Politics and Seeking A Consistent Life Ethic

This year, as in no other recent year, what are known as "life issues" vs. "choice issues" have been brought before us as has not been seen in recent campaigns for re-election, if you follow the news. The issues I'm talking about are those that seem to be viewed by many as the "central" battleground life or choice" issues. I'm talking about mainly abortion and, to a lesser degree, euthanasia or physicial-assisted suicide (lesser because there is somewhat, I think,less controversy surrounding end-of-life issues than beginning-of-life issues). It began months ago during the primaries when some candidates called for legislation that would make contraception illegal and for the mandating of vaginal-probe ultrasounds for women considering abortion. I know that there is very strong emotion wrapped up in these issues on both sides and that differences are seen as personal attacks. I find this quite unfortunate. But, with the possible exception "marriage equality for LGBT people, nothing divides us more than the issue of abortion.

How is it that abortion and euthanasia came to be seen as the cental "battleground" life issues, especially the former? I don't think that abortion would ever been politicized and become so polarizing had it not been for the Roe vs. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1973 and became legal. And since then, the Church of the people of faith and many nonprofit organizations have seen ending abortion as the "primary moral or "life" issue of the day and everything else has been seen as only secondary. The argument has always been, "We are talking about our right to life in the womb and unless this right is kept safe for all of us, all the other rights we want and cry out for become meaningless." These hard-core "right-to-life" advocates do have a point, that our lives as unborn humans must be kept as safe and sacred as our lives outside the womb should be. My question is that are our lives outside the womb actually so sacred or so safe anymore, either? I wonder. Our murder rate is the highest of any country in the developed world. Many born children die daily, from things as varied as card accidents, drowning, serious childhood illness and even murder at the hands of adults or peers. This is not to mention all the other deaths that occur daily of teens and adults that are untimely and unnatural. Why does not anyone talk about being "pro-life" about these most serious matters? And poverty typically breeds crime, including murder. And it causes much hunger and illness and lack of access to health care and all of thse can kill. Why do we not use the word "pro-life in reference to poverty and related issues like access to health care for all?

I know what the argument is by confining abortion as the life issue of focus. The argument is: "The most vulnerable person is the unborn because he or she is totally helpless and totally unable to speak of for self." This is true, that the unborn are 100 percent unable to advocate for themselves. The argument that hard-core "right-to-life" advcates give for not treating the lives of others as top priority is this: "At least they are alive and are able to cry out for themselves." Well, up to a point they can. But we know that society makes it very hard to "find your voice" if you lack money or social connections. I am seeing this firsthand as I daily struggle to gather signatures for my petition for a group of people whose needs, in many ways, are going unmet because of ignorance and lack of resources. My frustration is that, to support a certain candidate and political party, and support the life issues that they oficially stand for, we have to withdraw support for the other candidate and for the life issues that they support. To stand for conservatives, we protect the unborn and infirm, dying people. But we withdraw support for the protection of the lives of everyone else from birth to old age. To support liberal candidates, we protect human life from birth to old age. But we withhold support from the protection of unborn human life and from those who are infirm or dying. I find this most frustrating and confusing. It has made me just want to stay at home on Election Day. I find it almost impossible to choose, pitting some lives against others.

I happen to belong to a Church body that, like so many others, has implicitly, if not explicitly, sent a strong message that to be true to God and His teachings, we should be "conservative" and this implies that we vote conservative. And to do that means to vote for Republicans and to support Republican "values." We are told in such church bodies, "Protect the unborn with your votes." Well, which party is oficially "anti-abortion"? The conservatives in the Republican party (there are liberal Republicans who support abortion just as there are conservative Democrats who oppose abortion). Those in the Republican party have, especially since 1973 and Roe vs. Wade, made the lives of the unborn their central life issue through for calling for restrictiong abortion, even criminalizing it. The official stance of Democrats has been to safeguard all life from birth to death, through government programs and funding of vital services for the public's protection.  Those who are "pro-choice" (whether democrats or Republicans) are more convinced that life in the womb may be "potential life" as opposed to "actual life" and therefore, that the expectant mom should, in crisis situations, have "choice" available. Even hard-core "pro-choice," liberal Democrats are NOT "pro-abortion" in the sense that they affirm this procedure as the best "choice" for anyone. They simply, for the most part, believe that this "choice should be available" for those who find themselves in difficult or crisis situations. Yes, there are hard-core "abortion-on-demand" proponents but I see them as being in the minority. Even "pro-choice" people merely see abortion as an unfortunate "choice" of last resort. As I read it in my Bible, I see that the lives of ALL people, at all stages of development, are equally vluable and sacred to God. So what does this mean for electing candidates where we have to pit some lives against others? And God, unlike "pro-choice" advocates, definitely sees unborn human life not as potential humanb life but as ACTUAL human life.

