If you want to decide who to vote for as a Christian mathematically:
1. Go through the list and decide between Obama and Romney on that issue.
2. If one issue is more important to you than another, double or triple that vote.
3. Add up the totals. That's who to vote for.
I did this in a half hour this morning, so obviously it can be improved... I've tried to word things in fresh ways, rather than using the catch phrases of the respective parties.
1. Moral Issues: Do you think that the federal government should enforce and implement Christian values that are specifically Christian (e.g., no gay marriage)? If yes, one vote for Romney. If no, one vote for Obama.
2. Moral Issues: Do you think that the government should be involved in helping those who currently do not have the means to take care of themselves (e.g., those in poverty, certain elderly)? If yes, one vote for Obama. If no, one vote for Romney.
3. Moral Issues: Do you think that monetary wealth is the same as personal property and thus that taxing is stealing if such monies are not used to benefit you personally without your permission (one vote Romney) or do you think that economic systems channel monetary wealth in different ways depending on how they are structured and thus that it is appropriate to distribute monies more evenly throughout the system (one vote Obama)?
4. Economy: Do you think that austerity measures and low taxes are more likely to grow the economy and thus help more people (one vote Romney) or stimulus and selective taxes (one vote Obama)?
5. Foreign Policy: Do you think Obama or Romney is more likely to facilitate greater long term peace in the world?
6. Foreign Policy: Do you think an Obama or Romney administration is more likely to see people come to Christ around the world in the long run?
7. Education: Do you think that the overall educational system in America will improve more under Obama or Romney? Part of this equation is whether you think that the overall education situation will improve more if opportunities for private education are increased (Romney) or whether more attention needs to go to the public school system (Obama).
6. Judges: Do you think that Supreme Court judges need to be appointed who will eventually vote that Roe vs. Wade was inappropriate because the federal government was intruding on an issue that is more properly an issue for the States to decide (vote Romney) or do you think judges need to be appointed who will continue federal priority over the positions of individual states on these sorts of issues (vote Obama)?
7. Immigration: Do you think that law-abiding individuals (apart from their illegal status) who have lived in the US for decades, especially Latinas/os, should be given an opportunity to become legal? If yes, one vote Obama. If no, one vote Romney.
8. Abortion: Do you think that the law should do everything within its power to discourage abortion, including requiring intensely physical examinations (then one vote Romney) or do you think it is better to focus on preventing pregnancies and promoting adoption among those who might otherwise have an abortion (then one vote Obama).
Addendum: I have tried to word these in a way that, no matter which way you went, you could be expressing Christian values in your choice. Here's the most important question of all for pastors out there: Would Christians who go both ways on the choices above feel comfortable in your church this Fall? If not, are we not harming the church?
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
"You can't kill them all" and other foreign policy proverbs
Some thoughts as relevant now as 10 years ago when we were getting ready to launch the war on Iraq.
1. You can't kill them all.
Think Vietnam. They keep coming and coming and eventually you just have to go home.
2. Genocide isn't polite.
Don't find yourself celebrating at the bar with Satan after all the _____ are finally dead. Jesus certainly won't be celebrating with you. How many do you have to kill before you are the bad guy or at least as bad as the people you're trying to "punish"?
3. Pull out the plank.
Most of us don't set cars on fire. But I have to smile when I hear Americans wishing those Muslims would all die. Wait, isn't that what some of them are saying about us? Same heart.
4. Not everyone's stupid.
Most Egyptians went to work today. Educated Egyptians would like the idiots out in the streets to go home too.
5. Hit the right target.
Don't hit people that didn't hit you. Don't invade Iraq when a group hanging out in Afghanistan attacked you.
6. Don't stomp on an anthill.
It just makes the ants you didn't kill angry... and stirs up those who weren't. After 9-11 we had the sympathy of the world. After Iraq...
1. You can't kill them all.
Think Vietnam. They keep coming and coming and eventually you just have to go home.
