What Would Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Do Today?

I must assume that Rep. Lewis’ lament over there being still “so much poverty and hunger” in the United States is a not-so-veiled criticism of the domestic policies of the Bush administration. However, a February 11 analysis of federal spending that appears in The Heritage Foundation website documents that spending on poverty relief programs under Bush has averaged annual increases of 9.2%, compared to 5.5% under Clinton, even though poverty rates have increased by less than 1% under Bush and have averaged less than what they were under Clinton. Unemployment has now dropped below 5%. When critics complain about “cuts” in spending on poverty relief, they are really speaking of proposals to slow the rate of INCREASE of that spending, and not a reduction in real dollars.

As for an alleged epidemic of hunger in the US, my observations from past volunteer work that I have done with the poor and, to cite another “for instance,” from the images on TV of the poor who were stranded by Hurricane Katrina is that obesity seems to be a much bigger problem than starvation among Americans in the lowest income groups. The truth is that in America today, if you get at least a high school education and wait until you’re married to begin having children, the odds are very, very good to have a nice life of at least basic material comfort that much of the rest of the world envies.

Rep. Lewis also speaks about the struggle for peace throughout the world, but he is really just using a euphemism for “isolation.” “Let the rest of the world solve its own problems, we’ve got plenty of our own to fix.” How tempting that path would be to take! I would argue, though, that history shows that our country’s involvement in the world – including by military means – has on the whole been a force for good on behalf of international order and the spread of freedom and democracy.

What would Dr. King make today of the day that honors him? It is true that over the last few years of his life, following the victories of passing the federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, he turned his attention increasingly away from the message of racial reconciliation, and toward economic issues approached from a collectivist and redistributionist perspective (euphemistically spoken of as “community.”) And yet today those economic models are producing stagnation, not to mention great alienation among communities of color in particular, where they are still clung to in Western Europe.

It has troubled me that the King Holiday has morphed from one that emphasized racial reconciliation into becoming a platform for racial guilt-tripping and lobbying for a lessening of freedom through economic collectivism. Given the assumptions from which the civil rights establishment that speaks in Dr. King’s name still operates, though, I must regretfully conclude that he would probably approve of that change.

Hi Ted

Thanks for coming here to discuss things with this "hostile" crowd of liberals; we really are nice people in general and I hope you find that to be the case.

YOU WROTE: I must assume that Rep. Lewis’ lament over there being still “so much poverty and hunger” in the United States is a not-so-veiled criticism of the domestic policies of the Bush administration. However, a February 11 analysis of federal spending that appears in The Heritage Foundation website documents that spending on poverty relief programs under Bush has averaged annual increases of 9.2%, compared to 5.5% under Clinton, even though poverty rates have increased by less than 1% under Bush and have averaged less than what they were under Clinton.

KEITH: I have to question Heritages figures because Bush has not initiated any government programs to fight poverty, and he *has* cut or eliminated some of them. It might be that while the number of people actually below the poverty line has only increased by 1% during Bush's Presidency but that the number of people who are above the poverty line but still poor enough to qualify for programs has gone up a lot during Bush/Cheney. The comparisons to Clinton are quite unfair because the ignore the fact that under Clinton those figures were going in the *right* direction; Bush started from Clinton's high water mark and went worse.

TED: Unemployment has now dropped below 5%. When critics complain about “cuts” in spending on poverty relief, they are really speaking of proposals to slow the rate of INCREASE of that spending, and not a reduction in real dollars.

KEITH: I think what people are complaing about is that adjusted for inflation the benefit per person has decreased.

TED: As for an alleged epidemic of hunger in the US, my observations from past volunteer work that I have done with the poor and, to cite another “for instance,” from the images on TV of the poor who were stranded by Hurricane Katrina is that obesity seems to be a much bigger problem than starvation among Americans in the lowest income groups.

KEITH: The kind of cheap but high fat food that a lot of poor people eat does that. Also at most your observation shows that our poor are not generally *starving*; it doesn't show that their living standards aren't bad and getting worse.

TED: The truth is that in America today, if you get at least a high school education and wait until you’re married to begin having children, the odds are very, very good to have a nice life of at least basic material comfort that much of the rest of the world envies.

