thoroughly justified in questioning the level of my concern and the propriety of my political priorities. If candidates’ economic and foreign policy was more influential in determining my vote, then slavery ranks low on my totem poll of priorities. While I say I am morally outraged that society would permit the use of human beings as property, my political choices indicate that my concerns lie elsewhere. After all, how could one be genuinely concerned for the welfare of African Americans while at the same time supporting political parties and political candidates whose platform includes the enslavement of African Americans?
It’s 2012. The American presidential race is on. What would you say to me if I told you that I am opposed to abortion, but was prepared to vote for a political candidate who personally supported it, and was part of a political party whose platform included support for it?
While there would be no reason to question the sincerity of my personal belief/position, one would be thoroughly justified in questioning the level of my concern and the propriety of my political priorities. If candidates’ economic and foreign policy was more influential in determining my vote, then abortion ranks low on my totem poll of priorities. While I say I am morally outraged that society would permit the killing of innocent and defenseless human beings, my political choices indicate that my concerns lie elsewhere. After all, how could one be genuinely concerned for the welfare of the unborn humans while at the same time supporting political parties and political candidates whose platform includes the right to kill such persons?
Our vote reveals a lot about both our beliefs and our priorities. So please don’t tell me you are horrified by abortion and concerned to do your part to minimize or stop it, all the while you vote for political candidates and political parties who actively promote pro-abortion laws.
May 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Well said!
LikeLike
May 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm
The positions held by your Republicans are equally reprehensible.
Do you really think that if Jesus were alive today He would vote for Romney or for that matter Bush a few years ago? Those men do not represent Christianity.
LikeLike
May 14, 2012 at 8:06 pm
@Randy,
Tu quoque, much?
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 1:15 am
Randy,
Equally? Assuming for the sake of argument that abortion is truly the unjust taking of innocent human life as prolifers argue, and thus we are murdering 1.3 million unborn children in this country every year, what Republican policy can you name that is as “equally” unjust as that? Sorry, but there are no parallels. The injustice of abortion has no rival. It is the greatest matter of injustice in this country today, bar none.
As for Jesus, He is alive today, but I won’t presume to speak for Him. What I can tell you is that this is not a matter of a perfect politician or perfect political party. There isn’t one. This is a matter of people saying they value X, but then supporting political candidates/parties that oppose X. I’m arguing that if one votes for candidates who oppose their stated value X, it is because they place a low premium on X and a higher premium on other values/issues. And I think it is a moral mishap when Christians consider economic policy or some other issue as more important than abortion when casting their vote.
Jason
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 6:28 am
Jason,
This is a very thought-provoking post and I find myself personally in a crossroad concerning this year’s presidental election. As a black man who voted for President Obama in the last election, I’m not positive if I will vote for him in the upcoming election – due to the Democratic stance on abortion and especially his recent coming out in support of gay marriage. At the same time, I can’t see myself voting Republican – I never have, that is almost taboo where I come from! So, who do I vote for? No one? I would hate to do that as well, as I feel that it would be a waste to just throw my vote away.
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 8:36 am
Jason How forceful are right words! And your words are right! It is a sad day when words that are backed with sound logic does not cause a mass change of heart.
M. I have a pretty good friend who is black and who is a republican but who grew up in an area that if you were black then you must be democrat. I asked my friend why did he chose this road, his words were because he had done his homework and studied the history. I wouldn’t let my past determine my values. Vote your values despite your upbringing or social pressure, as Jason point out a million or more lives are at stake. I pray you find the courage.
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 9:57 am
css,
Thanks for the words. I will say that I disagree with the GOPs economic policies, in that I believe it benefits the wealthy more than the poor – and in doing so, causes a further disadvantage for ALL minorites in this country (who, as a whole, are more disproportionately poorer than the majority). However, I guess as Jason puts it, it ultimately comes down to what one holds more valuable, a “lesser of two evils” type of deal. I haven’t been completely swayed one way or the other yet, but I will take all of this into account this coming November. Thanks again.
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm
M. I should be clear. I’m not a republican by birth nor by choice, i vote my values. i do not choose the lesser of two evils even though it may be viewed as throwing my vote away. I’ll continue being happy with my family even if I am not rich i still am more well off than most of the world. Voting is private and sometimes i keep it private!
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 12:41 pm
As Jason notes, what weighs more heavily on your conscience? Are inequitable economic policies more morally offensive than deliberate murder? I may detest the economic posture of a political party, but I detest to an astronomically higher degree a policy which defends murder as a constitutional right. To me, it’s a no-brainer. We need to FIRST support a party that will prevent murder (and whether we like it or not, the GOP is in the best position to do so) and THEN deal with economic issues.
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 12:42 pm
M,
If I remember correctly, ~90% of registered black voters are Democratic, so I understand the cultural pressure to vote Democratic. But we must vote our values, not our culture or heritage. I understand that you do not agree with the economic philosophy of the Republican party, but I think when it comes down to a choice between protecting the unborn from being murdered and getting more cash in my pocket, the unborn take precedence.
I find myself more aligned with the economic policies of the Republican party, so that makes it easier for me to vote Republican (I get both the economic and moral policies). But if it was the Democratic party that was pro-life rather than the Republican party, I would vote Democratic even though I disagreed with their economic and domestic policy because the issue of abortion takes precedence over those. The Christian understanding of government is that government exists to promote justice in the land (not to create wealth). There is no greater injustice than abortion right now, so that should be one of our primary concerns.
Jason
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Abortion is a travesty and for that reason I have never voted for a Democrat.
However, the recent wars and the Republican economic policies are equal travesties and I have not voted for a Republican in more than 30 years. I cannot in good conscious vote for either party. The wars have caused horrible destruction and heartache and the economic policies have destroyed millions of families. Jason, do you not know that a thousand families a day are losing their homes? How many divorces, abortions, and other heartaches have been indirectly caused by losing jobs and homes?
One can withhold his vote or make a protest vote or vote for a Democrat and be just as Christian as the one who thinks that abortion is the only question. It is an individual choice made by Christians who are often equally knowledgeable and sincere.
My conscious keeps bringing me back to the question “What would Jesus do?” Well, He did not choose between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He spoke out loudly against them both.
LikeLike
May 16, 2012 at 9:49 am
Randy,
The wars are “equal” travesties? Let’s do the math. During the last 8 years over 10 million babies have been murdered in this country. Have that many people died in the Afghan and Iraq wars? No. Not even close. So how can you say those wars are equally unjust as abortion?
And economic policies? Seriously? Do you really believe that a poorer economy is equally as unjust as killing babies? I don’t know if you have kids, but let’s say you have a daughter. Are you saying it would be just as unjust for someone to take some money from you as it would be for them to kill your daughter? Of course not.
As for what we should do…we should do what we can to make the most difference in the world for justice. And that involves voting for the candidates and party that will do the most to promote the greatest amount of justice in the land.
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Randy comments:
Jesus wasn’t talking about an election. That He was speaking theologically is obvious from the context. That said, there is an interesting contrast between the two:
Matthew 23
1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Of the Sadducees, He said:
Mark 12
24. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Now, we don’t need a string of quotations that prove the Pharisees were hypocrites, etc. That they had major problems is affirmed by all, but these quotations suffice to prove they were not on equal theological footing. For all their problems, the Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat and, therefore, their decrees were binding to a degree. Christ made no such comment about the Sadducees.
If these New Testament examples tell us anything about the current political environment, even though both parties have their problems, one party is better than the other with respect to abortion; and as Jason notes in Post 12, it is difficult at best to conceive how a person committed to morality would equate economic differences and murder. Even if ill-conceived economic policies have indirectly killed people, that is light years away from a legal sanction to murder a baby. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!
LikeLike
May 16, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Jason,
If you want to do the math, then you should consider that voting Republican will have very little effect on the number of abortions that will take place. The Republicans, for the most part, only give lip service to this great tragedy. There are things that could be done, yet there is very little action. I do not believe the Republicans in power really care about the problem. I have personally known quite a few of the garden variety Republicans who run the Republican party on the local level. I have never known one that really cared much about abortion. If you listen carefully to them – their primary concern is their money.