2. Genocide isn't polite.
Don't find yourself celebrating at the bar with Satan after all the _____ are finally dead. Jesus certainly won't be celebrating with you. How many do you have to kill before you are the bad guy or at least as bad as the people you're trying to "punish"?
3. Pull out the plank.
Most of us don't set cars on fire. But I have to smile when I hear Americans wishing those Muslims would all die. Wait, isn't that what some of them are saying about us? Same heart.
4. Not everyone's stupid.
Most Egyptians went to work today. Educated Egyptians would like the idiots out in the streets to go home too.
5. Hit the right target.
Don't hit people that didn't hit you. Don't invade Iraq when a group hanging out in Afghanistan attacked you.
6. Don't stomp on an anthill.
It just makes the ants you didn't kill angry... and stirs up those who weren't. After 9-11 we had the sympathy of the world. After Iraq...
Thursday, September 22, 2011
State of the German Nation...
I spent a day of orientation here in Göttingen. The afternoon was about what's going on right now in German politics and such. Very interesting. The Fulbrighters here are not a uniform group and so there were various fairly obvious hints at different political positions in the room. I continue to consider myself a centrist, although if I were a German I suspect they would consider me somewhat right of center.
You might find the rundown interesting. Here they have 20% sales tax. 43% of the Gross Domestic Product is in the state sector, which I think means that almost half of the jobs (in terms of money) are state related (of course university professors are usually employees of the state here--and students go to university for free). The large taxes thus come back in free education and free health care. Parents of unmarried children under 25 also get 6000 Euros per child back from their taxes. The population is declining, so this is also partly meant to motivate having children.
The leader of the session this morning mentioned that most Germans do not want less taxes as long as Germany has such high debt. They also feel a sense of corporate responsibility that everyone have health care, although they also recognize the importance of motivating individuals to work rather than live off the system (the leader suggested there are perhaps a million people in Germany who are content simply to live off the social safety net).
A great number of changes have gone into effect in recent years. They are tending to abolish the old system that sent budding auto mechanics to loser school. They have broken their college system down into something the rest of the world can understand (with bachelor's and master's degrees). They are ramping up how much work university students are expected to do (it used to be very leisurely indeed, taking up to 7 or 8 years). Younger age schools are increasingly going to a full day as opposed to the old half day and come home at 1 to mama.
Obama enjoys a 75% approval rating in Europe in general in terms of his foreign policy (80 something percent in Germany). While many Germans don't want to bail out Greece (much as many Americans opposed the TARP bailouts), the leader of the presentation thought it was inevitable that the EU would navigate a way through the crisis, for the sake of an EU that eventually was something like the United States of Europe. His hunch was that much of the debt in places like Greece, Italy, and Spain would be forgiven in return from some budgetary control and restructuring of their economic system.
I was not aware that I was coming at such an interesting time of change in Germany. Just this past summer, Germany did away with compulsory military service. Just this past summer, Germany switched from 9 year higher school (13 grades) to 8 years (12 grades like ours).
There are of course all the usual German funnities. They are massively into recycling (e.g., paper, organic, the rest) and we have three trash cans to separate things. But the truth is, the city people have sophisticated machines that separate it anyway. All the stuff from the houses is poured together in the truck. ;-) It's just a cultural reminder (and profit to the people who sell the different cans) to have individual households continue to separate.
Pets are taxed, but are allowed in restaurants. There was a court ruling that stated that noise was a natural phenomenon from children. It is thus against the law to complain too much about how loud children are. Interesting comments on how views on balanced budgets and debt levels relate to growing economies. It was mentioned that Japanese debt is 200% of GDP... and that the Yen continues to grow in value. ;-)
It would be nice if people in countries like the US could go abroad to places like England and Germany for a bit. Germans who resent America usually soften when they come to the States and see what it's really like. By the same token, I suspect a lot of popular feeling in America on a host of issues would soften if we just got out a little bit more.
You might find the rundown interesting. Here they have 20% sales tax. 43% of the Gross Domestic Product is in the state sector, which I think means that almost half of the jobs (in terms of money) are state related (of course university professors are usually employees of the state here--and students go to university for free). The large taxes thus come back in free education and free health care. Parents of unmarried children under 25 also get 6000 Euros per child back from their taxes. The population is declining, so this is also partly meant to motivate having children.