KEITH: I'm not so sure a poor American today wouldn't be much better off economically if she was born in Norway or Denmark. If you are counting the 3rd world, that comparison seems invalid to me. You might as well say that if Bush started putting his political opponents in country club prisons still we shouldn't complain because in Kurdistan they'd be pulling out our finger nails.

TED: Rep. Lewis also speaks about the struggle for peace throughout the world, but he is really just using a euphemism for “isolation.” “Let the rest of the world solve its own problems, we’ve got plenty of our own to fix.” How tempting that path would be to take! I would argue, though, that history shows that our country’s involvement in the world – including by military means – has on the whole been a force for good on behalf of international order and the spread of freedom and democracy.

KEITH: I'm not sure that the hundreds of thousands who died in Guatemala and Chile and El Salvador and Iraq when Sadaam was our friend would judge our foreign policy so benignly. I apologize for the rhetoric actually, but I think it is at least debatable whether our interventions have been good for the countries we intervened in, or whether they mostly benefitted our business interests.

TED: What would Dr. King make today of the day that honors him? It is true that over the last few years of his life, following the victories of passing the federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, he turned his attention increasingly away from the message of racial reconciliation, and toward economic issues approached from a collectivist and redistributionist perspective (euphemistically spoken of as “community.”) And yet today those economic models are producing stagnation, not to mention great alienation among communities of color in particular, where they are still clung to in Western Europe.

KEITH: Our working class has been stagnating for 30 years or so; our economy grows but nearly all the growth goes to the elite. I can't imagine that a low income worker in Sweden would trade places with the corresponding low wage worker in the US. A lot of things are possible explanations for our relatively lower unemployment rate, including how we count the unemployed. People cling to such redistributionist ideas as free higher education and free public health care because they *like* having those benefits. I'd say there's nothing wrong with clinging to those things that improve our life.

TED: It has troubled me that the King Holiday has morphed from one that emphasized racial reconciliation into becoming a platform for racial guilt-tripping and lobbying for a lessening of freedom through economic collectivism.

KEITH; Giving more power to private businesses doesn't increase our freedom, it lessens it the same as giving more power to a dictator would. It's not guilt-tripping to recognize that there is still racial discrimination and that we need the collective power that democracy gives us to fix that.

TED: Given the assumptions from which the civil rights establishment that speaks in Dr. King’s name still operates, though, I must regretfully conclude that he would probably approve of that change.

KEITH; I would argue that the laissez faire economics you seem to be expousing lessens the freedom of the vast majority because it makes them more subject to the economic power of the elite. Government intervention in the economic matters increases the freedom of most of us because it gives us more control over the product of our economy. For example, when a working poor persom makes more money from the EITC she is freer than she would be if she were poorer.

your friend
keith

Hello Ted and Keith:

Poverty has increased dramatically since Bush became President, and real incomes have declined--especially for minority families. See Article below Sept 2005.

FP

Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under President Bush

by Gene C. Gerard

The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush's assertion last month that, "Americans have more money in their pockets," many people aren't faring as well as they once did.

The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.

Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.

Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau's report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.

Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.

Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.

Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.

The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.

The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.

Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.

Although we haven't heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed "compassionate conservative." But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn't seen much of that compassion in the last five years. Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Gene C. Gerard taught history, religion, and ethics for 14 years at several colleges in the Southwest, and is a contributing author to the forthcoming book "Americans at War," by Greenwood Press. His articles have appeared in Intervention Magazine, The Free Press, The Modern Tribune, Political Affairs Magazine, Alternative Press Review, and The Palestine Chronicle.

King's legacy is economic opportunity for all--the sad fact is that things have gotten better for the wealthy and worse for everyone else--especially minorities--over the past 5 years. An exact reveral from the Clinton years--marked by real economic opportunity for all and significant gains for minority households.

This has nothing to do with this subject, but about christian alliance, or whatever this group of misguided christians are called.
John 15:18 If the WORLD hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 If ye were of the WORLD, the WORLD would love his own: but because ye are not of the WORLD, but I have chosen you out of the WORLD, therefore the WORLD hateth you.
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luke 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luke 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

All people are welcome to be forgiven but to tell someone that their sins are good, and okay is criminal. Would you give a drug addict more drugs, would you give alcoholics alcohol, would you give childmolesters that have not changed children. I tell you that abortion is murder the peace Jesus brought is inner, not outer until Jesus comes back. You who push for abortion are lucky that your parents didnt abort you, think of it that way, if abortion had been legal half of you would not be here. Christianity is not supposed to be this love everyone and not truth but love and correction. I hope that all of you thinking about this alliance will change your views on the issues of sin.

