Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Frank Pastore :: Townhall.com Columnist
Wallis is Wrong, Part One. On Budgets, Morality, and Priorities
by Frank Pastore
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Jim Wallis, leader of Sojourners and one of the Big Three of the Religious Left (along with Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo), recently asked, “What are the great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?”Good question, though I’m not sure if there are any moral issues evangelical Christians don’t care about.

He asked this in response to a statement by James Dobson that he didn’t like. Dobson had said that the current global warming controversy wrongly shifts “the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

This is right off the first page of the Left’s playbook: “Persuade evangelicals to care less about abortion, homosexuality, and abstinence and more about “social justice.” The latter a euphemism that encompasses a Marxist redistribution of wealth, anti-capitalism, European-style big government socialism, an environmental policy that believes man is the pollution, and an overall sense of morality where what you do privately doesn’t count, it’s only what you do collectively that counts. Socialists believe in the virtues of government so much that even morality is defined in collectivist terms.

From Wallis’ own website (www.sojo.net) I’ve gathered the following “great moral issues of our time.” They’re listed below.

And again, these are important issues, but the questions that need to be answered are: “Who should pay for these? How much should they pay? What gets funded first, last, least and most? How does the limited pie get cut up? Is the money being spent wisely and efficiently? Are our policies helping or hurting? What is the responsibility of the host governments? Who lives and who dies?”

Here’s the list: Global poverty, global hunger, global warming, global disease, HIV-AIDS, the genocide in Darfur, human trafficking and other violations of human rights–especially the war in Iraq–and closer to home, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, providing universal health care, expanding the Food Stamp program, and actually increasing (increasing!) Medicaid and Medicare benefits.

These are important issues that we all should care about. And we do. American tax dollars are the primary source of funding for these things, that is, in addition to our incredibly generous charitable giving.

And, don’t complain to me about how we give less per capita than European countries, or how their economies are more “just” than ours. Since the end of WWII, what they should have spent on defense they spent on social programs. We bankrolled the West’s military spending in the shadow of the Soviet threat. Sure, it’s really easy to be “generous” when Daddy’s paying your mortgage, utilities, and tuition.

So, we care a lot about these things, and we prove it through both our taxes and our donations.

But, apparently we don’t care enough for the Left or Jim Wallis. We must care “more.”

Notice how Dobson’s “marriage, abortion, and abstinence” are more moral than economic, while Wallis’ long list of “great moral issues of our time” are more economic than moral? Could it be that “social justice” simply means that there should be no rich and no poor rather than some rich and many poor? If so, that’s communism–with more value placed upon equality than freedom.

Wallis is fond of saying “budgets are moral documents.” He’s right. A federal budget is a snapshot of the current moral values system of the nation–except for the fact that rarely is something we no longer care about actually de-funded. And, budgets are generally zero sum entities, as well–if you’re going to fund New Program A, you must cut from Old Program B.

So, when he implies “care more,” let’s translate. “We must raise your taxes, and/or cut your entitlement benefits, and/or cut your security spending, and/or cut other programs we don’t think are as deserving as these ‘great moral issues of our time.’”

Let’s see if such directness will fly…

Raise your hand if you’re not paying enough in taxes. Unemployed college students put your hands down. Raise your hand if paying around 30% is not quite your “fair share.”

Boomers, raise your hands if you’d like your Social Security benefits cut as you ready to retire next year and then collect Medicare in 2011. Oops, sorry. Wallis actually wants to increase benefits as we wait beneath the shadow of the crashing fiscal tsunami of entitlement spending–yeah, that’s smart–when the boat is sinking, drill more holes in the hull.

Americans, raise your hands if you don’t think survival is a moral issue, and you think we ought to defund our security budget in a post-9/11 world. Wallis is a pacifist who believes all wars are immoral, not just Iraq. Hence, in his worldview perhaps we don’t even need a standing army at all. Come to think of it, this might be how he plans on funding his proposals: just eliminate all military spending, all DOD spending and all NASA spending, and all border security spending, and all port security spending…

Lastly, raise your hand if you know of a federal program that should be cut and the money diverted to one of these “great moral issues of our time.” By the way, this is what legislatures do really well. They argue and debate competing priorities while being held responsible for their decisions by the people who put them in office.

I don’t see many hands.

See, it comes down to this. Wallis is preaching to the wrong congregation. He’s preaching to all Americans about how their federal budget needs to be more moral–which is why he wants to raise their taxes–when he should be preaching to churches about how they’re not giving enough to the “great moral issues of our time.”

It should be more about church donations than federal taxes.

Like you, I believe I already pay too much in taxes and I don’t want to pay anymore. But, I also believe I could never donate “too much” or even “enough” to charity–there’s never “enough,” there’s always room for “more.”

“Just one more dollar, Sir, for the starving children in Africa?”

And “more” money spent on these issues would make Jim Wallis happy–unless he just cares about raising taxes out of some anti-capitalist bent. I wonder…

Who knows…maybe spending more money might actually help to solve some of these problems, but I doubt it. After all, I believe the real solution begins not with money, but with having the right values and morals. But, that’s a topic for another column.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Pastore's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Excellent column!
Great quote: "Like you, I believe I already pay too much in taxes and I don’t want to pay anymore. But, I also believe I could never donate “too much” or even “enough” to charity–there’s never “enough,” there’s always room for “more."

religious left, leaves us left
Frank has hit it on the nose again! In the guise of "compassion" we get theft of what we work so hard for, distributed by the powerful, at their descretion. Dr. Dobson reflects what is important to our creator, Wallis, to the power of the few to do as "they" deem worthy!