However, the Republicans, almost to a man/woman are voting in block for the oppressive economic policies that are doing such great damage to this country. There is very unequal and unfair distribution of this country’s great wealth and it is getting worse by the day. Those economic policies are destroying families by the millions, they are indirectly causing collateral damage that is horrendous. Jason, you commented that I should get serious and Scalia charged that my point is insignificant, “light years” away and “straining at a gnat”. Well, I think you both should look deeper into my point and you may find there is a great deal more to what I am saying than you are giving credit.
Jason, you commented that 90% of black people are registered Democrats. You seem to dismiss that fact as a cultural problem. You seem to be saying that the great majority of black Christians, at least regarding this one point, are morally inferior to you. My experience with black Christians is that they are often shining lights in our community. Their churches are usually far more filled with the Holy Spirit than what I have experienced at most white churches. I believe that blacks are often much more sensitive than whites to the economic injustices in this country, as well as the damage those injustices have caused. They have suffered 10 times more than you and me. Their eyes have been opened. I believe that you should give a great deal more consideration to what tens of millions of black Christians in this country are saying.
Jason, my guess is that you have not personally suffered a great deal of economic injustice. Wait until you do, I believe it will open your eyes. We have a thousand families a day losing their homes, hundreds of thousands are now homeless and tens of millions are jobless. The standard Republican response, at least if they trust you enough to be candid, is that the poor must blame themselves. Nonsense, the problem is caused by wall street and banks and those who own this country. Fox News wants us to believe it is a problem caused by the lazy poor. It is a problem caused by greed. it is caused by unjust and unfair policies that favor those who give large campaign contributions to politicians. It is not a small or insignificant problem, and if you and Scalia lost your houses and jobs, you would better feel the problem.
Again, I will mention the wars. Our wars are being started and waged by Republicans and Democrats, but the Republicans have led the way. Wars are horrible, they destroy everything. War is the most corrosive act at which a country can engage. Many Christians have said that the Lord will bring wrath on this country because of its abortions. I think that is probably true. I will add, though, that, in my opinion, our arrogant and self-centered wars are surely equally abominable in God’s eyes.
Do you know that abortions were quite prevalent in Jesus’ day? They were common, and yet Jesus did not stand and make that His rallying cry for justice. What did Jesus talk about? He did talk about economic injustice a great deal.
In my opinion, though, Jesus , for the most part, was apolitical. His followers wanted him to take over, conquer the Romans, and solve their worldly problems. Instead, He taught that this world is of little real value. His emphasis was on eternity, the world to come.
And, I think the primary concern of each Christian should be spreading the Good News. I think politics are worth considering, but it should never take precedence over the Great Commission.
Randy
LikeLike
May 17, 2012 at 9:44 am
Hi, Randy.
I’ve been debating with myself on whether or not I should employ my usual point-by-point rebuttal. I’ve decided to forego that for now and instead ask you a few questions.
First, please reply to Jason’s question. Again, it is:
Second, if you had to choose between going into a legislative hall to cast the deciding vote on economic equality or to stop an attempted murder in progress, which would you choose?
Third, if you had the choice as a legislator to only vote for either economic equality or to ban the murder of babies, which would you vote for?
Thanks, in advance.
LikeLike
May 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Randy,
I disagree on how instrumental and effective Republicans have been related to abortion law. It is Republicans, not Democrats, who have been responsible for a spate of anti-abortion bills on the state level over the past 35 years that have absolutely led to a reduction of abortions in those states. See http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.24_New_Michael%20J._Pro-Life%20Politicians%20Have%20Made%20a%20Difference,%20Pro-Life%20Laws%20Work_.xml and http://www.kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/548095.html.
Michael New summarizes the progress: “During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made real progress. The number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation.”
As for the economic policies of the Republicans, even if I agreed that they were unjust, the poorest of the poor in this country are 100x better off than the poor in any other nation. I just don’t buy the “economic injustice” theory. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to obtain wealth and better themselves. And in my opinion, Republicans actually create wealth while Democrats just want to redistribute existing wealth. I don’t think taking from the haves to give to the have-nots is either good economic theory or good Christianity. But that’s beside the point.
I’m not sure what it means to experience “economic injustice,” but even if I haven’t experienced it, and I were to experience it, it would still be worse to experience murder than to experience having less money. One is clearly more unjust than the other, such that even comparing them to each other as if they were on the same par with one another is credulous.
I’m not saying that Black Americans who vote Democratic are morally inferior to me. What I am saying is that I think they, just like their White and any other color counterparts, have their political priorities out of order. This is epidemic in the church at large. The Christian view of government is that government exists to promote moral justice. And economics and murder are nowhere close to one another when it comes to justice.
Abortion may have been prevalent in Jesus’ day, but not in Jesus’ area. The Romans practiced abortion/infanticide, but Jesus wasn’t preaching to Romans. That’s the same reason why Jesus didn’t make a big-to-do out of homosexuality. It was rampant in the Roman culture, but not in Israel.
Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue that the law speaks to. What are political issues are economic and foreign affairs. Interestingly, many Christians are using their political power (in the form of a vote) to affect only political matters, all the while unwittingly and unintentionally affecting moral matters for the worse (e.g. by electing Democrats who work to expand abortion).
No doubt evangelism is our greatest concern, but this is not an all-or-nothing venture. In this country, we are the government, and thus we should do our part to bring about justice in the land.
Jason
LikeLike
May 17, 2012 at 4:49 pm
And while I await Randy’s answers to my very simple questions, I will add to Jason’s post that there are probably four supreme court justices who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and all of them were appointed by Republican presidents. In fact, the pro-life movement is so strong within the GOP, it is inconceivable somebody could be currently nominated without a commitment against abortion. Just one more vote and the states will be free to ban it altogether. That’s hardly negligible.
LikeLike
May 17, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Short-term, which ever party can bring about the swiftest end to abortion is the one in which any true moralist (Christian or otherwise) should support with their vote (apart from, imo, any other issue). That party appears to be, by and large, the Republican party. If there is another, they are so small, and not yet considered legit on the national election scene.
Long term, whichever party can bring this nation to a moral and/or spiritual awakening which leads people away from illicit fornication (which causes unplanned and unwanted baby-making) should, at the very least for Christians, get the vote. Is that party the Republican party? On this I am not so sure.
Since, by and large, fornication is a product of the law of sin, and is not determined by any political leanings, I don’t think it can be regulated politically. However, there are certain cultural and political environments where fornication is more prevalent, even allowed, even sanctioned. So, since this is the real issue: the law of sin, I don’t see how anything short of a fresh wave of Holy Spirit revival across this country will ever cause true moral change, which cannot be brought about by anyone except God’s Holy Church. As my former pastor used to say, “If you want to change a man’s politics, change his heart first”.
(A side point: how much are the day-after pill and other birth control initiatives that [can] cause early abortions being factored into the discussion?)
LikeLike
May 18, 2012 at 7:13 am
Jason.
I do not agree with your argument that Jesus didn’t mention abortion because it wasn’t a local problem. First of all, I think it probably was a local problem, and I think competent historians would agree, but aside from that, Jesus’ teachings were universal and meant for all mankind. Second, the book of Mark was written, according to most experts, for Gentile readers in general and Roman readers in particular, and Mark made not even a passing inference to abortion. Third, Paul wrote, primarily, to the Gentiles, and often pointedly to the Romans, and again, it would be a stretch to take anything Paul said and apply it directly to abortion. Jesus, Mark and Paul simply do not directly support the argument you are trying to establish. Your argument is man-made, and some man-made arguments are correct, but you should be careful to not ask others to accept your conclusion as absolute truth. You said that you would not presume to speak for Jesus, but I think you should reread your own words because that is exactly what you are attempting to do.
If you do not agree there is economic injustice in this country and especially throughout the world, then I really don’t think we have a basis to discuss economic injustice. You seem to think that our capitalist economy fairly distributes our country’s wealth. I believe the game is rigged in favor of those who are on top or who have parents who have already reached the elite classes. Are there exceptions? Sure, there are a few from the ghetto and the wrong side of the tracks who overcome the odds, but very few. Do you really believe that George Bush was a good enough student to get into Yale?