A servant of The True King, Lord Jesus Christ
David

Hi David

I would say you need to take care of the big log in your own eye before you worry about the tiny splinter in the eyes of people who have had abortions and the doctors who perform them. I need to be taking care of *my* big log too.

Keith

Keith,

Clearly we have a fundamental disagreement in premises, regarding whether freedom and prosperity are better served through an expanding private sector or an expanding state sector. Probably the best to hope for from any further exchange is to go on record with what those respective views are. So here goes with one more round.

One thing that your post makes clear is what I have surmised from other commentaries by progressives, i.e. that your ideal for how a society is to be organized appears to be found in the Scandinavian countries. Never mind that I do not consider the supremacy of the state in those small and homogenous countries, and the marginalization of confessing Christians (as opposed to the cultural kind) in them and the decline of their churches into de facto museums of the Christian faith, to be merely coinicdental. But on the relatively small scale on which those societies operate, I will grant that they do a good job of providing a guaranteed level of basic material comfort to their people. How many of the policies that have produced those results could be replicated in a country of the size and complexity of the US is a subject for a whole 'nother discussion beyond the scope of this one.

I will not attempt to respond to every single one of your points above, for lack of time and a desire to save a little bandwith in the universe, except to make the following few observations:

You voiced skepticism about The Heritage Foundation analysis, but the Heritage memo is one that is backed by facts and figures that I have not seen anyone dispute. I suppose one could look at the same information and say, "Well, I see the glass as half empty, not half full," or one could supply other facts and figures in an attempt to override the argument made by the Heritage analysis. Trust me, though, while Heritage is clearly a conservative and pro-free enterprise think tank, it is also an intellectually serious operation that backs up its studies with data.

The reduction of what remains of poverty in the US may not show sufficient progress under Bush to satisfy progressives, but the facts about the higher rate of growth in spending on poverty entitlements under Bush simply do not support the hysteria coming from the left that the Bush budgets represent a War on the Poor. You folks undermine your credibility by how you constantly portray Bush as a virtual anti-Christ, and never give him credit for having so much as a good intention, let alone DOING anything right. Almost makes me wonder why he and his Party even try to address the needs of the poor, given that your side will never ever give them credit for any such efforts they do make. One may believe that Bush hasn't done enough for the poor, but it borders on fanaticism to say he's done nothing - or worse - which is all I hear coming from your side. And to put my critique in perspective, while I voted for Bush - twice - and still stand by that choice, I previously voted for Clinton - twice - and still stand by that choice. (The story behind that political migration being a long one for another time...)

My other comment has to do with Rep. Lewis and what I see MLK Day as having become. Lewis and the rest of the American civil rights establishment remind me of the Springsteen song, "Glory Days," about the athlete who peaked early and who longs for the acclaim received from those long-ago accomplishments that have never since been matched, let alone surpassed. Lewis et al deserve honor for their heroism in the 50s and 60s to force America to confront its history of institutional injustice toward fellow citizens of African descent. But for them, time seems to have stopped circa 1965. To listen to them, and to much of the rhetoric that now surrounds MLK Day, one would think that there are no black people who are making it in America today, that the state is still standing in the schoolhouse door to block their claim on the American dream. The civil rights old guard (and new guard, for that matter) seems so afraid to admit that there has been any progress whatsoever in race relations and in the status of blacks in America, because it could let "whitey" off the hook (the racial guilt- tripping about which I previously referred). And yet anyone who looks around at everyday American life knows that is just not so.

Yes, racial discrimination still does exist (though workplace diversity trainings have increasingly been reduced to indoctrinations about "microinequities"). I would argue, though, that the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African-Americans of nearly 70% nationwide is a far, far greater hindrance to further advancement of blacks in American society than is whatever lingering racial discrimination they face.

Keith, from your response to David's post above, I must conclude that your preoccupation with the log in your own eye means you're too busy to criticize the Bush budget priorities too.

I'm sorry, but the Christian left's frequent response to what doesn't fit it's politics - "Who am I to judge, how can I criticize abortion when I have sins of my own and a log in my own eye to answer for?" - comes across as one big cop-out, plain and simple.