The leader of the session this morning mentioned that most Germans do not want less taxes as long as Germany has such high debt. They also feel a sense of corporate responsibility that everyone have health care, although they also recognize the importance of motivating individuals to work rather than live off the system (the leader suggested there are perhaps a million people in Germany who are content simply to live off the social safety net).
A great number of changes have gone into effect in recent years. They are tending to abolish the old system that sent budding auto mechanics to loser school. They have broken their college system down into something the rest of the world can understand (with bachelor's and master's degrees). They are ramping up how much work university students are expected to do (it used to be very leisurely indeed, taking up to 7 or 8 years). Younger age schools are increasingly going to a full day as opposed to the old half day and come home at 1 to mama.
Obama enjoys a 75% approval rating in Europe in general in terms of his foreign policy (80 something percent in Germany). While many Germans don't want to bail out Greece (much as many Americans opposed the TARP bailouts), the leader of the presentation thought it was inevitable that the EU would navigate a way through the crisis, for the sake of an EU that eventually was something like the United States of Europe. His hunch was that much of the debt in places like Greece, Italy, and Spain would be forgiven in return from some budgetary control and restructuring of their economic system.
I was not aware that I was coming at such an interesting time of change in Germany. Just this past summer, Germany did away with compulsory military service. Just this past summer, Germany switched from 9 year higher school (13 grades) to 8 years (12 grades like ours).
There are of course all the usual German funnities. They are massively into recycling (e.g., paper, organic, the rest) and we have three trash cans to separate things. But the truth is, the city people have sophisticated machines that separate it anyway. All the stuff from the houses is poured together in the truck. ;-) It's just a cultural reminder (and profit to the people who sell the different cans) to have individual households continue to separate.
Pets are taxed, but are allowed in restaurants. There was a court ruling that stated that noise was a natural phenomenon from children. It is thus against the law to complain too much about how loud children are. Interesting comments on how views on balanced budgets and debt levels relate to growing economies. It was mentioned that Japanese debt is 200% of GDP... and that the Yen continues to grow in value. ;-)
It would be nice if people in countries like the US could go abroad to places like England and Germany for a bit. Germans who resent America usually soften when they come to the States and see what it's really like. By the same token, I suspect a lot of popular feeling in America on a host of issues would soften if we just got out a little bit more.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
What did you make of Obama?
I'm in Chicago for the day and wasn't able to listen to Obama last night. What did he say? What is your evaluation?
I was thinking last night that it would be fun to start an electronic newspaper that solicited articles on topics with the goal of posting calmly argued but contrasting points of view on contemporary questions. Then maybe editors could post a summary of the debate, including the comments, the next day. The ground rules would simply be the rules of logic and the scientific method of using evidence to form hypotheses.
Oh well...
I was thinking last night that it would be fun to start an electronic newspaper that solicited articles on topics with the goal of posting calmly argued but contrasting points of view on contemporary questions. Then maybe editors could post a summary of the debate, including the comments, the next day. The ground rules would simply be the rules of logic and the scientific method of using evidence to form hypotheses.
Oh well...
Monday, March 21, 2011
Making Ethical Decisions: Libya as Test Case
I hope to lay out sometime this week the basic process of formulating an ethical decision. The general contours of such decisions, it seems to me, involves something like the following:
1. We get a sense of the general moral principles involved and their relative places in the hierarchy of values. For Christians, love of God and neighbor stand at the top of the list.
2. We get a sense of the potential consequences of various courses of actions. These play into the way we prioritize our values.
3. We check our motivations.
4. We decide on a course of action in the interplay of these elements.
__________
So using the current Allied action in Libya, here are some thoughts.
1. The love principle makes us want to help those who are being oppressed. The love principle recognizes Gaddafi himself as an unambiguous force for evil in his country and, at least previously, in the world.