Let me briefly try to convince you: Economic injustice is when “speculators” on Wall Street drive up the price of the basic foods (wheat, rice, etc.) and thereby cause the price of food to increase. I call them “speculators” only so you will know who I am referring to, however a more accurate word would be “manipulators”. If it was truly only “speculation”, then it would be a zero sum game where one speculator would lose what another speculator gained. Instead, the “speculation industry” as a whole ends up making huge sums of money which they split among themselves. They do this “speculation” through collusion and what they are doing is immoral and only 30 years ago it was highly illegal. The result is that millions of people, especially people in other countries, suffer and often die from malnutrition. They make a dollar a day and can’t afford two dollars a day for their food.
Economic injustice is when millions of Americans lose their homes while the bankers that made the loans are bailed out. Economic injustice is when those same bankers pay themselves millions in bonuses while they are throwing homeowners onto the street. Economic injustice is when Dick Cheney, at 70 years old, gets a new heart and an unknown number of young men with young children do not get that heart. Economic injustice is when Americans suffer and die from lack of health care because they do not have health insurance. I could go on and on, but look into all this yourself if you care. Don’t take all your information from Fox News and those “Conservative” sources that are agreeing with you. And, incidentally, what is now called “Conservative” is not at all the classical definition of the term. Dwight Eisenhower is rolling over in his grave.
Again, you seem to condone or at least turn your eye away from our country’s Republican led wars. And, in my opinion, you are not adequately addressing the fact that 90-95% of black Christians strongly disagree with you. And, of course, many white, Hispanic and other Christians strongly disagree with you. I am white and would fit directly into any Republican pigeon hole, but I simply disagree with them and you. I would not vote for a Republican, because I believe their sins eliminate them from getting my vote.
Scalia, I do not usually run out a fetch answers for hypothetical questions that are framed to illicit a certain answer. Of course I would try to save my daughter’s life before I would try to save her money. That admission comes nowhere close to making your point. I could frame many such hypothetical question-statements for you.
What I am saying is as follows: The Republicans are as misguided as the democrats and I will not vote for either party. I do not believe that Jesus would vote for either party. I know that Jesus, Mark and Paul did not teach the categorical conclusions you are espousing.
Randy
LikeLike
May 18, 2012 at 10:36 am
Randy, I think I’ve given you a fair opportunity to both understand my position and to engage my argument. In this thread you’ve shown your ability to write long posts, but so far it doesn’t appear you’re getting what either Jason or I are saying. Our contention is that murder is far more morally objectionable than economic injustice. At bottom, your replies implicitly agree with that stance (as will be shown), but since you feel that you need to justify your nonsupport of the GOP, you are resistant to making it explicit.
You write,
Then you do not understand my point because that admission most certainly makes my point: Murder is worse than economic deprivation. Since you agree with that and since you acknowledge you would ACT in favor of life over money, you implicitly agree with the foundation of my argument that one is morally obligated to defend a life before one is obligated to defend a person’s economic well-being. In other words, one is morally obligated to give the prevention of a greater evil priority if one’s options are limited. The American political environment limits our options. In other words, we do not have a perfect system, and if we really are committed to justice, we are forced to choose between doing nothing or following a course that has the most likelihood of fulfilling our commitments. In the American political context, our nonsupport of either party effectively amounts to doing nothing on behalf of our stated morality. Jason’s post rightly criticizes such a posture. Consequently, if I really believe abortion is murder and if murder is far more objectionable than economic disparity, then I am morally obligated to ACT in defense of life. Choosing a route that has no realistic chance of savings lives is the moral equivalent of doing nothing.
Your arguments from Scripture are, with all due respect, nonstarters. If you believe abortion is murder, it is irrelevant whether or not abortion is condemned in the New Testament. If you do not believe abortion is murder, then that’s a topic for another day. People oppose abortion because they believe it is murder. The fact the Bible doesn’t address a certain immoral act does not imply we should do nothing about it. Jesus never condemned pedophilia but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to prevent it.
Finally, you write,
Feel free to do so, but none of your questions can change my position, because I will always choose to save a person’s life over their money.
As Jason stated, the poor in our nation are way better off than most of the poor throughout the rest of the world. To equate American economic disparity with murder is beneath contempt, and to say there is no moral difference between keeping a poor person poor and murdering them is equally beneath contempt. Slavery was and is a moral outrage, but it still isn’t the same as the Nazi extermination camps. Would a slave prefer death over slavery? I doubt it. Again, that is not to minimize slavery or economic hardship. Although it is clear you and I differ over the economy, there is no rational argument equating it with murder.
From what you’ve written, you cannot support the Democrats because they support abortion, and you cannot support Republicans because of their economic policies. Your solution is to simply opt out of the political process or to vote for a person or party that has no realistic chance of fulfilling your expectations. As noted above, the GOP has made significant gains in the pro-life arena. It is not futile to vote for GOP candidates who will pursue that agenda. With respect to our economy, whatever your opinion of Republicans, I repeat what Jason wrote: our poor are considered well off in comparison with much of the world. I urge you to review your position. It is clear you are contradicting yourself in the attempt to defend your ill-advised remark that economy & murder are morally equivalent. You really don’t believe that. Keep preaching what you think is economic justice, but save lives first.
LikeLike
May 18, 2012 at 11:46 am
Randy,
I agree with what Scalia has said, so I will not formulate a separate response to everything you have said, much of which gets into debates over politics that I do not want to get into. I just want to reiterate that I think it should be obvious to all that the legally sanctioned and intentional murder of 1.3 million babies a year is a much more important moral issue than economics could ever be. Abortion is the greatest issue of injustice in our day. As Christians in a democratic republic, our duty is to do our part to promote justice in the land. While there may be many areas of injustice that need our political attention, we have to triage those issues and deal with the most important ones first. If someone in the 1850s voted for candidates who promised to line their pocketbooks rather than candidates who promised to end slavery, we would think they were prostituting their vote, putting money ahead of morality. How much more when it is not just involuntary servitude that is at stake, but life itself? If we truly believe abortion is as evil as we say it is (and it is), then our vote should reflect that. To vote for those who work to keep abortion legal is to implicitly say that one does not think the issue of abortion is as important as the other issues the candidate/party stands for.
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I did not say murder and economic injustice are equivalent. I did say that economic injustice leads to the death and suffering of many millions, in this country and world wide. I certainly did say that the Republican led wars have led to the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands. I said that Jesus, Mark and Paul did not address the abortion problem, even though abortions were common in that era, and therefore you have no Scriptural authority to pronounce your conclusion that one must vote for the Republicans. Anyway, goodbye.
LikeLike
May 19, 2012 at 1:15 am
Randy writes,
Yes, you did. In Post 11 you wrote,
To which Jason replied in Post 12,
You had ample opportunity to deny their equivalence, but you continued to hedge on it until Post 22. As I noted in Post 20, I didn’t think that deep down you really believed that, but the greater issue is what you should do about it. You have chosen to ignore both parties. That’s up to you, but as noted above, I think that is gravely mistaken.
Thanks for the dialog.
LikeLike
May 20, 2012 at 5:22 am
Scalia, and Jason
Scalia, in your Post 20, you stated that I was maintaining that “the economy and murder are morally equivalent.” At Post 22, I responded “I did not say murder and economic injustice are equivalent.” You parsed my statement at post 11 and stated flatly that I was contradicting myself. I don’t believe that my comment at post 11 contradicts my statement at post 20, and I certainly was not intending to present two contradictory statements. A travesty is a “grossly inferior imitation.” I was saying that the Democrat’s position on abortion, the Republican wars and Republican economic policies are all travesties; they are gross characterizations of truth. What I meant was: pro abortion advocates claim they are helping women, yet in truth an abortion is often devastating to an individual woman. In the same way, the Republican’s claim that the wars are fought as an American sacrifice to help others, while the truth is those wars are gross exercises in greed. In that same vein, Romney recently claimed that cutting off food stamps will help restore a person’s dignity, when the truth is the exact opposite. I do not see a direct contradiction with my 2 statements, but I agree I could have differently worded my post 22.
Jason’s main point with this thread is really quite simple. He is saying that 10 million deaths by abortion during the past 8 years are enough reason to vote Republican. Jason believes the Republicans will do more to curb abortions than the Democrats. I believe that is far too simple of a conclusion, and I have tried to give a few examples of why I believe as I believe, although it would take a book to adequately explain my position.
