True or False? Abortion rates were higher during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan than during the Clinton Administration.
The correct answer is "True."
Fact: When poverty declines, so do the abortion rates.
The Clinton era witnessed a decline in poverty. Along with that fall came a rather dramatic decline (32%) in the frequency of abortion.
Fact: During the administration of President George W. Bush, both the poverty rate and abortion rates have begun to climb upward again.
During the campaign leading up to the 2004 election, I heard and read interviews with many voters for whom religion was extremely important. We all know that the "values debate" played a critical role in the outcome of the election.
Over and over again, right leaning religious folks reported that two issues determined their vote: abortion and homosexuality/gay marriage.
This was true even for many religious people who cared deeply about the plight of the poor. The struggle surrounding these two sentinel issues "trumped" every other issue for this large bloc of voters.
I find this very interesting, especially in view of the facts of life in the United States today, to say nothing of the content of scripture on the subjects at hand.
Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and will not be overturned without a Constitutional Amendment--a very unlikely prospect.
The individual sexuality of gay and lesbian citizens will not be affected, nor their behavior modified, by who happens to be President of the United States. Gay marriage is not going to be institutionalized by the states, though civil unions will most likely become the norm in many. Nor will our President support a constitutional amendment to define marriage in only traditional terms.
Both abortion and issues associated with homosexuality definitely should be discussed in a civil and rational manner in this democracy. Both have a place in the national "values debate."
Neither have anything to do with a much wider and more far-reaching national and worldwide reality that should be included in any on-going values discussion.
Poverty, hunger, children, homelessness and housing, health care, education, access to opportunity--these are all issues to be considered as a part of the American "values agenda."
As my friend Jim Wallis puts it, "Budgets are moral documents."
Forty-five millions U. S. citizens have no health insurance--over 14 million are children. Does this not relate to national values?
Even though working harder than ever, almost 1.5 million additional Americans fell below the poverty line between 2002 and 2003. Does this not relate to our national values?
In the North Texas area, Dallas County bears practically all of the expense associated with providing public health care to the entire region. Collin County, the richest county in Texas, provides public health care only to those residents whose gross annual income totals 25% of the national poverty level or just over $4,000--literally a handfull of people annually. When asked, one commissioner commented that while it was "a nice thing" that Dallas County was doing for the poor, Collin County would never join in the process.
Question: Is this not a issue of public morality and values?
Question: Where are the churches in Collin County on this matter?
Question: Where are the outraged voters? Where is the movement for a values-based health care solution among religious people?
We would do well to rethink this entire matter of values.
An "upgrade" in this part of our civic discourse and action would be most welcome.
6 comments:
There were some letters in the "Sunday Reader" of this week's DMN concerning an article by Rodney Cooper called "My white evangelical brethren still don't get it" that apparently was similar in theme to Larry's post. I tried to find Cooper's original column, but couldn't locate it in the archives. Did anyone read the original article? Anyway, you might be interested in the responses in Sunday's edition.
It seems we have a pretty narrow checklist of "moral" issues in this country...NONE of which are mentioned as frequently and adamantly in the Bible as the issues concerning the treatment of the poor. Jim Wallis (we like to quote him don't we? :-) ) often brings up the point that the only thing that is mentioned more than the poor in the Old Testament is idolatry, which i find very interesting in light of the consumerism of our society today.
Thanks,
Rachel Embry
What is it about gay rights and abortion that inflames the Religious Right in a way that poverty issues never can? Is it that the churches aren't making poverty a priority? Or are the politicians using provocative topics like sexuality to distract the religious voters? In any case, I am thankful that I don't have to choose between my rights as a gay man and my desire for more expansive health care in this country. But for people that have to choose, I'm stunned that sex and money are trumping the important "moral issues" in every election.
I'm enjoying your posts very much, Larry. Thanks for all your hard work.
-Matt Hopkins
Larry, what a powerful post. I've been recently 'turned on' to your blog by Chris at homefront.blogspot.com. I'll read it every day from now on.
Matt's comment is right on--leaders use Christian 'hot buttons' like sexual sin to grab the ear, and pocketbooks, of pew-sitters like myself. I long for the day a preacher brings a hungry person on stage and says to the congregation, "Who will feed this child of God today?"
gregbrooks.blogspot.com
Jeff, your last paragraph seems to make the point that Larry was trying to stress. Chrisitans all across the nation, by the millions, compartmentalized their faith in the last election and produced a result that has, will and is hurting the poor in vast numbers. Why? Because of the two issues discussed in Larry's blog--abortion and homosexuality. The blog simply asks people to consider more than these two issues and it asks that people really evaluate what such choices do to people. As Larry suggests, the ironic fact is a vote against abortion in this last election was a vote that will assure the number of abortions performed will go up because poverty is certain to continue its assent under this President. I am curious as to how the struggle of gay persons for civil rights will hurt anyone who is not homosexual. Then, on another point, how much does the Bible say about abortion or homosexuality as compared to what it says about poverty, injustice and oppression? BTW--the book of Ezekiel indicates that Sodom fell because it ignored the hungry.
You ask:
Where are the churches in Collin County on this matter?
Actually, it starts with the pastors/preachers. They are busy growing their churches, and that is not done by serving the poor, caring about the poor, or even noticing the poor. They are busy being church growth professionals, and are absent to any responsibility placed on them in their preaching role. They
preach what works, not what matters regarding the values that might be central to God...
It begins with a failure of preaching.
This sounds harsh, but I have less and less patience...
As Christians, we complain because the politicians listen to the public and waver with whatever societal issue arises (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, etc.). I've heard people say that we continue to get further and further away from Christianity. Yet, it sounds like our churches do the same thing. Whatever catches the ear of the parishioners--sexual morality, large church buildings, pleasing the ones inside of the church instead of worrying about those outside--the churches latch on to regardless of what the Bible focuses on. It seems obvious that the Bible puts a huge emphasis on the poor. What politics are we, as Christians, playing that we don't focus on the same things God does? Isn't he our plumb line?
~Janet
Post a Comment