In the Church body to which I belong, the life issues espouses by the Democrats are seen as "secondary issues." The "primary issue" as seen by my Church body, is ending abortion and defending the unborn. We should be doing this! But what about all those other lives that are just as important and sacred to God? This question was posed to a prominent Christian leader who appeared on a major news network. The Host asked this Christian leader something like,"What about the Republican attempts, through their proposals, to cut back on services like firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, veterans, the elderly and the disabled?"  His response to that was, "Those are secondary issues." The main issue? "We need to defend traditional marriage and defend the lives of the unborn." For purposes of this post, I will NOT be going into GLBT issues but only into the "life issues." Who is to determine what lives are "primary" and which are only "secondary"? I know that Catholic nuns and others who call themselves "progressive Christians" have been speaking out against the Ryan budget plan which calls for cuts in essentail services which we need and which benefit all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us: the poor, senior citizens, veterans and those with disabilities. But I see the almost TOTAL silence on the part of those among "conservative Church bodies, Christian leaders and pastors about the Ryan plan, as disturbing and depressing. It seems that most in conservative "religious right" circles are refusing to see the moral big picture and see it reduced to just two issues: protecting the unborn and safeguarding tradional marriage. We ought to do this, I fully agree! But what about all the other moral issues that are embraced by "liberals" such as poverty, justice/injustice, education, ending corporate greed and political corruption, health care for all, and the other important issues? Must thse go begging if we embrace one set of moral values? Why must we choose?

So, as I go the the polls on November 2, as always, I will be torn and conflicted. I know that many people fall solidly on the side of liberal or conservative and that, if they exercise their right to vote, their minds will be made up. In fact, many of such people may already have their minds made up at this moment. That is fine. What is NOT fine is when people, whether individuals, Church bodies, Christian leaders or organizations tell me how I "should vote." I do not tell anyone else how they should vote and they should not tell me how to vote. And how can Christian leaders or Church bodies make any claims that God has any monopoly on any political party, that He is Republican or Democrat? Oh, they never come out and say it like that; they just say, "But Biblcal values are consistent with what Republicans stand for." That is true of SOME of the things that this party stands for. But this same things can be said about SOME of the things that the Democrats stands for. And There are things about BOTH parties that are not consistent with Biblical values. Call me biased, but I see most of the hate and nastiness, whether you talk about the political campaigns or their supporters, as coming from the "Tea Party" element of the Republican party.

As I stated in my last post, someone in my social networks saw a recent status update of mine and told me to state my political party for all to know. I will go on the record as saying that I am what some would call a Pro-life Democrat, a moderate, and an Independent who supports many Democratic values. I believe that we should shout out about what we are FOR, as the Bible does, whether than scream about what we are against. I see far too much screaming and railing, from politicians and from so many in "real life" and online. And I want to shout for what is called a "consistent life ethic" that upholds and affirms ALL life, starting from concetion to death.

http://www.consistent-life.org/
This website is set up for a nonprofit of people who seek to pull together all life issues and to unite people from all poltical viewpoints and to declare all life as sacred. This site is full of information, it educates and links to other helpful resources.

http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life
This article examines how both the Presidential candidates actually relate to life issues, especially abortion and gives perspective.