Good point...
About the "moral" govts of Europe (could have
included Canada). Socialism is easy as long as
the mighty capitalist engine of the US is
there to drive the world economy. Just as
cheap pacifism is easy as long as the mighty
US military is there to keep the barbarians
outside the gates.

We cannot solve others' issues.
We can assist them in solving their own issues; but, not until they have committed to solving the issues.

The principle reason the US "war on poverty" has not been won is that those in poverty have not committed to working to improve their situation. Bill Cosby has been very direct in his recent talks on this issue.

The principle reason that many resource rich African countries are steeped in poverty is that their governments act to make success virtually impossible. Robert Mugabe is probably the reigning champion in this regard.

All the money in the world will not cure either stupidy or cupidity, unless the afflicted are willing to be educated and reform. We have demonstrated this often enough that it should truly be "intuitively obvious to the casual observer".

morality
Pastore writes:

Notice how Dobson’s “marriage, abortion, and abstinence” are more moral than economic, while Wallis’ long list of “great moral issues of our time” are more economic than moral?

Martha writes:

Read the Gospels. Underline or note the red type of Jesus' words. He talks _a lot about money_, not a lot about sex, which is the center of Dobson's moral big three.

Don't get me wrong. I recognize that it was not likely for any religious leader at the time to talk about sex. But Christ does, indeed speak more to fairness for the weak among us. (Granted, this was also a greater issue at the time than it is today.)

Now, I'm actually not in full agreement with Wallis on everything, including his "no just war" stance. And I'm not so crazy about forced generosity. I happen to like capitalism, even though I'm not one of the elite who has grown fat from its loopholes. I think it's our best available economic system and I strongly prefer that we all have adequate incentive to work hard and be productive. I certainly see Pastore's point about the Europe's greater ability to give due to US-bankrolled security.

But -- big "Whoa, Nelly," here -- Dobson's issues are moral and Wallis' are not? First of all, Pastore needs to show me where Wallis' current discussion of moral issues is about forced generosity. His and other liberal faith leaders' call is to _Dobson_. They may at times speak to the US Government, but this time, he is responding to Dobson's attack on Christian, Evangelical leaders' stance on global warming. Dobson would have everyone agree with him or not be considered Christian.

If Dobson would allow for even a smidgen of variety in the Christian Church, and wouldn't have directly addressed Wallis and others, Wallis wouldn't have responded by politely inviting Dobson to debate with others, "Exactly what are the great moral issues of our time?"

Wallis wants Dobson to spend more time addressing the injustices that create poverty (and, yes, sometimes injustices, and not just laziness, are part of the cause). Dobson wants Wallis not just to talk more about sexual morality (which Wallis does, by the way), but to also simply _shut up_ about anything that reeks of liberalism. This isn't just non-PC or intolerant, it's downright paranoid, controlling, and sounds suspiciously like someone who wants our government to be a theocracy, not a representative democracy.

An added note about pacifism:
One of the things that I notice on this site is that many conservatives don't realize that conscientious objectors to war have, indeed, sacrificed a great deal. This is understandable, since the danger has mostly past, due to their sacrifices, and current COs have little to sacrifice, if anything. But it wasn't long ago that my Mennonite forebears were tortured and killed for their refusal to bear arms. You may not agree with their beliefs (I don't anymore -- I believe in just war), but you can't say they avoided war because they were wimps. They knew what they were in for. They knew that they would be jailed or killed for their choice. They chose not to fight in order to avoid killing another person, not to avoid being killed (obviously). And there really still are people today who have that same mindset and, I'm quite sure, would be killed rather than take part in war.

Excuse my rant. I just think Dobson and Wallis are both misunderstood and misrepresented by this article.

Martha

Conservative Morality Borders on Facism
Social Justice does not equate to a redistribution of wealth. The author is making a leap of idealogical fear.

How was wealth redistributed by ending slavery, giving woman the right to vote? The civil rights movement in th e60's? or if we give gays the right to marry?

Social Conservative moral values are designed to control your behavior. They are not concerend with social justice. They make emotional moral judgements in stark black and white terms, and want to use the federal government as instrument of their morality to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life. If they were to succeed;

- Woman cannot chose for themseleves to have an abortion
- Gays cannot marry
- No sex before marriage, no contraception can be used.
- No euthanasia
- No Stem cell research

There is a pattern here. You lose control of your life choices. It is designed to control you and force conformity.

When morality is defined in this way, you become morally rightous, judgemental and discriminatory. You have a target of bigatory and hatred. You are no different from Islamofacists. BTW, they share the same values. This is how the Nazi party took control of Germany.


correction
2nd to last para., 4th line: "past" should be passed.

talk about being a classic schoolteacher...but I'll leave the little grammatical things alone. :)

stedes,
Thanks for your focused and rational post.

Sometimes I think the tactic that is used to take the spotlight off the intrusive, controlling nature of conservative morality preachers is to create a caricature of liberals as control freak Robin Hoods.

Martha

stedes:
Wallis, and the rast of the religious left, do
indeed call for wealth redistribution through
the coercive power of govt. There's plenty to
criticize about the religious right but let's
not gloss over the socialist advocacy of
Sojourners and their ilk.