I have resisted trying to put a number on the devastation caused by our country’s wars and economic injustices. That is just a very complex question, and I am not competent to make any concrete statements. I have spoke in generalities – that millions die and suffer from economic injustice and hundreds of thousands have suffered and died from the wars.
In addition, I made the statement that world-wide food prices have increased dramatically in recent years and that those increases are a direct result of Wall Street “speculators” manipulating the price of food staples. I believe Wall Street has directly caused the death of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and directly caused tremendous devastation in this country.
As only one of many examples of the devastation caused by Wall Street – several million families have lost their homes. Losing a home often has a devastating effect on a family and indirectly lead to hundreds of thousands of divorces, abortions, etc., etc., etc. The Democrats turn a blind eye to the harm that abortions do to this country. In the exact same way, the Republican’s ignore the tremendous harm caused by Wall Street . The Democrats also often support Wall Street, however the Republicans support them in lockstep.
The following is only a weak attempt to put “a number“ on the death and devastation caused by Wall Street food price manipulators. I do not intend this summary of facts to be authoritative or exhaustive. It is only a few statistics for you to consider. My point is that these numbers certainly indicate that the Republican led economic injustices cause as much or more death and devastation as do abortions.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization provided statistics that are detailed in this article: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
The above article states:
“ 925 million people were undernourished in 2010.”
“One of the 3 main reasons that hunger is increasing is “The significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with a few dollars a day to spend.”
“Children are the most visible victim of undernutrition.”
“The world produces enough food for everyone, approximately 2720 Kilocalories per person per day.
If Wall Street does manipulate food price, then do those numbers not indicated that hundreds of millions of people, primarily children, suffer greatly and die as a result of Wall Street’s food price manipulations?
Following is a pretty good article that explains Wall Street’s complicity in world hunger. http://voices.yahoo.com/world-hunger-starvation-somalia-8943463.html?cat=9
This article states flatly: “The cause of the world’s starvation and particularly to poverty in Africa can be attributed to three factors: Wall Street, Futures, Derivatives. In reality there is only one factor: Wall Street, with two subdivisions: Futures. Derivatives.”
Pope Benidict, himself, agrees with the conclusions reached in the above article, and there are countless experts who agree.
I suggest, that as Christians, you both should read this article and study the matter before you again vote for any politician that is not actively trying to curb Wall Street. Jason, I suggest you study this and start a thread. Does Wall Street cause world hunger?
Randy
LikeLike
May 20, 2012 at 5:36 am
Jason and Scalia,
I was intending to abandon this thread, however, after thinking all this over for a couple of days, I think there is more I should add.
First of all, I am pro-life and always have been. My wife and I contributed to Right to Life in the 70’s, and my wife went to a number of the meetings, and went on several of the marches.
During the late 80’s and 90’s we contributed to an independent local organization that set up an office to counsel girls and women who were pregnant and considering abortion. The organization advertised and sometimes volunteers stood outside Planned Parenthood with signs offering our alternate counseling. Again, my wife went on marches. The organization had trained volunteer professionals to help the women including a doctor, nurses, an attorney and a psychologist. When there was extra money, the organization would often help the girls (and most of them were young girls) financially before and after the birth of their children. (Many abortions are directly related to financial problems.)
I was one of the founding benefactors of that organization and although I did not know it at the time, evidently the largest contributor. After the organization had been in existence for 10 years, the director called and asked me to attend the 10th anniversary banquet – a fundraiser. I had not before gone to any of the fundraisers.
At that banquet, the director announced that during the 10 years of the organization’s existence, she had met with over 1180 women and girls and that she had influenced 182 of them to not get an abortion (1180 and 182 are the numbers as I recall, although I did not write them down) Totally as a surprise to me, she then announced to the 500 attendees that during the first two years the organization would have closed its doors at several different points if she had not received “surprise checks “ from me. I contributed a set amount each month and would occasionally send extra checks in the middle of the month. She then asked several of the women to come up to the stage with their children who had been saved from abortion. There were a lot of tears that night.
Although we take no credit, we were primarily only contributors; I would suppose that 182 or more people who are now between the ages of 15 and 25 might not be alive today except for the financial contributions made by my wife and me.
One thing I remember very distinctly about the above organization is that no one ever used the word “murder” when we talked about abortion. Using the word “murder” does not enlighten or open ears. Many of those girls had heart wrenching stories and they needed help, not condemnation. As I mentioned in a different thread, I served a year in Vietnam with a combat brigade. When I got back home, I went back to college. I still remember some anti war protestors and other students who used the word “murder” to make their point that the Vietnam War was immoral. I was still having nightmares about Vietnam when I heard those hateful words. They had absolutely no idea what war is like or what those hateful words meant to a soldier.
I believe there are many young women today who have had abortions who suffer greatly from their mistake. To accuse them of murder only hurts them and will not open any ears. Surely you have read John 8:7.
Randy
LikeLike
May 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Randy, please allow me to commend you for your admirable contributions to the pro-life cause, and thank you for saving so many lives. Your actions exemplify our assertion that one’s morality determines one’s behavior. That said, there are different levels of activism. Social networks that provide women with abortion alternatives are essential, but it is also essential to have a political network in place to work for the legal protection of the unborn as well.
You write,
I can agree that in one-on-one counseling sessions using such language may not be helpful. I can also agree that providing abortion alternatives would probably not be viable if such language were consistently employed. However, as noted above, if we really believe there needs to be legal protection for the unborn, we need to make that position intelligible. If the unborn are to be protected, it is because they are living, innocent, human beings. If a person kills an innocent human being, that person has committed murder–no ifs, ands or buts. If abortion is murder (and it is), then those who really believe that are obligated to work for its prohibition. Neither Jason nor I are condemning legal efforts outside the political arena to save the unborn. This thread is about the consistency of our politics when it comes to abortion. It is in that sense that we argue that one’s nonsupport of the only party which is in a position to do anything about the legal ramifications of abortion is the equivalent of doing nothing; and if one deliberately opts out of the process because of a manifestly lesser evil committed by that party (which you now acknowledge), then that person’s commitment to life is legitimately questioned. If your financial contributions contributed to the saving of 182 lives, the legal protection of the unborn would save millions of lives. It is obviously better to save more lives than less. Consequently, one committed to life will work just as vigorously to save lives in the political arena as one would privately.
Thank you again for your life-savings efforts. I urge you to reconsider your nonsupport of the GOP. Millions of lives are literally at stake.
LikeLike
May 20, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Jason and Scalia,
Jason’s main point with this thread is really quite simple. He is saying that 10 million deaths by abortion during the past 8 years are compelling reason to vote Republican. Jason believes the Republicans will do more to curb abortions than the Democrats. I believe that is far too simple of a conclusion, and I have tried to give a few examples of why I believe as I believe; although it would take a book to adequately explain my position.
I have resisted trying to put a number on the devastation caused by our country’s wars and economic injustices. That is just a very complex question, and I am not competent to make any concrete statements. I have written in generalities – that millions (probably hundreds of millions) suffer and die from economic injustices that are perpetrated by Republicans and hundreds of thousands have suffered and died from the wars. Furthermore, the wars indirectly cause a great deal of the economic injustices.
In addition, I made the statement that world-wide food prices have increased dramatically in recent years and that those increases are a direct result of Wall Street “speculators” manipulating the price of food staples. I believe Wall Street has directly caused the death of tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and directly caused tremendous devastation in this country.
As only one of many examples of the devastation caused by Wall Street in this country: millions of families have lost their homes in the past 5 years. Republicans have tried to paint a picture that exonerates Wall Street in this crisis, but the truth is that Wall Street was the instigator and 90% of the reason for this catastrophe. It is a catastrophe caused by Wall Street greed and it has had a devastating effect on millions of families and indirectly lead to hundreds of thousands of divorces, abortions, insecure children, teenage delinquencies, etc., etc., etc.
The Democrats turn a blind eye to the harm that abortions do to this country. In the exact same way, the Republican’s ignore and even abet the tremendous harm caused by Wall Street . The Democrats also often support Wall Street, however the Republicans support them in lockstep.
