Catholic and evangelical social justice leaders on Thursday urged President Bush to use his upcoming State of the Union address to turn around what they called his faltering moral legacy.
Frequently referring to the state of American public policy as “shameful,” the representatives of five major religious organizations said Bush has sidestepped pressing religious concerns, despite his recurrent religious rhetoric.
Specifically, they said the White House has failed to deal with growing poverty at home and abroad, turned a blind eye to torture, ignored climate change, and neglected the human suffering from the war in Iraq.
“We have yet to fully sort out the legacy of an explicitly evangelical president, who sadly has had such a truncated vision of what a moral leadership looks like,” said the Rev. David Gushee, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights.
“I am hopeful that the evangelical community as a whole has been chastened by that and is open to reconsidering what we think a truly evangelical moral leadership would look like.”
Consider, please, the context: Social Justice. Social Justice is an oxymoron. Social Justice (so called) begs the question of how decisions are to be made, asserting a prior higher moral plane to be used as a touchstone. Republican representative government, or Democratic elected representatives, cannot act from a higher moral plane, as they are politicians and elected by the great unwashed majority.
1. Growing poverty. Poverty in the United States was allegedly cured by the Great Society. $7 trillion later the poverty has increased. Reason? Welfare, AFDC, and other social justice handout programs contributed to the destruction of the fragile social matrix of the inner city, changing a group of individuals who were not doing well into a group of individuals dependent on government largesse. They were given a fish for a day, not taught how to fish. School busing also contributed to the breakup, as parents were no longer close to the schools of their children.
2. A blind eye to torture? There was torture in Iraq and Afghanistan before our activities began there. How was ending that torture a bad thing? How many persons in U S captivity lost an arm or a leg? How many had all of their teeth broken out? How many were held in tiger cages? How many were raped and murdered? How many were unable to walk after being held by the US? Names, please.
3. Ignored climate change? Guess what? Science News revealed this week the discovery of the remains of tropical trees in the Seine, near Paris. This indicates a tropical forest in France a while ago. This tropical forest predated human existence. We were not responsible for that global warming.
Back in the 9th Century, the Vikings settled Greenland (they called it that because it was green). It was warm enough then that they could live in the same manner as they lived in Europe. Three centuries later they were frozen out. What human activity during the Middle Ages caused this global warming?
I could go on, because it has only been 300 years since we have been able to quantify temperature at all. See the history of Fahrenheit for details.
And then there was the ice sheet which covered much of North America about 15,000 years ago. How did we do that?
4. Neglected the human suffering in Iraq? This accusation should better be laid at the feet of President Clinton, who in fact did nothing to end the human suffering and loss of life in Iraq. And at the feet of the first President Bush, who could have ended the regime of
Saddam Hussein in 1991, had he had the political will to do so.
Recent reports of human suffering in Iraq have been wildly overestimated; much of the human suffering there has been at the hands of suicide bombers; the morality of suicide bombing has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
5. Where has the moral leadership of these religious leaders been, during a time when TV preachers have betrayed their followers (Swaggart, Bakker, many others); the Episcopal Church turned a blind eye to the overt misbehavior of its Bishops and Priests and let a treasurer off after she stole $6,000,000; the Catholic Church had to sell a large amount of real estate to cover the costs of molestation charges; again, I could go on.
Last but not least: where, in the Constitution, is the President directed to exert moral leadership? I thought he was the chief executive. His position as chaplain-in-chief must be in a document which I have never seen.
The responses to my observations should be REALLY interesting.
Please document any challenges to my assertions; you may insult me to your heart’s content, but I will only respond to documentation.
I’m glad to see that these leaders of important Catholic and evangelical organizations get together and make this plea to the President. I absolutely agree with them that Bush has failed in these respects. In playing the evangelical card he has been all talk and no action on some of the most pressing concerns of our time.
Mathman, I am 100% in agreement with you. I think time will tell that GWB was a great president. The mainstream media is a travesty of left-wing bias.