Pacifism really means: leave the world to be
run by the barbarians. Remember - the wolves
are always going to be at the gates. When the
choice is fight or die, pacifists claim moral
superiority over those who choose to defend
themselves (and ironically, the pacifist!)
To me, that's morally reprehensible.

The Left's Playbook
bullgod - I was respondig to the author's general statement about the "Lefts Playbook", rather than specifically Wallis and Sojourners.

I will be honest and plead ignorance, I am not specifically familiar with Wallis and Sojourns. However, There is no question that many liberals feel the government has a role in correcting social injustices. Just like conservatives feel government has a role to impose by law their moral values.

The extreme right-facism and the extreme left-Marxism/Communism are both anti-american and we all should be equally opposed to. However today, the extreme right wing has more influence and a foothold into the American Political system and better organized than the extreme left. They are our biggest domestic enemy today.

As far as Pacifism - I gather you were responding to Martha.

pacifism +
stedes writes:
As far as Pacifism - I gather you were responding to Martha.

Martha writes:
Yeah, I was wondering about that. I actually can concede a bit, to bullgod. I would have to agree that there are probably plenty of pseudo-pacifists who are just getting a free ride. I just don't think the real pacifists are doing so. Some actually believe the world would be better off without a military or police force. Obviously, I don't agree.

I don't know everything about Wallis and Sojourners, but they are my old stomping ground. I do skim the email magazine and my impression is that they are still sticking to the big injustices (like Darfur) and speaking more to the church than to government. I stand by my original statement that both Dobson and Wallis are mischaracterized in this article. Wallis _does_ speak to government and he encourages Christians to be active citizens. Dobson doesn't like that. Hmmmm...

Martha

stedes:
In practice, I don't think there's a nickel's
worth of difference between fascism and commu-
nism. "Correcting social injustice" is a flag
all advocates of statism fly. I am a conserv-
ative, and I have no wish for the state to
impose my moral values; but I don't think
that people who reject bourgeois values like
hard work, thriftiness,etc. should be insula-
ted from the consequences of that choice.

The pacfist remark was really about another
Sojourner stance that irritates me, not di-
rected to you or Martha. Sorry!

Stedes
"No more euthanasia".No,not that!You are clearly in the Hitler camp then.Good for you!He put to death thousands of "mental defectives" and "idiots".

not even close to offending me
bullgod writes:
The pacifist remark was really about another
Sojourner stance that irritates me, not di-
rected to you or Martha. Sorry!

Martha writes:
I didn't think you were on the attack or anything. :) Certainly, no offense taken. I always enjoy reading your posts, btw.

Hmmm...
It sure looks like Wallis ruffles many fewer feathers than Gen. Pace.

Stedes
You are wrong when you say social conservatives want to use the federal government to impose their morality on others. What they want is for the government at any level to refrain from imposing the morality of others on our whole society, including them.

There is no question that it is a moral judgment to say, for example, that gay unions should have the same status as traditional marriage. It is a moral judgment to say that abortion is a privacy right.

The idea of rights is a moral concept to begin with; common obligation, the foundation of "rights," is codependent with morality. One cannot exist without the other. When one faction demands that the right to an abortion be guaranteed by the use of public funds -- a proposal that has been made repeatedly in Congress -- that is clearly an attempt to impose morality on taxpayers who may object to abortion.

It makes no headway with anyone but your own Amen corner when you engage in the same imprecise, non-factual assertions of which you accuse conservatives. You say that if social conservatives succeed:

- Woman cannot chose for themseleves to have an abortion
Even if this is the desired end-state for many conservatives, they are well aware that we live by the rule of law. Unlike the left, they don't try to impose their morality on others through the unelected judiciary branch, but work through the legislative branch, where majorities are essential to action. Considering that there are, indeed, people across America who think abortion should remain legally available; but that about 70% of poll respondents for the last 40 years have thought that it should also carry some restrictions -- the most likely outcome of state legislative debate is that elective abortions would be restricted to the first trimester, partial-birth abortion would be eliminated, and minors would require parental consent to get abortions. This is hardly the same thing as "women cannot choose for themselves to have an abortion."

- Gays cannot marry
Same comments about the rule of law and state legislatures. What conservatives actively oppose is the prospect of the judicial branch imposing gay marriage on the entire country because a state court has imposed it in one state. There is no realistic prospect of statehouses approving gay marriage en masse, but where such legislation is proposed, social conservatives will oppose it by building majorities, as they have every right to do.

- No sex before marriage, no contraception can be used.
This is an absurd statement, since no social conservatives advocate such a legislative agenda. In the past some states prohibited the sale of contraceptives to unmarried people, but a measure of this kind is not on the agenda of any social conservative political organization.

- No euthanasia
You might want to word this one differently. I believe "right to die" has been adopted by its proponents. Euthanasia has customarily referred to a process that may or may not have the consent of the subject. The rule of law and state legislatures applies here as well. Conservatives in fact were deeply split on the Terry Schiavo case, many of them sympathizing with Schiavo's parents, but believing the federal government (Congress, in this case) had no business attempting to intervene.

- No Stem cell research
Another absurd statement. Embryonic stem cell research is the type objected to by social conservatives. Adult stem cell research -- which is the only stem cell research line that has yet resulted in successful therapeutic applications -- is approved by all. Notably, not all social conservatives even object to all embryonic stem cell research. For some, the concern is developing new embryos specifically for the purpose of destroying them in research.