The following is only a weak attempt to put “a number“ on the death and devastation caused by Wall Street food price manipulators. I do not intend this summary of facts to be authoritative or exhaustive. It is only a few statistics for you to consider. My point is that these numbers certainly indicate that the Republican led economic injustices cause as much or more death and devastation than abortions.
Following is an article by a senior editor of the Atlantic that details that speculators have caused millions of people to be driven into extreme poverty. It would be difficult to find a source more respectable than the Atlantic. The Atlantic is one source that can be trusted to write only articles that are thoroughly researched and reviewed
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/is-wall-street-driving-world-hunger/245090
If you do not want to read the entire Atlantic article, just skip to the conclusion which states:
“Action is urgently needed to stop speculation driving up hunger and poverty. Effective regulation could make futures markets operate for the benefit of food producers and consumers everywhere. Central to solving the problem is a cap on the amount of food futures contracts that can be held by financial speculators to prevent them from dominating and distorting the futures market. Thanks to campaigning, new rules are being considered in the U.S. The World Development Movement is leading the campaign to make the UK government back European proposals for effective regulation to tackle food speculation.”
The above article was written 18 months ago. Since then, Wall Street has fought tooth and nail against any reforms. The Republicans have blocked any and all meaningful regulations while tens of millions have suffered and died from undernutrition and malnutrition. There have been very weak, almost completely ineffective reforms and Mit Romney has promised to repeal even those reforms.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization provided statistics that are detailed here:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
The above article states:
“ 925 million people were undernourished in 2010.”
One of the 3 main reasons that hunger is increasing is “The significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with a few dollars a day to spend.”
“Children are the most visible victim of undernutrition.”
“The world produces enough food for everyone, approximately 2720 Kilocalories per person per day.”
If Wall Street does manipulate food price, and it certainly does, then do those numbers not indicated that hundreds of millions of people, primarily children, suffer greatly and die as a result of Wall Street’s food price manipulations? Following is a pretty good article that explains Wall Street’s complicity in world hunger.
http://voices.yahoo.com/world-hunger-starvation-somalia-8943463.html?cat=9
This article states flatly: “The cause of the world’s starvation and particularly to poverty in Africa can be attributed to three factors: Wall Street, Futures, Derivatives. In reality there is only one factor: Wall Street, with two subdivisions: Futures. Derivatives.”
Pope Benedict said in a speech a United Nations Food Conference on July 1, 2011:
“Poverty, underdevelopment and hunger are often the result of selfish attitudes which, coming from the heart of man, show themselves in social behavior and economic exchange. How can we ignore the fact that food has become an object of speculation or is connected to movements in a financial market that, lacking in clear rules and moral principles, seems anchored on the sole objective of profit?”
I suggest, that as Christians, you both should read these articles and study the matter before you again vote for any politician that is not actively trying to curb Wall Street. Jason, I suggest you study this and start a thread. Does Wall Street cause world hunger?
Randy
LikeLike
May 20, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Jason and Scalia,
Scalia, you keep insisting that I have agreed with you that the Republican policies lead to less evil than abortion. I do not agree at all. From the beginning, I have said that the Republican policies are equally reprehensible to abortion. I did make a comment at post 22 that was poorly worded and you misunderstood. I could explain that comment, but rather than do that, I have decided to more clearly outline just one of the reasons I believe the GOP policies lead to even more death and suffering than abortion.
Keep in mind as you read the following that none of what I am describing was legal 30 years ago and none of it would be legal today if it were not for support by the Republicans.
You have again urged me to reconsider my non-support of the GOP. Well, I urge you to carefully read the following and reconsider your support of the GOP.
Jason’s main point with this thread is really quite simple. He is saying that 10 million deaths by abortion during the past 8 years are compelling reason to vote Republican. Jason believes the Republicans will do more to curb abortions than the Democrats. I believe that is far too simple of a conclusion, and I have tried to give a few examples of why I believe as I believe; although it would take a book to adequately explain my position.
I have resisted trying to put a number on the devastation caused by our country’s wars and economic injustices. That is just a very complex question, and I am not competent to make any concrete statements. I have written in generalities – that millions (probably hundreds of millions) suffer and die from economic injustices and hundreds of thousands have suffered and died from the wars. Furthermore, the wars indirectly cause a great deal of the economic injustices.
I made the statement that world-wide food prices have increased dramatically in recent years and that those increases are a direct result of Wall Street “speculators” manipulating the price of food staples. I believe Wall Street has directly caused the death of tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. I want to very briefly outline the world wide damage done by Wall Street food price manipulation.
The Democrats turn a blind eye to the harm that abortions do to this country. In the exact same way, the Republican’s ignore and even abet the tremendous harm caused by Wall Street . The Democrats also often support Wall Street, however the Republicans support them in lockstep.
The following is only a weak attempt to put “a number“ on the death and devastation caused by Wall Street food price manipulators. I do not intend this summary of facts to be authoritative or exhaustive. It is only a few statistics for you to consider. My point is that these numbers certainly indicate that the Republican led economic injustices cause as much or more death and devastation than abortions.
Following is an article by a senior editor of the Atlantic that details that speculators have caused millions of people to be driven into extreme poverty. It would be difficult to find a source more respectable than the Atlantic. The Atlantic is one source that can be trusted to write only articles that are thoroughly researched and reviewed
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/is-wall-street-driving-world-hunger/245090
If you do not want to read the entire Atlantic article, just skip to the conclusion which states:
“Action is urgently needed to stop speculation driving up hunger and poverty. Effective regulation could make futures markets operate for the benefit of food producers and consumers everywhere. Central to solving the problem is a cap on the amount of food futures contracts that can be held by financial speculators to prevent them from dominating and distorting the futures market. Thanks to campaigning, new rules are being considered in the U.S. The World Development Movement is leading the campaign to make the UK government back European proposals for effective regulation to tackle food speculation.”
The above article was written 18 months ago. Since then, Wall Street has fought tooth and nail against any reforms. The Republicans have blocked any and all meaningful regulations while tens of millions have suffered and died from undernutrition and malnutrition. There have been very weak, almost completely ineffective reforms and Mit Romney has promised to repeal even those reforms.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization provided statistics that are detailed here:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
The above article states:
“ 925 million people were undernourished in 2010.”
“One of the 3 main reasons that hunger is increasing is “The significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with a few dollars a day to spend.”
“Children are the most visible victim of undernutrition.”
“The world produces enough food for everyone, approximately 2720 Kilocalories per person per day.”
If Wall Street does manipulate food price, and it certainly does, then do those numbers not indicated that hundreds of millions of people, primarily children, suffer greatly and die as a result of Wall Street’s food price manipulations?
Following is a pretty good article that explains Wall Street’s complicity in world hunger.
http://voices.yahoo.com/world-hunger-starvation-somalia-8943463.html?cat=9
This article states flatly:
“The cause of the world’s starvation and particularly to poverty in Africa can be attributed to three factors: Wall Street, Futures, Derivatives. In reality there is only one factor: Wall Street, with two subdivisions: Futures. Derivatives.”
Pope Benedict said in a speech a United Nations Food Conference on July 1, 2011:
“Poverty, underdevelopment and hunger are often the result of selfish attitudes which, coming from the heart of man, show themselves in social behavior and economic exchange. How can we ignore the fact that food has become an object of speculation or is connected to movements in a financial market that, lacking in clear rules and moral principles, seems anchored on the sole objective of profit?”
I suggest, that as Christians, you both should read these articles and study the matter before you again vote for any politician that is not actively trying to curb Wall Street. Jason, I suggest you study this and start a thread. Does Wall Street cause world hunger?
Randy
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 3:21 am
Scalia,
In your Post 20, you stated that I was maintaining that “the economy and murder are morally equivalent.” At Post 22, I responded “I did not say murder and economic injustice are equivalent.” By that, I simply meant that the two are not synonymous. I was not intending to weigh the one sin against the other. You parsed an earlier statement that I made and stated flatly that I was contradicting myself. My earlier statement was “the Republican wars and economic policies are equal travesties” A travesty is a “grossly inferior imitation.” I was saying that the Democrat’s position on abortion, the Republican Wars and Republican economic policies are all travesties; they are gross characterizations of truth. What I meant was: pro abortion advocates claim they are helping women, yet in truth an abortion is often devastating to an individual woman. In the same way, the Republicans claim that the wars are fought as an American sacrifice to help others, while the truth is those wars are gross exercises in greed. In that same vein, Romney recently claimed that cutting off food stamps will help restore a person’s dignity, when the truth is the exact opposite.