[blockquote][i]Specifically, they said the White House has failed to deal with growing poverty at home and abroad, turned a blind eye to torture, ignored climate change, and neglected the human suffering from the war in Iraq.[/i][/blockquote]
Just to add to #1. What a bunch of absolute horse$#|+.
Poverty is [i]not[/i] “growing” at home. America’s “poor” today — and our income puts us right at the official poverty level — have cars, televisions, cell phones, no-cost (to them) health care, and who knows what all else. The “poor” today in America live better than 95% of Americans a century ago. Statistically “poverty” has decreased during the Bush administration, not increased.
Around the world we see an emerging middle class, particularly in Latin America, where I have worked extensively in many countries. India and China have rising middle classes and obesity is a growing problem in many countries. The only places around the world where poverty is [i]increasing[/i] are those like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Ghana and Zimbabwe governed by tyrants imposing stale socialist ideas. The poorest countries (bottom quintile) are also the least economically free.
Or take Sweden, which in a generation has gone from one of the wealthiest nations in the world to the point at which if it were an American state it would rank #51. The average Swede, thanks to two generations of socialism, is now statistically worse off than the average black American.
As for “climate” change, it [i]should[/i] be ignored. Though I make my modest living as a farmer my first two degrees are in geology, and the world has been in a long-term cooling trend for about the last 60 million years, and which point an island within 600 miles of the North Pole had the climate of today’s Memphis, Tennessee.
Changes in average global temperature [i]precede[/i] changes in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 800 years. If there is a causal relationship at all, it is temperature driving carbon dioxide levels and not the other way around. Don’t miss this one, it’s a great graph and really provides all the context you need for intelligent analysis of the question.
http://www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warming%20FAQ%20- %20temperature.htm
Because Earth radiates as a ‘black body’ at 300 Kelvin (about 80 F) 90% of Earth’s warming or cooling is entirely unaffected by carbon dioxide. Spectral analysis demonstrates that absorption between 13.5 and 15.5 micrometres — the only wavelengths at which CO2 has any real absorption — is “saturated.” That means it’s absorbing as much energy as it can, and if you examine the absorptivity of carbon dioxide (Beer’s Law), atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would have to drop below 200 ppm for a change (up or down) to affect absorptivity at relevant wavelengths.
Furthermore, [b]US production of carbon dioxide decreased 1.5% in 2006[/b] over ’05 according the the DoE, who state we are also on target for another decline in ’07.
If this continues for just three more years, at the end of 2010 the US will have a smaller carbon footprint than we had in 1996 … in spite of Al Gore’s best personal efforts to push it up with his fancy home and numerous charter jet trips around the world.
As it is right now, in the last decade the US has increased its inflation-adjusted GDP by well over 50% in return for a paltry 4% or 5% increase in greenhouse emissions. Funny how the primary refusnik on Kyoto — in 1997 the US Senate voted 95-0 against it in principle, so it was never submitted for ratification — has been the single significant developped or developping nation that has even come close to reducing carbon dioxide production, and it did so during a period of solid real economic growth.
Interestingly enough, even though carbon emissions are soaring around the world except in the US, global temperatures have drifted sideways to slightly lower for the last nine years and we have yet to equal average global temperatures of the ’20s and ’30s.
Growing an economy, reducing poverty at home and abroad, liberating over 50 million people from torturous tyrants … all while putting the rest of the world to shame in reducing carbon output. Not bad, actually, and people refusing to recognize that for what it really is appear to be either ignorant or biased. Probably both.
Wonky link above
http://www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warming%20FAQ%20- %20temperature.htm
Mathman, I can hardly hope to surpass your information which is presented so well. But, may I try to aim at the foundations of the issue.