Finally, not wanting to use the government to impose morality should apply to everyone, if we're going to use that line of argument. No force of government should be brought to bear on any attitude anyone has, including such things as whom employers want to employ, whom landlords want to rent to, and whether people say nice things or mean things to you as you walk by on a public street.

No one advances a "should" proposition of any kind without having made a moral judgment first. Social liberals are moralists of the highest order, in the very real sense that they do use the government to try to force everyone to agree with their moral judgments. Social conservatives oppose them, but have not by any means originated the moral content of the debate.

oops
I spoke too soon. Hi, dyerje.

I don't usually broach this subject, because I do wonder about our progress with abortion, but, just logically speaking, explain to me how your tax dollars going to pay for an abortion for a woman who can't afford one is different from a Christian Scientist's tax dollars going to pay for a blood transfusion for a person who can't afford one.

I understand the argument from a fiscally conservative point of view, but not from a morally conservative POV. I paid my taxes for the Department of Defense back when I was a pacifist.

It just seems to me that the argument that we are moralizing you when we say you can't moralize us takes a lot of rhetorical acrobatics.

Martha



stede
"If they were to succeed;

- Woman cannot chose for themseleves to have an abortion
- Gays cannot marry
- No sex before marriage, no contraception can be used.
- No euthanasia
- No Stem cell research"

I will not comment regarding abortion, since I am irrevocably biased. I have an adopted son and a daughter-in-law who is also an adoptee, neither of whom I can imagine not having in my life.

Gays cannot MARRY now; nor, will they be able to until the definition of the word is changed. Lesbians can have "vagina dialogues" and "gay" men can have "skin flute duets"; or, they can have civil unions.

Promiscuous sex leads to lots of things, including STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. I have no problem with your desire to have promiscuous sex, as long as you do not expect me to pay for an abortion, pay to raise your child, or pay for research to cure your diseases. Nobody government or religious organization will ever limit the use of the world's most effective contraceptive - an aspirin tablet pressed tightly between the knees.

Euthanasia is not legal now, to the great frustration of Peter Singer. But, who decides who gets euthanized? You? I am also irrevocably opposed to euthanasia.

Stem cell research is legal now, and is being actively pursued. The only existing restriction is on federal funding of embrionic stem cell research (except for limited cell lines). The issue here is that embryos cannot be produced and destroyed in federally funded research.

One further item. There is an ongoing debate about the techniques used for criminal executions. I personally favor a technique which is already widely accepted for terminating the lives of unwanted humans: immobilize the individual to be executed; pierce the top of the skull with a sharp instrument; and, suck out the brains. This technique is very aggressively supported by abortion advocates.

Too many "opinions"
Wallis, as a reader of the Bible(and that includes the Old Testament) , should be fully aware that God is the giver of all gifts, and the Bible repeatedly tells man how to receive His blessings, as well as his curses. The problem with too many "reverends" today is they don't bother to read what God has to say about these issues, but instead they run around expressing their personal points of view. Christ told us that the poor would be with us always... And don't bother to reply to me because I won't read it.

honestly curious, firetoice
Have you given any thought as to what government-sponsored health clinics should say to the many teenagers impregnated by their fathers, uncles, or brothers?

Martha

firetoice - winning the war on poverty
Perhaps we have not won the War on Poverty because we never adopted Pat Paulsen's proposed policy: shooting about 400 beggars a week.

Martha
Statistically, there are very few teenage girls impregnated by their fathers, uncles, brothers, etc. And, even then, abortion is fighting violence with violence. The baby is innocent, why should it die because of who its father is? To put the child up for adoption is a wonderful solution in such a case. The teenager will have more peaceful closure by giving the child to a loving family than by killing it.


dyerje
Excellent response. Your explanations are clear and concise. Thank you.

A kind response, Carrie,
and I appreciate it, truly.

I actually think adoption _is_ a wonderful response to such a situation. However, that is something that can be offered to a teenager, but not mandated.

I was challenging firetoice's claim that s/he has no problem with someone's choice to be promiscuous as long as they don't ask citizens to pay for their abortions. If firetoice has no problem with promiscuity and subsequent abortion (as long as the individual pays), does s/he also expect the victim of incest to cough up the cash?

Regardless of the statistical frequency (and Im pretty sure it happens more than most people imagine), girls do unfortunately get pregnant by family members, which is *one* of the motivators in providing privacy to girls seeking abortions. We don't actually know how many young women are in this situation. I'm just asking us to consider them and not assume that it's all about promiscuity. In fact, even among teens who are having sex with each other, I'd venture a guess that the ones who don't get pregnant, who are using the contraceptives, are the ones most likely to be promiscuous.

Just one subject, though. I'm not a big abortion fan. I'd really like to see us keep reducing both teen pregnancy *and* abortion...a lot!

Martha

Martha
Not to worry, no ruffled feathers here.

The fundamental issue is that one side -- the left -- claims not to be acting from motives of moral judgment, and accuses the other side of doing that with the clear implication that it's a bad thing.

This is an invalid premise, because everyone on both sides is arguing from positions of moral judgment. The corollary that moral judgment is bad remains unexamined, to the detriment of all further argument. Our daily lives depend on a whole network of moral judgments, from "people should honor their contracts" to "parents should care for the welfare of their children" to "we should all be safe from burglary and molestation in our homes."