I do not see a direct contradiction with my statements, but I see how I could have worded those two sentences differently. Regardless, I think you should consider the entirety of my posts rather than grab two sentences and declare that I conceded your main point. I don’t agree with you. I strongly disagree with you.
Jason’s main point with this thread is really quite simple. He is saying that 10 million deaths by abortion during the past 8 years are compelling reason to vote Republican. Jason believes the Republicans will do more to curb abortions than the Democrats.
I agree with Jason that the Democrat’s support for abortion is compelling reason to not vote Democratic, but I continue to say that a number of Republican positions are compelling reason to also not vote for them.
One of the compelling reasons to not vote Republican, is the Republican en banc support for Wall Street. I believe Wall Street has directly caused the death of tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and directly caused tremendous devastation in this country.
The Democrats turn a blind eye to the harm that abortions do to this country. In the exact same way, the Republican’s ignore and even abet the tremendous harm caused by Wall Street . The Democrats also often support Wall Street, however the Republicans support them in lockstep.
My point is that the Republican led economic injustices cause as much or more death and devastation than abortions.
Following is an article by a senior editor of the Atlantic that details that speculators have caused millions of people to be driven into extreme poverty. It would be difficult to find a source more respectable than the Atlantic. The Atlantic is one source that can be trusted to write only articles that are thoroughly researched and reviewed
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/is-wall-street-driving-world-hunger/245090
If you do not want to read the entire Atlantic article, just skip to the conclusion which states:
Action is urgently needed to stop speculation driving up hunger and poverty. Effective regulation could make futures markets operate for the benefit of food producers and consumers everywhere. Central to solving the problem is a cap on the amount of food futures contracts that can be held by financial speculators to prevent them from dominating and distorting the futures market. Thanks to campaigning, new rules are being considered in the U.S. The World Development Movement is leading the campaign to make the UK government back European proposals for effective regulation to tackle food speculation.
The above article was written 18 months ago. Since then, Wall Street has fought tooth and nail against any reforms. The Republicans have blocked any and all meaningful regulations while tens of millions have suffered and died from undernutrition and malnutrition. There have been very weak, almost completely ineffective reforms and Mit Romney has promised to repeal even those reforms.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization provided statistics that are detailed here:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
The above article states:
“ 925 million people were undernourished in 2010.”
“One of the 3 main reasons that hunger is increasing is “The significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with a few dollars a day to spend.”
“Children are the most visible victim of undernutrition.”
“The world produces enough food for everyone, approximately 2720 Kilocalories per person per day.”
If Wall Street does manipulate food price, and it certainly does, then do those numbers not indicated that hundreds of millions of people, primarily children, suffer greatly and die as a result of Wall Street’s food price manipulations?
Following is a pretty good article that explains Wall Street’s complicity in world hunger.
http://voices.yahoo.com/world-hunger-starvation-somalia-8943463.html?cat=9
This article states flatly: “The cause of the world’s starvation and particularly to poverty in Africa can be attributed to three factors: Wall Street, Futures, Derivatives. In reality there is only one factor: Wall Street, with two subdivisions: Futures. Derivatives.”
Pope Benedict said in a speech a United Nations Food Conference on July 1, 2011:
“Poverty, underdevelopment and hunger are often the result of selfish attitudes which, coming from the heart of man, show themselves in social behavior and economic exchange. How can we ignore the fact that food has become an object of speculation or is connected to movements in a financial market that, lacking in clear rules and moral principles, seems anchored on the sole objective of profit?”
I suggest, that as Christians, you and Jason should read these articles and study the matter before you again vote for any politician that is not actively trying to curb Wall Street. Jason, I suggest you study this and start a thread. Does Wall Street cause world hunger?
Randy
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 3:31 am
Scalia
In your Post 20, you stated that I was maintaining that “the economy and murder are morally equivalent.” At Post 22, I responded “I did not say murder and economic injustice are equivalent.” By that, I simply meant that the two are not synonymous. I was not intending to weigh the one sin against the other. You parsed an earlier statement that I made and stated flatly that I was contradicting myself. My earlier statement was “the Republican wars and economic policies are equal travesties” A travesty is a “grossly inferior imitation.” I was saying that the Democrat’s position on abortion, the Republican Wars and Republican economic policies are all travesties; they are gross characterizations of truth. What I meant was: pro abortion advocates claim they are helping women, yet in truth an abortion is often devastating to an individual woman. In the same way, the Republicans claim that the wars are fought as an American sacrifice to help others, while the truth is those wars are gross exercises in greed. In that same vein, Romney recently claimed that cutting off food stamps will help restore a person’s dignity, when the truth is the exact opposite. I do not see a direct contradiction with my statements, but I see how I could have worded those two sentences differently. Regardless, I think you should consider the entirety of my posts rather than grab two sentences and declare that I conceded your main point. I don’t agree with you. I strongly disagree with you.
Jason’s main point with this thread is really quite simple. He is saying that 10 million deaths by abortion during the past 8 years are compelling reason to vote Republican. Jason believes the Republicans will do more to curb abortions than the Democrats.
I agree with Jason that the Democrat’s support for abortion is compelling reason to not vote Democratic, but I continue to say that a number of Republican positions are compelling reason to also not vote for them.
One of the compelling reasons to not vote Republican, is the Republican in block support for Wall Street. I believe Wall Street has directly caused the death of tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and directly caused tremendous devastation in this country.
The Democrats turn a blind eye to the harm that abortions do to this country. In the exact same way, the Republican’s ignore and even abet the tremendous harm caused by Wall Street . The Democrats also often support Wall Street, however the Republicans support them in lockstep.
My point is that the Republican led economic injustices cause as much or more death and devastation than abortions.
Following is an article by a senior editor of the Atlantic that details that speculators have caused millions of people to be driven into extreme poverty. It would be difficult to find a source more respectable than the Atlantic. The Atlantic is one source that can be trusted to write only articles that are thoroughly researched and reviewed
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/is-wall-street-driving-world-hunger/245090
If you do not want to read the entire Atlantic article, just skip to the conclusion which states:
Action is urgently needed to stop speculation driving up hunger and poverty. Effective regulation could make futures markets operate for the benefit of food producers and consumers everywhere. Central to solving the problem is a cap on the amount of food futures contracts that can be held by financial speculators to prevent them from dominating and distorting the futures market. Thanks to campaigning, new rules are being considered in the U.S. The World Development Movement is leading the campaign to make the UK government back European proposals for effective regulation to tackle food speculation.
The above article was written 18 months ago. Since then, Wall Street has fought tooth and nail against any reforms. The Republicans have blocked any and all meaningful regulations while tens of millions have suffered and died from undernutrition and malnutrition. There have been very weak, almost completely ineffective reforms and Mit Romney has promised to repeal even those reforms.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization provided statistics that are detailed here:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world
The above article states:
“ 925 million people were undernourished in 2010.”
“One of the 3 main reasons that hunger is increasing is “The significant increase of food prices in the last several years which has been devastating to those with a few dollars a day to spend.”
“Children are the most visible victim of undernutrition.”
“The world produces enough food for everyone, approximately 2720 Kilocalories per person per day.”
If Wall Street does manipulate food price, and it certainly does, then do those numbers not indicated that hundreds of millions of people, primarily children, suffer greatly and die as a result of Wall Street’s food price manipulations? Following is a pretty good article that explains Wall Street’s complicity in world hunger.
http://voices.yahoo.com/world-hunger-starvation-somalia-8943463.html?cat=9
This article states flatly: “The cause of the world’s starvation and particularly to poverty in Africa can be attributed to three factors: Wall Street, Futures, Derivatives. In reality there is only one factor: Wall Street, with two subdivisions: Futures. Derivatives.”
Pope Benedict said in a speech a United Nations Food Conference on July 1, 2011:
“Poverty, underdevelopment and hunger are often the result of selfish attitudes which, coming from the heart of man, show themselves in social behavior and economic exchange. How can we ignore the fact that food has become an object of speculation or is connected to movements in a financial market that, lacking in clear rules and moral principles, seems anchored on the sole objective of profit?”