We hear the strident voices of those who want to protect the non-existant “wall of separation of church and state”. We hear many who appear to be from the same group who stridently tell us that the president neglects his moral authority. I believe that the problem is that we have, as a culture, accepted the existential view that government exists for our personal benefit. Therefore, the same person can bemoan government’s intrusion into the bedroom while, at the same time, blaming government for not solving the needs of the community. Therefore, we have rising libertine-ism and more dictatorial government at the same time and, barring the return to good education, we will only see more of the same in the future.
Sorry, I guess it doesn’t like raw links. Try here for the [url=http://www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warming%20FAQ%20- %20temperature.htm]cool climate graph[/url].
I would make one exception to my “no action” generalization, above. Bush’s HIV/AIDS initiative (later adding malaria to the list) is his one shining example of leadership, even if he might have worked harder to move the project along than he has up to now.
We really do have a silly view of poverty. As I posted on another thread recently, our local paper did a series on “the working poor”. Unfortunately, the first article included a picture of their spacious family room, with fireplace and big-screen TV. There was also a shot of a bathroom (might have been a different family, I don’t remember), complete with a countertop full of hair accessories, blow dryer, etc.
Poverty really does exist in the U.S., but it’s much better than it was a generation or two ago, and, as noted above, our poorest folks are far better off than most in the world. I remember the shanties in the rural areas 50 years ago, and they were much more primitive than urban projects today. Heck, my own uncle and aunt didn’t have running water until the 70s, although that was largely due to his persistent alcoholism. Personally, I think the War on Poverty did do some good, along with technological advances (attributable to both the public and private sectors), medical advances, and so on.
In the United States, for many families, ‘poverty’ seems to consistently beget poverty.
We have too many families that are impoverished by their generationally transmitted attitudes.
Why is it, that some people are born into an ‘under class’ situation and are able to seem opportunity ‘staring them in the face’ and successfully take advantage of that opportunity, while others in the same situation just want to feel sorry for themselves?
I see a lot of it. For example, poorly kept mobile homes with expensive brand new pick up trucks parked outside. Not to mention the annual purchases of snow mobiles and large expenditures on alcoholic beverages. They seem to have a childish sense of fiscal responsibility with no sense of saving money and managing expenses. These are the same people who often resent having to go to work and take orders from their employers, just as they resented going to school as children and taking instruction from their teachers.
Is this poverty?
Lincoln said something to the effect that it’s better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Never is this so true as when self appointed religious pundits lecture political leaders, especially about their legacy. To often their crystal ball is cracked.
Amplifying mathman’s point #1 is the shocking statistic that illegitimacy in America’s black community doubled (from @35% to @70%) during 40 years of govt programs (Great Society, et al.). Many have suggested that this is because govt came to replace the black father.
I think that Words Matter is correct that technology was a (the?) major factor in what progress we have made against poverty. The computer revolution led to great increases in productivity, which led to across the board real increases in wages. (And please don’t suggest the contrary based on the CPI, which deliberately overstates inflation for political purposes.)
Finally, the leaders in article ignore the massive amounts of money that has gone to the Third World for poverty relief but been squandered by corrupt governments. It is somewhat ironic that these leaders are urging governments to spend more money, when history has shown that the religious programs have the greatest success They are generally direct, people-to-people programs that deliver help directly to the need.
I am so tired of the pot calling the kettle black, i.e. the churches condeming secular governments. Maybe the churches should start educating their people about what it means to be good stewards of this land. And maybe the churches should concentrate on their own mess and how they spend their own money before complaining about someone else.
“Finally, the leaders in article ignore the massive amounts of money that has gone to the Third World for poverty relief but been squandered by corrupt governments. It is somewhat ironic that these leaders are urging governments to spend more money, when history has shown that the religious programs have the greatest success They are generally direct, people-to-people programs that deliver help directly to the need.”
Good point Bill.
And corrupt third world leaders are significant part of the leadership of the United Nations, the organization that authored the MDGs. Its quite probable that much of the MDG money will end up in the bank Swiss bank accounts of those corrupt leaders and not in the hands of their needy countrymen.