Another set of principles have to do with the sovereignty of nations. In this instance, Gaddafi does not seem to have the consent of the governed, he is in the act of squashing his people, and there is broad international support to act to protect his people.
Some Christians of course do not believe that war can ever be justified. Most Christians, however, believe that war is sometimes a necessary evil or sometimes can be justified as "just."
2. It is usually impossible to foresee consequences with clarity, but here are some thoughts. Sometimes when you cast a demon out, 7 more that are worse can come in. Also, what if we help the revolution and Gaddafi still wins? He would then be worse than ever.
The tricky consequences of invading a sovereign nation to dethrone a ruler have become fairly clear, again, after invading Iraq (not that they weren't clear before the invasion of Iraq). Economically, they are a major factor in our current debt crisis. Humanly, the war resulted in thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
One potential consequence is the continued movement, just maybe, toward democracy in the Middle East. It is not clear, again, that Libya would necessarily move in that direction, but certainly helping out the revolution might result in a replacement government that was more friendly with the West than Gaddafi. Gaddafi's sons are looking to be another 50 years of the same.
There are also potentially bad unintended consequences. Can nations maintain these sorts of ethical standards once war has started? Can ethical caution be maintained uniformly from the highest levels down to the level of the individual soldier? I think history would teach us that all out war always involves atrocity on all sides.
Is there some future tyrant among the mercenaries of Gaddafi's army? Is there someone like bin Laden who fought with Afghanistan against the Russians?
3. False motivations could easily become involved. Since I've recently driven to Florida, that $3.50 a gallon price tag has me wanting to stabilize Libya's oil. Gaddafi is of course accusing the West of wanting his oil.
4. The current action, in my mind, seems justified. The main goal is to ground Gaddafi's air forces and stop the oppression of his people. Since we are not committing ground troops, it is possible that there will be no loss of life to Allied troops. Since we are mainly bombing air bases, the loss of life on their side will not be great either. The justification is to prevent atrocity on Gaddafi's part. Stabilizing oil, making friends are nice consequences, but they are not the primary motivation.
Because we are not invading, the rebels continue to be fighting for their own freedom rather than us fighting for them. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's soldiers tend not to be Libyans anyway, so we are not promoting one side in a civil war but discouraging a mercenary army. And we have broad international support. Indeed, the US did not lead this charge in the UN.
I think the current action can be justified in the light of the moral calculus above. Limited engagement, mostly to destroy equipment, with the goal of ending atrocity and enabling the removal of an evil dictator, with the support of the people and, as far as we can foresee, strongly beneficial consequences.
We'll see...
1. We get a sense of the general moral principles involved and their relative places in the hierarchy of values. For Christians, love of God and neighbor stand at the top of the list.
2. We get a sense of the potential consequences of various courses of actions. These play into the way we prioritize our values.
3. We check our motivations.
4. We decide on a course of action in the interplay of these elements.
__________
So using the current Allied action in Libya, here are some thoughts.
1. The love principle makes us want to help those who are being oppressed. The love principle recognizes Gaddafi himself as an unambiguous force for evil in his country and, at least previously, in the world.
Another set of principles have to do with the sovereignty of nations. In this instance, Gaddafi does not seem to have the consent of the governed, he is in the act of squashing his people, and there is broad international support to act to protect his people.
Some Christians of course do not believe that war can ever be justified. Most Christians, however, believe that war is sometimes a necessary evil or sometimes can be justified as "just."
2. It is usually impossible to foresee consequences with clarity, but here are some thoughts. Sometimes when you cast a demon out, 7 more that are worse can come in. Also, what if we help the revolution and Gaddafi still wins? He would then be worse than ever.
The tricky consequences of invading a sovereign nation to dethrone a ruler have become fairly clear, again, after invading Iraq (not that they weren't clear before the invasion of Iraq). Economically, they are a major factor in our current debt crisis. Humanly, the war resulted in thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
One potential consequence is the continued movement, just maybe, toward democracy in the Middle East. It is not clear, again, that Libya would necessarily move in that direction, but certainly helping out the revolution might result in a replacement government that was more friendly with the West than Gaddafi. Gaddafi's sons are looking to be another 50 years of the same.