At least conservatives are more honest in holding that there is right and wrong, better choices and worse choices to argue for.

* too busy and too modest and humble... *

"Like Jesus did among women, tax collectors, Samaritans and others, we reject hurtful exclusionary distinctions between "us" and "them."

Where did anyone get the idea that Jesus did not make exclusionary distinctions between "us" and "them." And where did anyone get the idea that he doesn't do the same?

"What Would Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Do Today?"

Probably nothing worthwhile.

"At least conservatives are more honest in holding that there is right and wrong, better choices and worse choices to argue for."

I wasn't aware that the U.S. demographic who self-identify as "conservatives" have a monopoly on right and wrong. Sweeping generalizations sure are fun--too bad they don't constitute a valid argument.

It's a good thing Jesus and his 1st century followers aren't alive today. Their decentralized communitarian social and economic practices sure would threaten the NAFTA-capitalists of our day.

Well, as far as The Heritage Foundation and it's "facts", I think that depends entirely upon what shade of glasses one is wearing. In the original L.Frank Baum novel, The Wizard of Oz (not the MGM film), Dorothy and her friends are given Emerald-coloured glasses to wear prior to entering the Emerald City, to make it appear as if the entire city is made of priceless Emeralds, when in fact it's just cheap glass. In much the same way, these neo-conservative "think-tanks" utilize propaganda and nationalism (one of The Devil's favourite toys, as nationalism invariably promotes bigotry and prejudice--one would think the world would have learned its lesson after The Third Reich) to persuade the unwashed masses of their good intentions and shining vision.

In the 1994 issue of its Policy Review, The Heritage Foundation talks about its "Hayekian Agenda", namely radical spending cuts, the end of the "public school monopoly", a "free-market" healthcare system, and the elimination of the "family-destroying welfare dole". It is interesting (but not unexpected) to note that NO mention is made of Corporate Welfare, which is FAR costlier each year to the American people than welfare to the poor. It is also interesting to note how often these groups love (passionately) to speak of a "free-market" system, as if labeling anything as "free-market" ensures that it it will sound and smell like a rose, that indeed anything that serves gloriously the capitalist cause also serves democracy. Another idea that I have no doubt delights Satan no end.

Some of the ideas from The Heritage Foundation senior management officials for rebuilding the Gulf Coast/funding the cost of rebuilding included 1. Drilling the Arctic Wildlife Refuge 2.Suspend environmental regulations including both the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts 3. Suspend prevailing wage labor laws 4. Promote vouchers for "school choice" (translation: help the rich fund their kids going to private, elitist schools) 4. Repeal the Estate Tax, and 5. Generously fund "Faith-based" organizations (translation: carefully written legislation allowing for neo-conservative religious groups to receive government money, while establishing restrictions that would prevent Liberal/Progressive religious groups from benefiting equally). How some of these "ideas" were going to aid in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast I have no idea, but there you are.

And of course there is always the ever-troubling business of the whole "Malaysian Connection", in which The Heritage Foundation initially chastized Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad (who had been accused of, among other things, human rights abuses, jailing political opponents, and making repeated anti-Semitic remarks). In 1998 Heritage Foundation researcher John Dori wrote "The Clinton Administration should be prepared to speak out strongly against Mahatir's actions". All that appeared to radically change when The Heritage Foundation President began representing Malaysian business interests through his Belle Haven Consultants, which retains his wife as a senior advisor (or did--I do not know if they still do). Lobbying firms such as Alexander Strategy Group (hired by Belle Haven), among others, reportedly collected millions in fees from Malaysian business interests. In 2004 Belle Haven was reported to have started explicitly representing the Malaysian government. All of this was reported on in various national papers, but drew very little interest, sadly.

The Heritage Foundation has repeatedly said it does not "lobby" (to retain a tax-exempt status with the IRS), and yet in a 1995 Annual Report, Vice Presidents Stuart Butler and Kim Holmes had these interesting comments:

Butler: "Heritage now works very closely with congressional leadership, and has been involved in crafting almost every piece of major legislation to move through Congress..."

Holmes: "We truly have become an extension of the congressional staff, but on our own terms and according to our own agenda..."

That's not lobbying?!?!?!?!? Well, granted, not in the Bizarro Universe it's not.