To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum's character in The Big Chill, people can't get through a day without a good, juicy moral judgment. The question is not whether we should impose moral judgments through the force of the state, but which moral judgments we should impose. That's what the representative government process is all about.

On your specific question, there is no theoretical difference between the tax dollars of Christian Scientists going to blood transfusions, and the tax dollars of the pro-life going to abortions. If Christian Scientists want to work within the legislative process and change what the government pays for, that is their right.

I would object to attempts to achieve that objective through the judiciary -- just as I would object to the judicial branch imposing abortion restrictions on us (no element of the Constitution gives it a basis for doing that); or overturning a gay marriage law if it were passed by the majority in a state legislature (the Constitution doesn't address marriage, and provides no basis for ruling on the states' interpretations of it); or the judicial branch assuming the authority to decide what "public use" means in the matter of eminent domain.

All ideas about what the public "should" be doing are competing moral ideas, and the place to hash them out, IF there is a real need for the force of the state to interact with them, is in the legislature.

Please don't confuse people disagreeing with you, or with your interpretations of their premises, with people being upset or hating you. I know that can be hard to avoid among TH's bloggers, but be assured, you're in a safe zone here. It's possible to disagree without hatred or profanity.

dyerje
Actually, the first part of my post was poorly stated and very misleading.

My "oops" was written with a big smile, and my "ruffled feathers" comment was not really serious in the first place. I wrote too fast. I really meant to comment on the relative quiet on the Jim Wallis front vs. the intense activity with respect to General Pace.

I honestly just botched my intended welcome to you. I wasn't taking your words harshly at all. My bad, though. I can see why it sounded that way. I'm trying to do too many things at once. :)

Your points and opinions regarding the appropriate use of legislative and judicial branches are very well stated and taken. I get it.

I also profoundly agree with you about the topic of moral neutrality. Morality is intrinsically woven into everything we do and I value it greatly. I would never claim that my opinion is morally neutral.

However, I'm not sure it applies to this article. Jim Wallis simply invited Jim Dobson to a debate on the great moral issues of our time. That doesn't sound like a claim of moral neutrality to me at all. It just sounds like a moral disagreement.

Kind regards,
Martha

Answer to question
My tax burden of about 37% is high enough. However, Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton and Focus on the Family should all be paying much higher taxes than they currently do. Pastore likes to appeal to individuals and their tax burdens, when the big corporate interests are the ones who should be chipping in more. Pastore's arguments are made up of the usual old conservative red herrings: Distract people from the fact that we have too much money and power, using divisive social issues and individuals fear of higher taxes. It's a strategy that dates back to the time of the Pharisees. Time to update the con playbook.

Big smiles
Would that all "oopses" were written with them! De nada, Martha. I do think Pastore's point is that HE is having a moral disagreement with Jim Wallis. Fair enough -- and the other way 'round, too.

Have a good one.

Larry:
Higher taxes on those evil corporations (the
ones who produce all those nice things, and
employ all those nice folks who make them)
will inevitably be paid by middle-class
Americans in the form of higher prices, low-
er employment, and if you're an investor,
less dividends on your investment.

How much money and power is too much? Are you
referring to Americans in general? Or suggest-
ing that we should tax everyone to "equality?"

Somebody mentioned Robert Mugabe in an earlier
post. Check into what he's done to the people
of Zimbabwe before calling for a further slide
into socialism in this country.

Martha - My answer
Move out; we will help you find shelter.
File charges; and, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Allow the human life which has begun in you a chance to live; and, put the child up for adoption.
I realize this is not the "easy way out", but it is far better, in my view, than the Planned Parenthood approach of "eliminating the problem" and "keeping the secret".

Liberal statements
I love reading liberal statements about the right oppressing choice.

The nation was created where the majority under a constitution in each state, decided what was moral. It may have appeared it was the "radical right wing, fundamentalists," that were making the thousands of laws across the nation in each state, county and city, but it was the majority.

As both Washington and Jefferson stated, "the will of the majority must prevail." Each state had different laws, customs and traditions because each state was its own society. That is how it is supposed to be today. If one state wants gay marriage, fine, if another has a majority that doesn't that is their right as well, as long as their state Constitution gives them that choice.

Remember, it was only after 1925 the U.S. Bill of Rights began to be applied to states because prior to that, it was "unconstitutional" unless the state constitutional held the same. And it was almost another 25 years before the 1st amendment was applied.

Thus all states have always had restrictions against certain speech, press and upheld religious activity even on public property because the 1st Amendment was never intended to apply to states, only the Federal Government. That is why you find God in all 50 State Constitutions but not in the U.S. Constitution. Only states were allowed to have a relationship with religion and did. Remember we had State religions until 1833 and religious tests until 1877 (N.H.).

It wasn't a church or religion, however, but the majority that had those state religions and religious test and as long as their Constitution allowed it, they were constitutional.

Today, it is no different. If the state constitution allows it, the majority have the right ban something it believes is harmful or "immoral" (immoral simply means what the majority determine it to mean in any society, whether it is actually banned or not). Thus, sodomy, for example can be banned because of all the diseases that are related to the behavior but not indiscriminately. It must be against all people, male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, young, old, etc.