There are also potentially bad unintended consequences. Can nations maintain these sorts of ethical standards once war has started? Can ethical caution be maintained uniformly from the highest levels down to the level of the individual soldier? I think history would teach us that all out war always involves atrocity on all sides.
Is there some future tyrant among the mercenaries of Gaddafi's army? Is there someone like bin Laden who fought with Afghanistan against the Russians?
3. False motivations could easily become involved. Since I've recently driven to Florida, that $3.50 a gallon price tag has me wanting to stabilize Libya's oil. Gaddafi is of course accusing the West of wanting his oil.
4. The current action, in my mind, seems justified. The main goal is to ground Gaddafi's air forces and stop the oppression of his people. Since we are not committing ground troops, it is possible that there will be no loss of life to Allied troops. Since we are mainly bombing air bases, the loss of life on their side will not be great either. The justification is to prevent atrocity on Gaddafi's part. Stabilizing oil, making friends are nice consequences, but they are not the primary motivation.
Because we are not invading, the rebels continue to be fighting for their own freedom rather than us fighting for them. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's soldiers tend not to be Libyans anyway, so we are not promoting one side in a civil war but discouraging a mercenary army. And we have broad international support. Indeed, the US did not lead this charge in the UN.
I think the current action can be justified in the light of the moral calculus above. Limited engagement, mostly to destroy equipment, with the goal of ending atrocity and enabling the removal of an evil dictator, with the support of the people and, as far as we can foresee, strongly beneficial consequences.
We'll see...
Monday, May 24, 2010
Paris Agreement on Aid Effectiveness
This is now the final installment of my reflections on the Wheaton conference on "Government, Foreign Assistance, and the Mission of God in the World," cohosted by Wheaton's Center for Applied Ethics, Bread for the World, and the Micah Challenge.
Previous posts included:
1. First Look
2. Why Government should aid
3. The Bible, Christians, and Government
The Paris Agreement on Aid Effectiveness
One of the presentations was on aid effectiveness, and this declaration was mentioned. I have not read through the entire website, but the main points of the agreement seem sound, especially if a developing country sets good goals.
1. Ownership
The country receiving aid should own the development process. It should own its own goals, set its own strategies, improve its own institutions, and tackle its own corruption.
2. Alignment
Donor countries should align behind these goals and use local systems toward their accomplishment.
3. Harmonization
Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication.
4. Results
Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured.
5. Mutual Accountability
Donors and partners are accountable for development results.
Here endeth my reflections...
Previous posts included:
1. First Look
2. Why Government should aid
3. The Bible, Christians, and Government
The Paris Agreement on Aid Effectiveness
One of the presentations was on aid effectiveness, and this declaration was mentioned. I have not read through the entire website, but the main points of the agreement seem sound, especially if a developing country sets good goals.
1. Ownership
The country receiving aid should own the development process. It should own its own goals, set its own strategies, improve its own institutions, and tackle its own corruption.
2. Alignment
Donor countries should align behind these goals and use local systems toward their accomplishment.
3. Harmonization
Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication.
4. Results
Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured.
5. Mutual Accountability
Donors and partners are accountable for development results.
Here endeth my reflections...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Government should aid...
This is the second in a series of posts unpacking the recent conference I attended at Wheaton called Government, Foreign Assistance, and the Mission of God in the World, hosted by Bread for the World, Wheaton, and the Micah Prayer. The first post is here.
One interesting phenomenon I find is that both "conservative" and "liberal" Christian perspectives often have serious reservations about government involvement in foreign assistance, although usually for quite different reasons. Certain "conservative" Christian voices object because they not only often see it as stealing our money from us against our will but they also see government as instrinsically wasteful. Certain "liberal" Christian voices often see government aid as counterproductive and often doing more harm than good.