Oh, admittedly, as a Liberal/Progressive I most certainly dismiss anything and everything that comes from these neo-conservative "think-tanks", although I will readily admit that these are VERY smart people. Propagandists usually are.

I guess a lot of people find it amusing and terribly cerebral when it comes to playing the figures game when it comes to discussing greed and apathy toward the poor in this country and around the world. Somehow I don't think God finds it very amusing. Jesus made it very clear we are not to hoard wealth, that it would be "easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven", and said "Woe to the rich, for they have their reward", as well as relating the story of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus. Jesus also made it clear that when we do for "The Least of These" we are (quite literally) doing for Him. Yes, we are our brother's keeper, and the sick and poor and suffering the world over are our concern and our duty. And Jesus said (as did Dr. King), Blessed are The Peacemakers for THEY will be called the Children of God.

What would Dr. King do if he were back in the world today? Well, he would have returned from Heaven of course, so I like to think he'd have more than a few words to pass along to the "Religious Right" and the neo-conservative movement in this country. Words about just how God feels about nationalism, apathy toward the poor (and attempting to justify such apathy), unbridled greed, polarizing a nation for profit, as well as waging a war for profit and political power. I think he would have a LOT to say about taking a twisted, perverted version of Christ's teachings(a version which promotes exlusivity, a quasi-religious worship of a conservative agenda, and all wrapped up in an idolatrous flag), and trying to replace the original message of God's unconditional, unbounding love with it.

Dr. King had a dream, gradually being realized, gradually coming ro fruition, but fighting against a nightmare which seeks to overpower that dream. May the TRUE Christian soldiers fight to preserve it.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

Hi Ted

You wrote: "Keith, from your response to David's post above, I must conclude that your preoccupation with the log in your own eye means you're too busy to criticize the Bush budget priorities too.

I'm sorry, but the Christian left's frequent response to what doesn't fit it's politics - "Who am I to judge, how can I criticize abortion when I have sins of my own and a log in my own eye to answer for?" - comes across as one big cop-out, plain and simple.

At least conservatives are more honest in holding that there is right and wrong, better choices and worse choices to argue for.

KEITH: For one thing I am *not* all that good at worrying about the log in my own eye. But I should be.

But I see a big difference between saying that our government ought to do more to address the economic injustices that come from savage capitalism and condemning people for immoral behavior. I am as guilty as anyone here--yuo should hear what I think when I read about the latest Republican legislative move or justification for torture. When I read those things in the paper I almost always imagine I am their moral superiors. But I have no right to that assessment. The problem is that a lot of non-christians get the not always inaccurate impression that Christians are more interested in condemning the sexual habits of others than they are in taking care of their own moral failings. WE are failing as Christian witnesses when we fall into that trap.

Keith

Tenoch, my point was NOT that conservatives (no scare quotes needed, I'm quite happy to claim that label) have a monopoly on right and wrong, though in my case I have my reasons for holding the convictions I have, as I'm sure you do too.

My point was that I see conservatives as being more honest about recognizing that most big questions, such as about abortion that was mentioned in the post above, require people to take a position, which when differing from ones taken by others, often creates divisions between people. One hopes that those divisions can be acknowledged and debated in a civil way, but they are divisions nonetheless. That's the way life is.

What annoys me is how often I see Christian progressives duck taking a stand on certain issues, such as whether or not abortion is the taking of a human life, by hiding under the cover of "beam in my own eye, no authority to speak about the splinter in the other guy's," when on other questions they are HIGHLY opinionated. It is a cop-out to do that, which is what I saw Keith doing. Obviously that criticism does not apply to your post.

I cited a statistic from a Heritage Foundation analysis that documents the 9.2% average annual increase in spending on poverty programs and entitlements under Bush vs. 5.5% under Clinton, and it seems to have pushed Brother Damien's buttons a bit. I don't find anywhere in Brother Damien's tirade a refutation of the statistic, but I did read something about the Malaysian Prime Minister, though what that has to do with the Bush administration domestic budgets, I'm not sure.

Apparently for Brother Damien, anything produced by Heritage is ipso facto fraudulent, so I guess that leaves that discussion at a dead end.

Keith, I agree that speaking from one's faith to tbe Big Questions of the Day with humility AND conviction is one of the hardest things for any of us who are Christian to do. (I already get the impression, though, that at least one or two of those who have posted rebuttals of my comments would question the credibility of my Christian identity, but that's OK. It's not the first time I've heard that from Christian progressives, though it doesn't strike me as very tolerant...)