Maybe, instead of transforming the stations of the Cross into something that promotes MDGs, ECUSA should promote intense Lenten prayer sessions aimed at changing the minds, souls and behavior of corrupt third world leaders.
Actually, I think the black family was broken long before the 60s, which is why poverty programs stepped in. There is a long tradition in this country (arguably traceable to the realities of slave life) of emotionally strong women and men who are basically breeding stock. Black culture in the U.S. has a strong matriarchal flavor, which is understandable when men were likely to be sold and shipped off or lynched.
I can’t add anything to the above, except to say, don’t talk about poverty until you’ve seen Mumbai. We have nothing like it in the U.S.
I’ve been to Mumbai, and Pune, and Roha, and spots in between. Our poverty here, while not good, is nothing compared to poverty in developing countries. My wife, a teacher now retired on disability, used to keep peanut butter and crackers and other snacks in her drawer for hungry kids to munch on. This was at a school with 97% of the kids on free breakfast and lunch, with at least one parent at home on foods stamps and ADC. This school food was the only food these kids were getting. Why do kids come to school hungry, when the parents are getting the aid to feed the kids at home? — Little accountability, not enough social workers, its the schools problem, etc. etc. Amazing that my wife and many of her teacher and counselor friends USED to be Democrats. Help is OK, but it needs to be help with accountability.
These “leaders” should examine their own shameful legacy of molester-priests & money scandals.
# 15 Words matter, The number of children born out of wed lock has gone from25% in the 60’s to over 66% today. It has nothing to do with “the slave culture” and everything to do with the federal government subsidizing out of wedlock births.
19- same thing happened with the Puerto Rican community in Coatesville PA (a small steel town) in the 1970-80’s. Public housing preferences and subsidies for single mothers who are unemployed. The icing on the cake were the welfare inspectors who sought for evidence of adult male visitors to the subsidized appartments.
Bill Matz said:
[i]Many have suggested that this is because govt came to replace the black father.[/i]
The government didn’t cause the absence of men in black families, though arguably it exacerbated the problem, which has a great deal to do with the slave culture. As to why children are born out of wedlock, I suspect the factors driving it may be more complex than government assistance. I would,however, agree that’s a factor, perhaps causative, perhaps simply a correlate.
21- that is why I invoked a non black situation. It would be hard to blame the implosion of effective Hispanic families on the Spanish American War and its consequences. In the Puerto Rican case, we didn’t even see the effects of illegal immigration separating the men from their families, as we do with the Mexican immigrants. But what was the causative link, in my opinion, for the Puerto Rican situation was their access to the welfare system’s benefits. In that sense, illegal immigrants often have stronger family situations precisely due to their fear that the parents might be deported if they get on the welfare rolls.
What mathman said! ; )
Yep, for once, I have nothing to add. Well said, everyone.
Jim E. <><
Like you, libraryjim, I have nothing to add to this statement:
Poverty in the U.S. was high on the group’s agenda. Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, noted that in 2002 his organisation provided 43 percent of its services to the working poor; by 2006, the number had risen to 52 percent.
“More than 36 million people living in poverty in the U.S., which is simply unacceptable. It is a moral and social crisis, because as a country we have the knowledge and the resources to significantly reduce this number,†he said. He criticised Congress as well as the president for failing to pass legislation to address the long-term health care needs of poor children.
Words Matter and AnglicanFirst, recommend you take a look at “A Framework For Understanding Poverty” by Ruby K Payne. Very enlightening discussion of generation vs situational poverty and hidden rules of economic class. I live in a third world country, and trust me on this, most Americans have no concept of what real poverty is like. Such as: no shoes, or maybe one pair of flip-flops, one or two changes of clothing, no plumbing or electricity, work, if you can find it, at hard labor for $2 a day.
It’s too bad the facts don’t back this group’s anti-Bush claims up:
“Study finds ethnic, race gaps eased ” (USA Today)
http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080128/NEWS23/801280352/1173/NEWS23