It can't be used to single out homosexuals as that would be a violation of any state constitution I am aware of. But, because of any behavior that is harmful and costly to society, it has a right to regulate it. Also, one majority in one state can ban it while in another state allow it as Nevada allows prostitution but other states don't.

The religious issue is just a way of trying to label the majority in a way to keep the majority from doing what this nation expected of the majority.

For 175 years, the majority in each state determined "morality" and it was Constitutional. What has changed? Only the fact the minority on sexual immorality has the Supreme Court that distorted the Bill of Rights to favor them over the State Constitutions that for 175 years were the guiding and limiting force on the majority. The U.S. Bill of Rights only applied to Federal powers, not state. Notice that 1925 date. That is several decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified and that didn't change it. Only a liberal, socialist Supreme Court did.

Martha, you are pathetic...
How many of these "teenagers impregnated by their fathers, uncles, or brothers" do you know? None? That's what I thought. Straw man. Pathetic indeed.

Much later...
Darek, just got back, read your post. Are you kidding? I work in the school system, my friend!

Yes, I know some. Are you expecting me to name names? It is, unfortunately, a very real consideration. Do you think *you* are going to know them?

Besides, you missed the point of my argument. Firetoice claimed indifference concerning promiscuity and abortion, so long as s/he doesn't have to pay for it. I was just calling him/her on that claim. I truly doubt its accuracy.

I agree with firetoice that moving out, prosecuting, finding help and protection, and giving the child up for adoption is a better scenario than abortion (I would add the word, "usually.") Unfortunately, there is not a solid system of protection for girls like this outside of the family planning clinic, and I truly doubt that there are enough hands to really catch all the girls and protect them through it. (Hint: They may have to get very far away and very anonymous.) As for firetoice, I feel very warmly towards him/her for the compassion evident in the "we will help you" post.

(However, the fact of the matter is, firetoice does care about someone else's abortion -- quite a bit, apparently.)

Good grief, I and many of my friends experienced sexual abuse from family members. I *know* it happens. I'm not even warped and angry about it. I actually feel like one of the lucky ones. I just don't want us to forget about these girls and get cocky about abortion as if pregnancy only happens to the promiscuous.

There are some very real and very sticky complications. It's just not always simple. Life doesn't come out even.

Martha


Just mean
Pastore is not Christian or conservative, he's just greedy and mean. There is nothing wrong with wanting to help the poor in Africa or elsewhere. Isaiah gives failure to help the poor one of the most important reasons God wanted to distroy the Kingdom of Judah.

Is wealth so important to you that you dispise more egalitarian European countries?

liberalgoodman
No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to help people. Nothing at all. I personally think it is admirable. However, government does not have the right to forcibly extract money from our pockets to give to another. I don't care who that "other" is. If an individual personally wants to help someone, they are free to drain their bank account to do so.

Ever read Davy Crockett's "Not Yours to Give"?:
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

this guy is anti-christian
i find it interesting that all the global issues he mentions are not only supported publicly by bush but every denomination of christians in this country.

so then bush and others are socialists under his definition.

why is he so afraid of a christian point of view when he claims to be from a christian country.

wallis has his view, the catholic church has theirs and so forth and so on.
but when a religious figure mentions issues that contradict his political philosphy he goes ballistic.

something not right about that.


Budgets, Morality and Priorities
Thank you, liberty, for the reference to Davy Crockett. it is very appropriate to the original intent of Pastore's column.

As religiouslib suggests, Wallis is stepping outside his realm of responsibility.


Wallis's original beef with James Dodson (whether to focus on personal moral behavior rather than on global disasters) reinforces my belief that Wallis is just looking to fund his own personal juggernaut.


Nothing every happens 'globally'. It happens locally. So Pastore's suggestion that Wallis is looking for the government to pay for all these global solutions seems reasonable.

Dobson and Wallis
A few thoughts I would like to add to the discussion, and I appreciate that most of this is a reasonable discussion rather than an inflammatory argument.

"Read the Gospels. Underline or note the red type of Jesus' words. He talks _a lot about money_, not a lot about sex, which is the center of Dobson's moral big three."
-This is true, but in the context it was a society that already had strong convictions against adultery, fornication (and likely homosexuality). When Jesus did address sexual conduct it was in the unjust and cruel way the prohibitions were inforced. (In the Epistles of Paul it is more dealt with, and I would suggest it was not because Paul had a "hang-up" on the subject, but because he was writing to gentile converts throughtout the Roman Empire where sexual license and cult prostitution was the norm, hence it was a practical concern).

"Wallis wants Dobson to spend more time addressing the injustices that create poverty (and, yes, sometimes injustices, and not just laziness, are part of the cause)."
-Perfectly reasonable desire of Wallis. But if one would spend time looking at all that Focus on the Family does and who they partner with, they actually do quite a bit in these areas. I believe they have supported efforts to strengthen "The Family". Many would argue that the irresponsible fathering of children and not supporting them is the primary reason for poverty in the US.
-It is unfair to Dobson, Wallis, and Pastore to expect them to be faithfully represented in their totality by short essays or radio interviews. We certainly can address the specific things that Pastore brings up.