One important point I made above, which NONE of the rebuttals above have addressed, is my assertion that the epidemic of fatherless households - and out-of-wedlock birthrates of nearly 70% - among African-Americans, far exceeding those figures for any other racial group in the US, is a much greater hindrance to further advancement of African-Americans in our society than what remains of racial discrimination might be. It won't do to say, "Well, their sex lives are their business and it's really not my place to comment on that," because that statistic represents millions of micro-realties that have major macro-implications for public policy.

I can't address all of Brother Damien's rebuttals but let me take a stab at least two:

Regarding the proposal for school vouchers as an instrument for rebuilding New Orleans to be better than it was before, I assure you that whoever you consider to be the rich are not intended as the primary beneficiaries of vouchers. They already have all the money they need to send their children to whatever school they please. Vouchers are intended to make it affordable for those who are middle class and below to have at least a degree of the same freedom of choice for their children's schools that the wealthy have. Because right now the children of families who are on those lower rungs of the economic ladder are usually trapped in state-monopoly schools that are doing a terrible job of providing an education sufficient to give those kids a decent chance to rise out of poverty. I know that progressives argue, "Well, just spend more on public schools then to get better results," but you're still left with the problem of the state monopoly of those schools, and monopolies tend toward great inefficiencies.

Brother Damien's warning that nationalism can become idolatrous is a fair one to issue and to heed. Allow me, though, to return to the mention earlier in this thread of the Scandinavian countries as models worthy of emulation. Those societies certainly have their good points, but they are also ones in which the churches have been deserted to become little more than museums of liturgical ceremony. I would assert that as the state takes over more and more functions in Scandinavian societies (as it is now doing in Canada too), people no longer see the utility or relevance of organized religion because it is now the state that is the all-powerful Provider. Is that not also a form of idolatry?

Hi Ted

YOU WROTE:Keith, I agree that speaking from one's faith to tbe Big Questions of the Day with humility AND conviction is one of the hardest things for any of us who are Christian to do. (I already get the impression, though, that at least one or two of those who have posted rebuttals of my comments would question the credibility of my Christian identity, but that's OK. It's not the first time I've heard that from Christian progressives, though it doesn't strike me as very tolerant...)

KEITH: lucky for both of us it's God whose judgment matters here, not other Christians who deny we are their brothers.

TED: One important point I made above, which NONE of the rebuttals above have addressed, is my assertion that the epidemic of fatherless households - and out-of-wedlock birthrates of nearly 70% - among African-Americans, far exceeding those figures for any other racial group in the US, is a much greater hindrance to further advancement of African-Americans in our society than what remains of racial discrimination might be. It won't do to say, "Well, their sex lives are their business and it's really not my place to comment on that," because that statistic represents millions of micro-realties that have major macro-implications for public policy.

KEITH: IMO if you fixed the problems of anti black racism and economic inequality the high birth rate would drastically decrease, as it would if society was more committed to real abstenance plus sex ed and if we had a less libertene sexual ethic. Barbar Ehrenreich wrote an article once debunking the idea that marriage could solve the problem of black poverty because the minimum wage wasn't enough to support a family above the poverty level. Her tongue-in-cheek solution was for society to encourage poor women to take *two* husbands. Her point was that the main cause of poverty is "not enough money" and that the private market alone doesn't splve that problem.

yuor friend
Keith

* as the state HAS TAKEN over more and more functions in Scandinavian societies *

HI Ted:

You wrote: "I would assert that as the state takes over more and more functions in Scandinavian societies (as it is now doing in Canada too), people no longer see the utility or relevance of organized religion because it is now the state that is the all-powerful Provider. Is that not also a form of idolatry?"

I don't think that the welfare state is the cause of the secularization of Scandinavia. You suggest that because the state provides so many of your needs in those countries people don't see a need for God? What about salvation from sin? People come to Christ when they see a spiritual need and there is no government program that can address those needs. I think the more lilley explanation is that Europe doesn't have a separation of church and state.

yuor friend
Keith

What would MLK do if he were alive today. He would be appalled by what has happened to our country, the war, especially the fool of a president, and also the religious right, what Bishop Sprong calls the fundamentalist, "Christian" snake oil salemen, such people as Robertson, Falwell and the other sociopaths who prey on the ignorance, fear, and guilt of their followers for power and bucks. He is rolling over in his grave along with the founding fathers of America.