I suggest, that as Christians, you and Jason should read these articles and study the matter before you again vote for any politician that is not actively trying to curb Wall Street.
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 4:06 am
Scalia,
In your Post 20, you stated that I was maintaining that “the economy and murder are morally equivalent.” At Post 22, I responded “I did not say murder and economic injustice are equivalent.” By that, I simply meant that the two are not synonymous. I was not intending to weigh the one sin against the other. You parsed an earlier statement that I made and stated flatly that I was contradicting myself. My earlier statement was “the Republican wars and economic policies are equal travesties” A travesty is a “grossly inferior imitation.” The Democrat’s position on abortion, the Republican Wars and Republican economic policies are all travesties; they are gross characterizations of truth. Pro abortion advocates claim they are helping women, yet in truth an abortion is often devastating to an individual woman. In the same way, the Republicans claim that the wars are fought as an American sacrifice to help others, while the truth is those wars are gross exercises in greed. In that same vein, Romney recently claimed that cutting off food stamps will help restore a person’s dignity, when the truth is the exact opposite. I do not see a direct contradiction with my statements, but I see how I could have worded those two sentences differently. Regardless, I think you should consider the entirety of my posts rather than point at two sentences and declare that I conceded your main point. I don’t agree with you. I strongly disagree with you.
Jason’s main point with this thread is really quite simple. He is saying that 10 million deaths by abortion during the past 8 years are compelling reason to vote Republican. Jason believes the Republicans will do more to curb abortions than the Democrats.
I agree with Jason that the Democrat’s support for abortion is compelling reason to not vote Democratic, but I continue to say that a number of Republican positions are compelling reason to also not vote for them.
One of the compelling reasons to not vote Republican, is the Republican in block support for Wall Street. I believe Wall Street has directly caused the death of tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people throughout the world and directly caused tremendous devastation in this country.
The Democrats turn a blind eye to the harm that abortions do to this country. In the exact same way, the Republican’s ignore and even abet the tremendous harm caused by Wall Street . The Democrats also often support Wall Street, however the Republicans support them in lockstep.
My point is that the Republican led economic injustices cause as much or more death and devastation than abortions.
Following is an article by a senior editor of the Atlantic that details that speculators have caused millions of people to be driven into extreme poverty. It would be difficult to find a source more respectable than the Atlantic. The Atlantic is one source that can be trusted to write only articles that are thoroughly researched and reviewed
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/is-wall-street-driving-world-hunger/245090
If you do not want to read the entire Atlantic article, just skip to the conclusion which states:
Action is urgently needed to stop speculation driving up hunger and poverty. Effective regulation could make futures markets operate for the benefit of food producers and consumers everywhere. Central to solving the problem is a cap on the amount of food futures contracts that can be held by financial speculators to prevent them from dominating and distorting the futures market. Thanks to campaigning, new rules are being considered in the U.S. The World Development Movement is leading the campaign to make the UK government back European proposals for effective regulation to tackle food speculation.
The above article was written 18 months ago. Since then, Wall Street has fought tooth and nail against any reforms. The Republicans have blocked any and all meaningful regulations while tens of millions have suffered and died from undernutrition and malnutrition. There have been very weak, almost completely ineffective reforms and Mit Romney has promised to repeal even those reforms.
I suggest that as Christians, that you and Jason each read the Atlantic article and study the matter for yourselves.
Randy
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 7:50 am
The Atlantic article mentioned in my previous post fairly acknowledges both sides of the controversy surrounding Wall Streets food speculation. The editor states that certain facts “might suggest” the food price increases are a “bubble” caused, or influenced, by elements other than pure Wall Street speculation. He then provides information from the World Development Movement that provides information and opinion that the problem is caused primarily by Wall Street speculation. The conclusion I quoted in my post 26 is the conclusion of the World Development Movement (and many, many experts) rather than the direct conclusion of the Atlantic editor. Again, if you are interested in any of this, there is considerable expert opinion on the internet.
Randy
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 8:07 am
Randy, your latest post just baffles me. Ok, so you don’t like the GOP’s economic policies. That’s been clear for quite some time. What has that got to do with what I have been arguing?
You write,
So are you backtracking? You are simply saying they “are not synonymous”?? Do you not think Jason and I already know they are not synonymous? Are you serious? Even before the post I cited, your first post (2) states:
So, it is “equally reprehensible” for me to take your wallet as it is for me to blow your head off, right? You should have stopped posting. Millions of babies have been and will be murdered and you complain about Wall Street. Incredible. Unless you’re prepared to engage my argument, let’s call it quits now. I’m nauseated by this.
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm
PTL Bro Dulle, you stated that “ I’m not saying that Black Americans who vote Democratic are morally inferior to me. What I am saying is that I think they, just like their White and any other color counterparts, have their political priorities out of order.”
Historically speaking it is evident that the Republican Party helped to pass key pieces of legislation to help the advancement of African Americans.
It is even speculated that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
In your estimation what has happened in the African American community to prompt this ‘political out of order-ness” (as you call it).
Also historically what changed in the Republican Party to cause this wide chasm between black Christians and those on the right? And what is being done in the party to win more blacks to the GOP?
Why (in your estimation) would African Americans, (who have been historically marginalized and discriminated against in the U.S and globally) vote for the left wholesale. Why in your estimation are African Americans socially conservative but not politically conservative?
Also, as it relates to justice, biblically speaking there are different forms of “murder”: “physical murder”, and murder that comes about through “hate”. Both forms of murder seem to be commensurate in their devastating affects upon mankind. They both have carnal and satanic origins.
Ethical and moral atrocities have been and continue to be committed by both parties.(Rep and Dems)
It seems apparent that no political party has any moral high ground in this area of justice.
1John 3
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore *slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no * murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1John4
4:20 If a man say *, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ?
Finally, It also seems apparent that no one in the church really wants to deal with one of the greatest moral dilemmas in Christendom and that is “RACISM”. We often times mask our racism behind our religiosity, good works, and our political agendas.
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Hey Milton,
Glad to see your post. Somebody needs to wake them up. I said it 10 times and they just ignore the fact that 95% of Black Christians disagree that the Republican Party is a good party. To dismiss that fact as a “cultural problem” is simply unbelievable, and undoubtedly extremely offensive to a Black person.
Scalia, sorry for the multiple posts. No idea what happened. Read only 26 and 27. Of course I am serious. Why do you want to keep going back to 2 sentences that I worded poorly and you misunderstood?
You, and Jason should think about what Milton and I are saying:
95% of Black Christians cannot stand the Republican Party. They have very good reason. Many white Christians are just as adamant.
Wall Street is killing tens of millions of third world people, as we speak. They are driving up the price of food so they can get bigger mansions, jets and yatchs. The Republican Party is supporting Wall Street in lockstep.
You are a Christian. Christians should not vote for a party that supports abortion, wars or starving people for money.
Randy
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Scalia,
Read my posts 31 and 32 (rather than 26 and 27) and my post 35. Somehow I made multiple posts. The others all say much the same thing, but would be repetitious to read them all.
Sorry about your nausea. You should be nauseous if you think about all the people your Republican Wall Street Friends are starving in the underdeveloped world.
Jason, you are just too silent. I will probably move on. If you condone what Wall Street is doing, then you aren’t paying enough attention. The truth is out there. You should turn off Fox News. You are plenty smart enough. Is your heart and mind open?
Randy
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Jason, in post 21, you wrote,
“As Christians in a democratic republic, our duty is to do our part to promote justice in the land.”
I have a question: Suppose we are Christians in a totalitarian communistic country. Is our part to promote justice in the land equal or identical to that of our Christian brothers in a democractic republic, especially in terms of abortion (or perhaps, infanticide)?
What I’m getting at is that there are believers in countries not like ours where abortion is prevalent and just as many if not more born and unborn babies are being killed every year, with China being the prime example. There, believers do not have the same voting rights to make the same kind of changes possible.
Does this change their duty?
And if so, then does that mean such a duty is relative to the political situation and not incumbent upon believers universally regardless of any political (or otherwise) situation?