The TEA Party vs. The Occupy Movement

          Throughout this year, there have been two, massive, grassroots movements comprised of people who have been much dissatisfied with their government and who wanted to show their displeasure and  inspire change through awareness. This year has, in my opinion, been the year of profound discontent with government to such a degree that citizens have exerted pressure on politicians to make substantial changes. The coming of age of social networks, including Facebook and Twitter, have played a big part in these monumental efforts.
          What are the political dynamics that finally have gotten citizens so fed up that they joined forces with like-minded people to spend time and often money, to organize and to demand government to make changes? Well, to start out, to enter political office, elected public servants must run campaigns and these campaigns cost $$$. Many $$$! And who have the resources to fund political campaigns? It is not the overwhelming majority of middle-class and definitely not low-income citizens. No, those who are able and willing to fund the campaigns and elections of our politicians are millionaires and billionaires. And because our public servants are usually "paid off" by these super-rich, it is to they to whom they feel indebted and are most driven to please, even if pleasing their benefactors' demands go against the grain of the consciences and convicted of our public servants. And to show their gratitude to their benefators, President George W. Bush instituted tax cuts for these super-wealthy, beginning in his first term in 2001. In the current tax code, which I make no claim to understand, the more $$$ one makes, the lower one's taxes in proportion to one's income. Conservatives and liberals differ sharply on how to address the inequities in the current tax code. Conservative deeply desire to preserve the status quo and to limit the role of government in our lives, so they hold fast to the notion that the current tax code must be left alone, that politicians must not meddle with citizens,' including wealthy citizens,' private affairs. Also, conservatives reason that since the very wealthy are usually the job creators, paying higher taxes would leave these job creators with fewer $$$ to create new jobs. To me, this begs the question of our declining economy and high unemployment rate. It is also an argument of the those who lean toward the liberal view, that it is reasonable and moral to require millionaires and billionaires (NOT small business owners) to pay their fair share, that is, a higher proportion of taxes according to their incomes. This would ensure fairer and more equitable economy for middle-class and low-income citizens.
          Actually, there has always been an undercurrent of resentment toward millionaires and billionaires, especially those on Wall Street, and of their corporate greed and and their buying of our public servants through huge contribution to politicians' campaigns. Since Wall Street CEO's and other very wealthy corporations and individuals have traditionally been most able to fund poltical campaigns ans elections, and since "money talks," they, not the rest of us, have enjoyed much more influence and power with our public servants. Though I'm sure most politicians start out with the finest of motives, seeking power for the sake of helping and advocating for their citzenry, it is clear that the temptations and trappings of public office tend to make them lose their focus. Once they settle into office and encounter the temptation to cave into the pressures of the greed of their "benefactors," because they want to get re-elected, it becomes easy for our public servants to forget why they entered public office in the first place. So we see so much greedy, corrupt and even criminal behavior on the part of our public servants.
          And this is where two mass grassroots movements come in; the only thing they have in common is their profound discontent with our public servants and a deep-seated belief that they hold the solution to the country's problem. The first mass movement, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, is a fiscal movement which claims to be founded on the original Boston Tea Party in the late 1770's. Largely conservative in their worldview, the TEA Party claim the American flag and the Constitution as their their symbols. Their philosophy is that the governments is our problem and that they should have only a small role in our lives. And since those who support them and those who speak for them tend to be upper-middle-class or wealthy, their outcry not to be taxed anymore favors the affluent and the wealthy. Some Members of Congress speak for this TEA Party and are known as "the new Republicans." Earlier this year, especially, Members of this movement were real go-getters, applying all their efforts, time, skills and passions into maximizing all forms of media to organize, raise awareness and to put forth their agenda. This TEA Party movement reached deeply into many different parts of the US. Members and supporters of this movement oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, in part because many are among those wealthy, and even if they are not, they have bought into the notion that these job creators will lose $$$ needed to generate jobs, meaning that unemployment will continue or get worse for the rest of us. And they hold to the belief that spending cuts, no matter how deep, hold the key to turning the economy around. Today, Members of the TEA Party seem to have lost much influence but make no mistake, they continue to seek to influence the current, raging national budget debate and their agenda for the upcoming elections in 2012.
          Later this year, another movement, called Occupy, sprang up. It claims no official leaders, unlike the TEA Party. The core beliefs and philosophy of the Occupy movement stand in opposition to that of the TEA Party. Members of Occupy and their supporters hold that government should retain a role in our lives, because of their power and resources. This movement began in New York City, as the Occupy Wall Street movement that organized to protest the corporate greed of Wall Street and their corrupting influence on those in elected office. And soon this movement spread in many other cities all over the US as more and more people "caught the vision" and "occupy" soon become the buzzword for many other Occupy movements. And this movement also has reached outside the US and has spread to many other parts of the free world, as people all over the world watched this all unfold from their TV screens and from social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Their photos and videos demonstrate that countless people of a wide variety of different languages, ethnicities, races, and walks of life hold membership in and support the Occupy movement. This is in contrast to the TEA Party, which seems to be far more homogenized. And yes, people of various political persusions also support it, as indicated by the fact that many don't claim to support President Obama. At the heart of their agenda and far-reaching, tireless efforts on the ground and online, is the passion and determination to drive money out of politics. They want to reform the way political campaigns and elections are funded. This way politicians will be free to act out of their convictions, and to speak and vote their consciences without the fear and pressure of not wanting to lose the support of super-wealthy donors. If their elections are taxpayer-funded, they will gain the incentive to work for the overwhelming majority of their citizenry. However, unlike the TEA Party, we keep hearing about the many arrests of Occupy protestors as well as trashing them as "idiots," "thugs," and even "low-lifes," "welfare bums" and "criminals." I find so much of the hostility toward the Occupy movement hard to understand, especially since I don't see that TEA Party Members have been nearly so vilified, trashed and experience so much police brutality. Yet their influence continues, but unlike the TEA Party, I'm not aware that they are trying to get into politics to gain influence.
          In this media age of biases, propaganda and politicking, it is hard to know what to believe about anything, especially two massive grassroots movements. I have provided the websites for both of these movements and my hope is that, if you have the time to spare, you will check them out and see for yourself who you should support and stand together with. And looking at all this from the perspective of faith and specifically the Christian faith, we should thoughtfully check out both these movements and decide what values tally with what we believe. As a Christian who holds to Biblical values and who sees much in my Bible which shouts out God's heart for the poor and His sympathy for the working-class and all the vulnerable, it seems to me that the entire diverse structure of the Occupy movement and their passionate advocacy for the vulnerable and the middle-class is closer to Scriptural values than the TEA Party.
          If Christ were on Earth at this time, what movement do you think He would identify with?

Occupy Wall Street
http://occupywallst.org/. This is the website for this mass movement.

The TEA Party
http://www.teaparty.org/. This is a social networking site for anyone interested in supporting this movement.