ANYBODY that advocates race based selection for jobs, education, government money or any other purpose is a racist! Even if that means our god MLK is also.

if you want to stop being racist then you have to stop making race based selection. end of story!

what type of people never forgive? what type of people demand retribution from all, including many who never had anything to do with the original offenses? what type of people take and take yet never suceed?

From Cross Left Blog:

Larry James, CEO of Central Dallas Ministries

I was five-years-old when Rosa Parks and Dr. King began their heroic quest to break the back of the Jim Crow South of which I was a part. I grew up watching with amazement the unfolding liberation events we refer to as the American Civil Rights Movement.

I remember exactly what I was doing on April 4, 1968 when the news came that Dr. King had been gunned down in Memphis, Tennessee. I often wonder what America would be like today had he not been murdered.

If he were alive, we would have celebrated his 77th birthday yesterday.

Remembering Dr. King, his work and his legacy in view of life in the urban centers of our nation today forces me to conclude that we need a new and continuing movement for liberation and justice.

So, on the national holiday set aside to honor Dr. King, I am wondering, what would he be doing if he were still alive and with us in today's America?

Actually, I think I know.

If Dr. King was working today, he would. . .

. . .speak out on behalf of working people in America. When he died, Dr. King was in Memphis supporting the strike of Memphis sanitation workers. He would be calling for justice in pay and wages for working Americans who almost forty years later find themselves in an even weaker position than in 1968. His concern would include full funding for training resources to assist American workers in enhancing their skills so that they could earn more for their work.

. . .call our leaders to find a solution to our national health and wellness crisis. At the center of his argument would be a call for fairness and justice in the arena of health care delivery and outcomes. He would be speak forcefully to the glaring and undeniable disparities, cutting along racial lines, that are a national shame.

. . .challenge us to provide decent, affordable housing for every individual and family in America. He would call us to account about the growing problem of homelessness. He would insist that working families deserve fit, affordable places in which to live and raise their families.

. . .question the current rhetoric about our national commitment to high-quality public education. Dr. King would be concerned about our return to segregation in the public schools and he would insist on providing what our schools need to prepare our children for life in our changing, shrinking, high-tech world. He would not allow us to leave any child behind.

. . .rebuke our leaders for their support of the current tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of programs designed to lift the poor. He would clearly, truthfully contextualize the so-called gains in employment and job creation, pointing out the fact that the jobs created over the past 5 years have been lower paying than the jobs lost. He would let us know that earnings for American working families have declined annually since 2000, while our wealthiest citizens have enjoyed amazing income growth.

. . .offer alternative solutions and responses other than incarceration for dealing with non-violent drug offenders who are found disproportionately among the urban poor. He would challenge the "prison industry" that costs our states billions with terrible and counter-productive outcomes, especially for inner city neighborhoods. He would remind us that treatment is what is needed, not imprisonment for the poor.

. . .insist that the nation take a long, hard look at our foreign policy and how our actions abroad affect our people here at home. At the top of his list would be the current war in Iraq.

. . .remind us of the values of the faiths we confess and of just how those values relate to growing American poverty. Dr. King was a prophet. He would point us to the Hebrew prophets and to Jesus in an effort to re-tool our national conscience. In the process he would issue a clear, unrelenting call to the churches, the synagogues, the temples and the mosques of America to stand up, speak out and become involved in shaping a fairer, more just response to the problems of the urban poor.

. . .provoke a much more honest, better informed, less partisan national debate about public policy, justice, poverty, economic development and freedom in the United States.

. . .model love for all people.

How I wish he was still alive.

But, he is not.

We who celebrate his life and work must continue to follow his example and his call. We must complete what he and many others began.

-- Larry James, CEO of Central Dallas Ministries
Read more at http://larryjamesurbandaily.blogspot.com/
Location

Central Dallas Ministries
409 N. Haskell Ave
Dallas, TX, 75246
United States

http://www.crossleft.org/

Hi mark

YOU WROTE: ANYBODY that advocates race based selection for jobs, education, government money or any other purpose is a racist! Even if that means our god MLK is also.

KEITH: I assume you are calling affirmative action "race-based" selection for jobs. Without affirmative action there *is* race-based hiring. Affirmative action helps overcome it.