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Aaron,
Yes, in the same sense that I am not responsible to help save a drowning man in Yuganda, but I am responsible for helping to save a drowning man in the pool in my backyard (not that I have one). We are to do what we can. In countries where the people are not the government, they have no voice and can do little to change the political sphere. But in America we are the government, and we have the power to change the political sphere for the moral good through voting, through lobbying our representatives, and through public demonstrations. Given our political situation, we have both the duty and privilege to promote justice in the land–a privilege and duty not many citizens have ever had before.
Jason
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Randy,
I’m not being silent on purpose. I’m just too busy. Now that my job has let up, I’ve got hundreds of emails to respond to and hundreds of pages of notes to incorporate into lessons. I can’t spend all my time going back and forth (though I would like to). I think we’ve both made our positions clear, and I’m content to leave it at that.
As for Wall Street, whether I condone it or not is irrelevant. I could agree with you that it’s horrible and immoral, but the fact would remain that the legal killing of 1.3 million babies each year is worse by a factor of infinity. If I have to choose between tackling the evil of bad economics and the evil of murder, I’ll choose the evil of murder.
Jason
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Randy,
I will not take morality lectures from somebody who sees no moral difference between a pickpocket and a murderer. Moreover, I had requested no further dialog if you refused to engage my argument. Of course, it’s your choice to continue, but your logical disengagement cedes by default.
All of your hand-wringing over economic injustice is just that–hand-wringing. Since you do not support either party, you are effectively doing nothing in the legal arena to either prevent murder or “starvation.” And if you think the Democrats are disengaged from Wall Street, you live in fantasy land. You, Randy, insofar as the political arena is concerned, are willing to sit back and do nothing about starvation and to do nothing to protect the unborn from murder, and you have the gall to lecture me for taking the best legal route possible to protect the unborn? You post an article on the Internet while refusing to support a party that will do something about economic injustice (or supporting a party that has no power)? Sure. Sit back and do nothing for either cause while criticizing those who, though they cannot eliminate all evils, are trying nonetheless to do something. Incredible.
You have acknowledged you would save your daughter’s life before you would save her money. You thus admit that the direct prevention of her murder takes precedence over her pocketbook. That morally OBLIGATES you to be consistent in the political arena, as argued above. Your admission contradicts your armchair quarterbacking. Not content with something so obvious, you irrationally cling to this vapid notion that unjust economic policies are morally equivalent to murder. You’re so wedded to proving your point that you fail to see the contradiction in your position. Deep down I think you really see it because your really can’t expect us to believe that you merely meant that the economy and murder aren’t synonymous. A grade school student knows they’re not synonymous. No, you temporarily acknowledged the obvious that preventing murder is more important than fixing the economy. Not wanting to admit that you were in error, you reversed course with this clap-trap about word definitions.
Keep sitting on the back of your lap while we continue to work to protect the millions of unborn who stand to be murdered, in part, because of your political indifference. And please, we need no reminders of your so-called pro-life past. It’s great you helped to save over 180 lives, but as long as abortion is legal in our country, millions more will die. I doubt you’ll suffer nausea over it.
LikeLike
May 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Milton,
I do not know enough about the history of poltiical parties and African Americans to be able to answer your question. I can only speculate that Democrats wanted the minority votes, and since the minorities were–on average–the less financially prosperous, the Democrats secured their votes by promising them (and delivering in many cases) cash handouts. Of course, it’s never put this crassly, but that is, in essence, what happens. Which is why I think it is no understatement to say that when we ignore our parties policy on the killing of the unborn because they make us more prosperous, we are prostituting our vote.
Jason
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 3:00 am
Jason,
Your assesment of why Blacks vote for Democrats is, to put it mildly, just racist. Think about what you are saying. 95% of black Christians are voting for selfish reasons? Ask a Black friend who will be candid with you if he/she is offended by your above remark. Why not befriend a black Christian and ask him or her why Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?
You have not said one word about Wall Street’s manipulation of world food prices. Those manipulations are starving tens of millions of people around the world – at this very moment as you and I sit in our comfortable armchairs and wax on elegantly with our posts. Wall Street manipulators are overwhelmingly supported by Republicans.
It is not good enough for you to say “I don’t know enough about the history of political parties…” or “I don’t know enough about Wall Street food price speculation…” As a Christian, you should learn about those two areas. They are fundamental to your position that a Christian should vote Republican.
However, you did respond, which means you have read my posts.
Randy
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 4:42 am
Scalia,
Sorry if my words sound like a lecture – I certainly don’t mean them that way. I do not doubt your sincerity or Jason’s sincerity. I do not doubt your commitment to do what you consider to be right.
You want to end the dialog on this thread, and so do I, and Jason has commented that he has no more to add. Let me say these last four comments and then if you and/or Jason want to have the last word – I will then be silent.
First: You said that I “see no difference between a murderer and a pickpocket.” That is not a fair assessment of my position. I am saying that abortion and starving tens of millions of people are comparable atrocities.
Second: I am saying that world food prices could not be manipulated if the Republican’s did not support the Wall Street rules that allow food price manipulation.
Third: There are other reasons I do not anymore vote Republican, but I have tried to focus mostly on Wall Street’s food price speculation because 925 million people in our world go to bed hungry.
Fourth: I respect you and Jason and would hope the feeling is mutual.
Randy
LikeLike
May 22, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Randy writes,
You did not say they were “comparable”; you said they were equal. When faced with the rational incongruity of that stance, you backed away from it, only to embrace it again.
But that doesn’t really matter to you because you’ve opted out of the political process. As they say, if you don’t vote, don’t complain; and if you vote for a party that has no realistic chance of accomplishing what you want, you are effectively doing nothing.
Again, you really don’t care about hungry people because you’ve opted out. More empty words.
I cannot respect somebody who tries to equate murder with economic policies. I cannot respect somebody who complains about the economy and abortion, but will do nothing about them. I cannot respect somebody who argues that since he cannot solve both, he will do nothing.
Back to the 1850s. If the GOP clamors for the abolition of slavery and concomitantly supports the economic policies Randy abjures, and if the Democratic Party supports slavery but opposes the economic policies of the GOP, Randy would rather let slavery continue than to support the GOP. And if we replace “slavery” with “extermination camps,” Randy’s position would be unchanged. Incredible.
I close with the same words from Post 20: Keep preaching what you think is economic justice, but save lives first.
LikeLike
May 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Randy,
There is nothing racist about my remarks, and I regret that you would raise such an outlandish charge. For it to be racist would require that it be said of a particular group solely based on their skin color. That’s not my basis for the evaluation. And the same assessment could equally apply to low-income groups of any color–black, brown, or white. The sad reality is that humans often care more about money they can see than the dying unborn they can’t see. Indeed, you seem to be arguing that white rich people vote for Republicans because it is to their financial benefit to do so. Should I charge you with racism?
And I didn’t mean to imply that all blacks who vote Democrat do so for financial reasons. Many people vote for whatever party their parents voted for. It’s a family and cultural thing. But I think one of the main reasons such a large majority of African Americans came to start voting Democrat (a party that previously supported their slavery) is due to the tangibles promised to them by the Democrats.
And for the record, I don’t say a Christian should vote Republican, per se. I say a Christian should vote for the party that is doing the most to promote the greatest justice in the land. Right now, that happens to be the Republican party since they are the main party opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the like. But in the future another party could rise that does the same, or perhaps we’ll find ourselves with a 3 party system and two of those parties are opposed to abortion and both could do an equally good job in eliminating it. In that case, we would have to reassess our vote. Christians should not wed themselves to any political party. What we should wed ourselves to are Christian moral values, and use those values to determine the party and candidates we vote for–parties and candidates who best reflect the most important Christian values and who have the power to actually make a difference in the world for those values.
Jason
LikeLike
August 10, 2012 at 9:41 am
I found this interesting: http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2012/08/why-most-blacks.html. It connects the dots about why African Americans are so dedicated to the Democratic party, and it has to do with economics. It doesn’t tell the whole story, however, since it only goes back to the 70s, and it’s clear from their own chart that even in the 30s African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Jason
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm
[…] the comments section of a previous post (Opposed to abortion? Your politics may say otherwise) I put forth my opinion that many pro-lifers vote for Democrats out of financial concerns. […]
LikeLike