There were two "governmental" speakers at the conference: 1) Michael Gerson, who was Bush's speechwriter and who headed up PEPFAR (Africa AIDS initiative) and 2) Tim Ziemer, who first under the Bush administration and now under the Obama administration is the US Global Malaria Coordinator.
Gerson discussed Bush's initiative to get antiviral drugs to communities in Africa that were being decimated by AIDS. If I remember the statistics, the PEPFAR program has turned a situation around from only around 4% of Africans with AIDS being on ARV drugs to now 94%. There are, of course, some critiques of the program. For example, the emphasis was on distribution rather than establishing systems of distribution, which means the program is not self-perpetuating. I also heard some critique of the deals made with pharmaceutical companies.
In case I don't remember later, I have formulated over the course of the week a kind of "dance with the Devil" perspective on Christian-state relationships. I may post on it tomorrow in relation to certain biblical precedents.
Ziemer talked about the US led attempt to elimilate malaria from 15 countries. I guess 3000 people die a day in the world from malaria--completely unnecessary. Here the US has established systems that meet US environmental standards at the distribution of nets with incesticide, spraying, etc. Some have questions about the incecticide, but generally consider it a necessary evil.
Ziemer mentioned several elements the US government brings that small NGOs cannot:
1. level of cash
2. technical/logistical assistance
3. political influence
In short, no local church is equipped to respond effectively to the scale of a Katrina or Haitian earthquake or an Indonesian tsunami. In fact, there is actually a term "badvocacy" for a lot of what is done by well intentioned but as often as not ignorant church groups. They weren't mentioned but I thought several times of the whacko church group that was trying to smuggle orphans into the Dominican Republic.
The CEO of Food for the Hungry had just returned from Haiti and was reminded of the phrase from Judges, "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes." Although the general sentiment was that short term mission trips were generally a good thing, there was also the sense that well intentioned but culturally ignorant Americans can also do great harm. Just because you've been to another country, doesn't really mean that you've been to another country. Often such trips make generally un-self-aware people feel like they're now experts, when they culturally never really left home.
Again, in short, the church is not organized or mobilized enough to get the job done--or barely even started--on matters like AIDS or malaria.
A final word on the appropriateness of government involvement for those who think it is not in the best interest of US citizens for their money to be used in these ways. One thing that both Gerson and Ziemer mentioned is that it has been showed definitively that an overwhelming connection exists between poverty and terrorism. That is to say, it is misguided to think of terrorism as primarily an ideological issue. The evidence more demonstrates that it is economics that drive the ideology.
From what I can tell, there is near unanimous if not unanimous agreement by all experts in government and foreign policy that poverty is the number one cause of terrorism. This implies that it is massively in the public interest for the general welfare of US citizens for the government to address world poverty, especially in the Arab world.
One interesting phenomenon I find is that both "conservative" and "liberal" Christian perspectives often have serious reservations about government involvement in foreign assistance, although usually for quite different reasons. Certain "conservative" Christian voices object because they not only often see it as stealing our money from us against our will but they also see government as instrinsically wasteful. Certain "liberal" Christian voices often see government aid as counterproductive and often doing more harm than good.
There were two "governmental" speakers at the conference: 1) Michael Gerson, who was Bush's speechwriter and who headed up PEPFAR (Africa AIDS initiative) and 2) Tim Ziemer, who first under the Bush administration and now under the Obama administration is the US Global Malaria Coordinator.
Gerson discussed Bush's initiative to get antiviral drugs to communities in Africa that were being decimated by AIDS. If I remember the statistics, the PEPFAR program has turned a situation around from only around 4% of Africans with AIDS being on ARV drugs to now 94%. There are, of course, some critiques of the program. For example, the emphasis was on distribution rather than establishing systems of distribution, which means the program is not self-perpetuating. I also heard some critique of the deals made with pharmaceutical companies.
In case I don't remember later, I have formulated over the course of the week a kind of "dance with the Devil" perspective on Christian-state relationships. I may post on it tomorrow in relation to certain biblical precedents.
