The basic premise of Mr. Meyer’s article is that the unbroken poverty cycle in Africa should cause us to stop helping Africans in crisis. It is precisely the type of morality one would expect in an increasingly secular world that has embraced naturalism and a deformed form of libertarianism.

There is a valid, reasoned, position that “Teaching a man to fish” is better than “giving a man a fish.” If that’s all Mr. Meyers wants to say, then fine. But it’s not all he suggests.

The value one places on a human being comes from a theological position. If your theology states a person’s worth is based on their ability to “contribute” in some form or fashion, then you don’t have a particularly Christian worldview. Christians believe in the inherent worth of the individual because God created them and loves them. If God sees them as worthy, certainly we should.

Meyers is revealing to us an alternate moral worldview. It is a secular morality.

Mr. Meyers suggests that Africans need to be weeded out. They are, according to Mr. Meyers, growing too close together and mass starvation should be a part of the solution (hey, it happened in Ireland, after all, and look where we are now…).

Welcome to the post-Christian world, friends. This is survival of the fittest in foreign policy form. It is the logical extension of a secular morality.

Africa, Mr. Meyers, has given me much, and I have only spent a few weeks there. Whether you like Obama or not, we can all see that just “half of an African” might impact us all. It always astounds me to hear arguments about saving the rainforest because, “There just might be the cure for cancer lurking in the amazing jungle fauna.” Yet, we cannot apply this same reasoning to the potential cancer researchers currently dying on the African plain.

Even that anology is a poor one. Why? Because each one of those fly-bitten, stomach-extended little children starving in Africa are precious in His sight. If we can help, we should. No questions asked.

Africa is in a sad state politically. Who could disagree? I would never argue against African empowerment and responsibility – I fully embrace the need for Africa to take responsibility for Africa when it is possible. Greed, corruption, sexual immorality, a lack of leadership, ingnorance, and a host of other problems must be overcome. The poverty cycle must be broken. We can embrace these goals while giving aid and assistance to the least powerful.

However, let’s not resort to “final solutions” in fixing these problems, like letting people starve when we could do something about it. That’s just wrong and immoral. I see in subsequent columns Mr. Meyers tried to back off his cold-hearted approach some (see ”
Writing what I should have written so many years ago“) but the ethic, the morality, is there for all to see and it’s a secular one.

One reason I am a Christian is that I agree with the concept that each person has inherent value. God’s love for me as an individual does not come from what I contribute to the world.

Nor does Africa’s.

Tweet This Post

I have a special interest in charitable giving because the food on my table is provided by generous givers. When I saw that Arthur Brooks had written a book on who gives in our society I obviously wanted to read it. When it arrived I was a bit surprised to find out that it was, in fact, a comparison on liberal versus conservative giving.

Missions mostly happens when people are generous givers. Oh sure, there are some models that are based on business structures but most of these are incubated or staffed by workers who have learned language and culture as support-based missionaries. So, let’s see what Brooks says about who in our society are charitable donors.

Brooks notes that there are four lifestyle and worldview differences between givers and non-givers. These are really somewhat intuitive, although they will make those with left leaning political views mad. The factors are:

1. Faith
He notes on pages 31 and 32 that both the citizens of San Francisco and South Dakota give roughly the same amount each year to charities, about $1,300. The big difference is that San Franciscans make about 78% more annually than their counterpart in South Dakota. The average South Dakotan gives away 75% more of their income than the average San Franciscan. He draws a correlation to religious practice. 50% of South Dakotans attend weekly church services while only 14% of San Franciscans are weekly worshippers. 49% of San Fran’s residents never attend church, while only 10% of the South Dakotans are church teetotalers. This is just one of many data points given in the book (yes, yes, he does look at the cost of living index and all sorts of possible counter-arguments – you’ll have to read it yourself for the whole scoop).

2. Political Viewpoints Regarding Income Distribution
I quote from page 56 in which Brooks discussed a survey: “People in favor of government income redistribution give less to charity, even when survey questions are framed in such a way that they might elicit a response favorable to redistribution.” When people think that the government should be in the business of Robin Hood politics, they give less. Furthermore, argues Brooks, liberal politics directly correlates to less charitable giving. He quotes Ralph Nader as stating, “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity” (p. 63). Liberal writers have made the case that charitable giving strengthens class distinctions (p. 65).

3. Income Level and Source of Income
While those who are the richest in our society give the most in total dollars, they give a smaller percentage of their income. The lower the overall household income is, the higher the percentage given. But, there is a catch to this one. Low income household are givers if they earn their income. If they are living on welfare, they give less. In fact, low income household living on earned income give 6 times more than their welfare recipient neighbors (p. 82). Welfare depresses giving. Brooks points out that “A further explanation for why political conservatives in America score higher on measures of giving than political liberals is that the unusually charitable working poor are disproportionately politically conservative, but the relatively uncharitable nonworking poor are much more liberal” (p. 92-93).

4. Family Life
Larger households give more. Parents give more than non-parents. This one will be a bit controversial for some, but the author makes the case that there are “Few acts of voluntary beneficence are clear than the unconditional care and love of a child” (p. 99). People on the political right are more likely to exhibit a pro-family lifestyle (p. 109) which is one more indicate of why Brooks says that conservatives are better givers.

The author devotes a chapter to national giving. He notes that charitable giving by American far outweighed charitable giving by Europeans. Europeans response was to give governmentally. He ties European non-charity to their secular worldview.

There is a chapter which argues that giving makes one happier and wealthier. He looks at social theory, religion, and then tries to pull in various data points to suggest that giving and wealth accumulation are correlated.

The final chapter lays out some strategies for increasing charitable giving.

Tweet This Post

On a positive note, I think that there was certainly a growing sense of Republican entitlement to leadership that needed to go. From scandal to growing scandal the Republicans were giving every indication that they needed to step aside for somebody else to govern.

I remember when Bush ran for office the first time and was lauded as somebody who was able to work in a bi-partisan mode. He had supposedly done this well in Texas. I guess we are going to find out if that’s true.

Tweet This Post

Now, I don’t disagree that decency includes a respect for others. I don’t think that these people would, in fact, really argue for inclusion and acceptance in an absolute sense. One could mention all sorts of heinious human actions that nobody accepts, as well as lifestyles that even the left do not feel inclined to include.

What this statement really means is this: decency is MY definition – if not, then you’re a bigot. This is the fallacy of the left’s secular orientation. While accusing the religious right of being fundamentalists, they are, in fact, fundamentalists.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

The last time he spoke up, missionaries were kicked out of Venezuela.

Now he is being just plain idiotic.

Tweet This Post