"How was wealth redistributed by ending slavery, giving woman the right to vote? The civil rights movement in th e60's? or if we give gays the right to marry?"
-The ending of slavery destroyed the economy of the south, which had been based on labor intensive agriculture which was the economic incentive for slavery. The freeing of slaves was an economic boom for the industrialized north, that was in need of "wage slaves", as the Mennonites called them. People whose labor benefitted others more than themselves, as would have been done in small businesses. (I am not suggesting this was a significant reason for the war, though I thinksome people would argue it was a bigger factor than typically realized.)
-In addition, a significant amount of anti-slavery sentiment was based in religious belief). (Not always helpful, though, as I believe John Brown voiced religious motives, and his efforts may have been more polarizing and forcing war rather less drastic measures.)
-I'm not sure how much religious beliefs were involved in women's suffrage. Original voting rights were made favoring those who had land and education- which some would say as maintaining a ruling class, but was also indicative of those who had a "bigger stake" in what laws were made. (It is easy to vote for a 85% tax rate for those making over $200,000 if you are making $60,000, for example). I believe Susan B. Anthony, one of the leaders of the movement, was adamantly against abortion, as she felt the legalization of it would make it easier for men to take advantage of women as they (men) could have sex without being responsible for the support of a wife and children.
-I could respond directly to civil rights in the 60's and same-sex marriage, but this is already long.

What often is lost in public debate these days is attention to clear thinking. For example, if one wishes to have tax dollars for social programs, that doesn't mean necessarily make higher income tax. The economy has improved by many measures since the Bush tax cuts, and more tax revenue has been generated because of this than projected if the economy had styed stagnant with higher income tax rates. More money in peoples pockets would also contirbute to more investment and personal spending, both of which would encourage more employment. (The reason we still have a deficit is due to still spending more than we get- and before you blame the military, we are spending a historically LOW amount for defense as a % of the GNP). If one wishes to "Tax the rich, feed the poor, until the rich, are no more" out of some innate sense of fairness or equity you can, but the poor will be poorer and not helped.

I appreciate Martha's honesty and candor on the problems with absolute pacifism. I have a little bit of Anabaptist heritage in my family traced back to Switzerland long ago, as well as friends from that tradition. I have great respect and consider heroic some of the things that pacifist Anabaptists have done, especially in Europe during WW-II. (The book "Lest Innocent Blood be Shed" is remarkable.) Even Tony Campolo has said that he feels uncomfortable macking a strong pacifist stand, knowing that the freedom of speech he enjoys is due to people who have fought for his right to do so. When people say they are "anti-war" it suggest there are others who are "pro-war". I think that is an unfair characterization. Most people who were in favor of invading Iraq did so because they thought that was the best way to bring about less death and destruction in the long run than leaving Saddam in power to terrorize his own people as well as other countries. One can argue about it rightfully, but to characterize it as "the nice people who hate suffering" vs. "the bad people who like
suffering" isn't a very fair proposition (unless you feel that Bush really did it for conquest and personal gain).

Furthermore, one can think that Global Warming is not a priority because they think it is really not a danger and even if it is, it's unclear what role humanity plays in it, what the US alone could do about it, and its not immediate as other things are. (Before you call me crazy for raising the point, search for testimony in Congressional hearings where you can read lots of scientific statements directly, both "pro" and "con").

Same with "stem cell research" as alluded to above. Before President Bush allowed for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on existing cell lines, it was illegal to use federal funds for ANY embryonic stem cell research. President Bush actually relaxed the regulation, but not enough for critics (too much for others). Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US if private companies think there is so much promise in it to fund it themselves as an investment like any other pharmaceutical company (again, there are those who think it should be outlawed completely). So far embryonic stew cell research has yielded NO clinically useful information or treatments, whereas adult stem cell research has already contributed to successful treatment of many illness in many people, and is not controversial. In addition, it may even be possible to obtain embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid without any harm to an embryo, which would then remove objections on a moral basis. (It may still not work as well as adult or umbilical stem cells, however).

Very long, but more could be said.

MD in philly
i have alot of friends here in san diego from philly. they are good people.

thankyou for your thoughtful post.
i don't agree with all of it but you obviously have thought through your beliefs.

the church i attend is very good at social outreach and missions but as our minister says and has been documented in most denominations.
churches don't have the resources to do all the social outreach that is needed.

there not enough room in all the churches in our community to house all the homeless on a cold winters night. that is a fact.

that is a local issue but if you magnify it you can see that there is the need for christians to ask the government to help out.

60% of the homeless are children.

i do find it interesting that many conservatives opposed to government involment in social programs usually quote paul instead of Jesus Christ.

Reply to religiouslib
Thank you for the discussion.

By no means do I think that the government has no role in promoting "the public welfare", including programs for specific problems. In fact some of my employment over the years has been subsidized by Ryan White funding (Federal funneled into localities) for HIV care. I was trying to give some perspective that if/when people criticize Dobson for not being concerned about some social ills that may not be true as much as there are differences in thinking what approaches work best, and issues that Wallis thinks are important may be approached different ways.

Certainly there are people who oppose government "social welfare" programs more out of indifference or selfishness, whether or not they quote Scripture and talk about responsibility or not. But a major concern is that government funded programs are often bloated with bureacracy, inefficient, and create dependency more than being a long term help. President Bush's "Faith Based Initiative" was one attempt at trying to have government resources applied through local organizations that are more efficient and understanding in working with the problem. ("Liberals" were fearful the funding would be "establishing religion", "religious conservatives" were fearful that once government funding is involved the ministry is subject to interference from the goverment in making demands that go against the ministries convictions. I think both concerns are valid, but that neither is an obstacle to throw out the idea.).