Ziemer talked about the US led attempt to elimilate malaria from 15 countries. I guess 3000 people die a day in the world from malaria--completely unnecessary. Here the US has established systems that meet US environmental standards at the distribution of nets with incesticide, spraying, etc. Some have questions about the incecticide, but generally consider it a necessary evil.
Ziemer mentioned several elements the US government brings that small NGOs cannot:
1. level of cash
2. technical/logistical assistance
3. political influence
In short, no local church is equipped to respond effectively to the scale of a Katrina or Haitian earthquake or an Indonesian tsunami. In fact, there is actually a term "badvocacy" for a lot of what is done by well intentioned but as often as not ignorant church groups. They weren't mentioned but I thought several times of the whacko church group that was trying to smuggle orphans into the Dominican Republic.
The CEO of Food for the Hungry had just returned from Haiti and was reminded of the phrase from Judges, "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes." Although the general sentiment was that short term mission trips were generally a good thing, there was also the sense that well intentioned but culturally ignorant Americans can also do great harm. Just because you've been to another country, doesn't really mean that you've been to another country. Often such trips make generally un-self-aware people feel like they're now experts, when they culturally never really left home.
Again, in short, the church is not organized or mobilized enough to get the job done--or barely even started--on matters like AIDS or malaria.
A final word on the appropriateness of government involvement for those who think it is not in the best interest of US citizens for their money to be used in these ways. One thing that both Gerson and Ziemer mentioned is that it has been showed definitively that an overwhelming connection exists between poverty and terrorism. That is to say, it is misguided to think of terrorism as primarily an ideological issue. The evidence more demonstrates that it is economics that drive the ideology.
From what I can tell, there is near unanimous if not unanimous agreement by all experts in government and foreign policy that poverty is the number one cause of terrorism. This implies that it is massively in the public interest for the general welfare of US citizens for the government to address world poverty, especially in the Arab world.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Government, Foreign Assistance, Church
I was privileged to sit in on a conference at Wheaton these past two days called "Government, Foreign Assistance, and God's Mission in the World." A "Wheaton Declaration" will come out of it after a couple revision loops. One paragraph of the first draft looked to be a particularly good summary:
"The extraordinary power of the United States and the daily impact of the United States on the world's poor requires special vigilance on the part of American Christian citizens as to the effects of the US role and policies and assistance programs. Our goal should be to bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world's poor"
The relationship between churches and the government on these sorts of issues is a thorny one, in my opinion, and I am much more comfortable personally with Christian groups lobbying the government than denominations per se, especially when it comes to specific policies. Nevertheless, I may post some thoughts in relation to the conference over the next few days.
Probably the first thing that struck me was the assumption of values. I think almost everyone at the conference accepted the value of helping the poor. One early caveat was on effective assistance. There was a strong distinction made between aid and development. Aid is short term in a time of crisis (e.g., Haiti). Development is about empowering people to support themselves eventually.
But I sat there wondering whether even most American Christians are on board with the basic value that it is our duty as Christians to help those in need. Before we can ever get to the question of the government, we have to make sure Christians can see that helping those in need is a fundamental Christian value.
"The extraordinary power of the United States and the daily impact of the United States on the world's poor requires special vigilance on the part of American Christian citizens as to the effects of the US role and policies and assistance programs. Our goal should be to bend the power of the United States toward a maximally effective impact on the world's poor"
The relationship between churches and the government on these sorts of issues is a thorny one, in my opinion, and I am much more comfortable personally with Christian groups lobbying the government than denominations per se, especially when it comes to specific policies. Nevertheless, I may post some thoughts in relation to the conference over the next few days.
Probably the first thing that struck me was the assumption of values. I think almost everyone at the conference accepted the value of helping the poor. One early caveat was on effective assistance. There was a strong distinction made between aid and development. Aid is short term in a time of crisis (e.g., Haiti). Development is about empowering people to support themselves eventually.
But I sat there wondering whether even most American Christians are on board with the basic value that it is our duty as Christians to help those in need. Before we can ever get to the question of the government, we have to make sure Christians can see that helping those in need is a fundamental Christian value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