MARK: what type of people never forgive? what type of people demand retribution from all, including many who never had anything to do with the original offenses?

KEITH: Who are you talking about?

Keith, the realities of life are indeed complex and many times even mysterious to our human understanding, whereby there is not a perfect correlation between certain behaviors and certain results. There is evidence, though, of probabilities between actions and outcomes.

Ehrenreich’s thesis that poverty is caused by “not enough money” suggests that poverty has no context or antecedents, that it is largely a random phenomenon regarding where and whom it strikes. I’m aware of the argument by progressives that the higher incidence of poverty among blacks in comparison to other racial groups in America is the result of racism. However, while America has not yet reached the goal of color-blindness that I understand was part of Dr. King’s moral challenge to us, times really have changed and we’ve come a long way over the past 40 years. If you were to compare the income levels of husband-and-wife headed African-American households and single parent (especially female-headed) African-American households, you would find a huge economic advantage for the former that nowadays is less and less different from the economic status of two-parent white households. (Can’t take the time to Google those stats, but I’m sure they’re out there.)

In response to Ehrenreich’s too-clever-by-half recommendation that poor (black) women consider taking two husbands to lift themselves out of poverty, I would suggest that they begin by considering taking ONE husband, which unfortunately very large numbers of them fail to do, opting instead to “go it alone” with bearing and raising children. I realize that is not entirely their fault, because for a combination of reasons the pool of marriageable black men is far less than the number of black women seeking such men. (Citing that problem assumes that it’s human nature across all racial groups to prefer to marry within one’s own group.)

With a nearly 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate among African-Americans that grew dramatically worse during the 30 years of open-ended welfare preceding the reforms that Clinton signed into law (circa 1996, I believe), I wonder whether the African-American community as a whole has crossed the tipping point into a crisis of out-of-wedlock childbearing and fatherlessness that will make it very hard for them to close the success gap between themselves and the rest of America. That is a betrayal of the “content of character” ideal that was part of Dr. King’s dream.

No government program to "fight" poverty will ever work. What will work are low tax rates and fewer restrictions on business.

The real issue here is that most of those who feel we should fight poverty don't believe in equal opportunity. They believe in equal results.

" If you were to compare the income levels of husband-and-wife headed African-American households and single parent (especially female-headed) African-American households, you would find a huge economic advantage for the former that nowadays is less and less different from the economic status of two-parent white households. (Can’t take the time to Google those stats, but I’m sure they’re out there.) "

That is true, and the level of poverty for one-parent households is very similar for those of all races, as well. In other words, family makeup is as significant in predicting standard of living as race.

Wow, according to Larry James, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a socialist. Interesting.

"KEITH: I assume you are calling affirmative action "race-based" selection for jobs. Without affirmative action there *is* race-based hiring. Affirmative action helps overcome it."

Actually, you are mistaken. Without affirmative action, there MAY be race-based selection. Most often, though, there isn't. With affirmative action, you have ensured race-based selection.

We now have a situation much worse than in Dr. King's time. Racisim is now institutionalized to the point minorities think they deserve a job simply because of the color of their skin instead of any qualification they may have. No wonder they persist in various government supported gettos!

We also have a situation where anyone who is not a white male can take advantage of affirmative action programs without having any ties to past discrimination or being able to demonstrate harm due to past injustice.

a rich chinese person can travel here from hong kong with millions of dollars and open a disadvantaged business enterprise and be awarded government contracts. any woman from any where can come here and do the same.

what kind of justice settles past claims by having a virtually unlimited, unending pool of candidates, unlimited funding, and no time limit?

what kind of religious/politcal movement would so one-sidedly support every claim against one race in support of another while denying all counter-claims for personal responsibility?

I don't make anyone sell crack, get a divorce, skip school, get pregnant, stay on welfare, leave their job, or steal - black, white, red or brown. well maybe it is my fault - i facilitate that by paying my taxes, giving to charity, buying basketball tickets and generally being a nice person.

when a person can get medicare/medicaid, a free education, free housing, utilites paid for, free food, free counseling, free dental work, free clothes, free abortions, free marriage counseling, child support, free divorces, legal aid and then wants to talk about what happened to their ever so great-great-great grandparents they can fuck off!

Martin Luther King Jr.