The "conservative" critique is that "liberals" are happy to be generous- with other people's money. In general, the states with a higher percentage of charitable giving are red states. If people with wealth don't think the government takes enough money they can give more away themselves. I bet Bill Gates does more good through his foundation than if he gave the same amount of money to the government to be applied to the same things.

Another fact is that government programs can make things worse. Fifty years ago a majority of hospital beds in the US were occupied by people with severe chronic mental illness. Between better medications for treatment (very valid and positive), concern over inappropriate treatment (valid to a degree), and a radical individual rights concept (harmful as applied), the hospitals were emptied of patients for care in the community. A good idea in many ways, but now a person who is incoherent and delusional in their schizophrenia off treatment must be allowed by law to remain on the street unless they are acutely a danger to themselves or others. Even then, after 5 days of meds if the person is borderline functional they can demand to be released, or pushed out because no one wants to pay for further treatment. That is obviously not the cause of all homelessness, but I bet even many of the children who are homeless are in that situation secondary to parental emotional illness or substance abuse. How many emotionally healthy extended families would allow their children, brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces live on the street simply because they were out of a job, or other strictly financial reasons?

interesting points
first having a relative who is bipolar i know exactly what you mean about mental illness and how letting them out of the hospitals (although i beleive that was reagans idea) turned many of them into homeless. my relative gets off her meds and then goes on a manic episode and sometimes does in fact end up homeless. isn't much i can do about it though, we got her to sign a power of attorney so we could get care for her but we have to catch her first.

i would like to see faith based charities tied to community based charities.

the problem with government programs of any kind is the bureaucracy and waste.

i have seen some programs that were strictly audited do well but it takes a large effort to do this in some areas.

again thanks for the civil and reasoned discussion.

2.7 Trillion Worth of Social Justice
The Fed alone spends over 2.7 trillion dollars, of which 2 trillion goes to Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Housing, OHSHA, student loans, state public schools,ag subsidies, transportation, infranstructure, child cares subsidies, home loans, small buisness loans, drug safety, food safety, auto safety, host of regulations for home safety, auto safety, construction codes, etc...

This doesn't account for another 1.5 trillion in state spending, or local municiple spending. In 1988, defense spending accounted for 6.8% of the GDP; today, despite a war, it is barely 4%. The Fed alone accounts for 25% of the GDP. Therefore most of the Fed's spending is non-defense.

Please tell me, where our goverment is stingy. Our goverment spends twice of the GDP of China. Walls call for greater goverment spending goes in the face of reality. We need less spending, not more.

Antiteenmomas
You are correct, corporations do not pay taxes -coporations are not individuals. They are legal entities that are taxed in ways different than individuals. Taxes are considered expenses like rent, labor, materials. Like all expenses they are passed on the consumers. Corporations match SS taxes levied on the employees. They also must pay unemployment taxes for each employee. Corporations pay the brunt of health insurance premiums for every employee. They pay real estate taxes on land, buildings, they pay normal sales tax for every transaction they make; corpoations pay import duties for all materials they must import (tax); Corporations pay a whole host of expenses mandated by Congress (ie Sarbanes Oxley which will cost public companies about 3/4 of a trillion dollars this year in audit fees). I could go on, but I imagine it will do no good.

These evil corporations, BTW will provide over 15 trillion dollars in future earnings to future retirees. If the retirees must pay 30% up front in captial gains taxes, that isn't the goverment's fault, but Congress's.

Last Comments from me
To religiouslib- I am sorry that you have had to deal with the ongoing fight for the welfare of your relative. It is at least a blessing to her that she has family that love her enough to work to do what they can. There may have been policies in the Reagan years that made things worse (I don't know- I was in med school and residency then- everything else was a blur), but the effort to empty the state hospitals began long before President Reagan was in office.
[A medical aside, FYI, there are some medications that have come out in the last few years that can be given by long acting injection (one shot every two to four weeks) that can help in some instances keep things stable. Someone may want to discuss that with her doctor as an option if it hasn't been tried already.

To ANTIteenmommas- I think you are making some claims that may be popular, but are inaccurate.
There is one country in the world that has seen a significant decrease in the number of AIDS cases, and that is Uganda. Uganda championed the "ABC" approach, A-Abstinence until ready for a lifetime partner, B-Be faithful to your partner, C-Use condoms if you don't want to go by A or B. This was how they handled it starting around 1990 (give or take a few years), on the initiative of leadership within the country. This is what President Bush has advocated as the preferred prevention strategy overseas (the only one shown to work).

I have seen a number of patients over the years who have had access to birth control and condoms still get pregnant and STD's. (In fact, one study done at Hopkins several years ago revealed that in patients at an STD clinic in Baltimore people who reported they Never used condoms and those who said they "Always" used condoms had the same rate of STD's. those who were honest in saying "Sometimes" had a lower incidence.

In the City of Philadelphia there is no reason a child cannot receive vaccinations no matter how poor the child is. I also doubt any child would "starve to death" because a lack of ability to obtain food. Perhaps because all of their money goes to pay for alcohol or cocaine, yes. And please don't give me any grief about not caring or not knowing "poor people". My father grew up in a dirt floor shack in the coal fields of Kentucky, and I have spent most of my career in impoverished areas of Philly- living ion the neighborhood as well as working in it.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.