04.23.05
Posted in faith, politics, culture, life at 10:16 am by
A few comments have been made in response to my poverty challenge–that people take the time to learn about and comment on issues of poverty–that I’d like to take a few moments to respond to.
E finished up her comment with this thought:
The solution to the issue is ONE. Not only ONE percent of the U.S. budget, but each ONE of us making a committment to affect the life of at least ONE person in poverty by donating ONE percent of our income and - why not - ONE percent of our time. The difference that each ONE of us would make in this world would be staggering. What an incredible opportunity each ONE of us has.
Couldn’t agree more. One percent of the U.S. budget won’t solve the problem. Each of us needs to step up and take steps to make a difference. This was actually my point in writing the referenced post. To provide people with an opportunity, beyond yacking about the problem, to have an outlet at which to pour their passion.
What I disagree with, was E’s tact in delivering her message. Here’s what concerned me about her message:
My concern about what I’ve read on the one.org web site is that it, in typical liberal fashion (if you can excuse my generality) looks to government to solve the problem. Where is the call for individuals to donate 1% of their income to fight poverty?
What is the purpose of playing the liberal / conservative game at this point? Who cares if the founders of the ONE campaign are liberal? I certainly couldn’t care less if they were conservative. This is in no way about liberalness or conservativeness. It’s about justice. People are dying, more of them every day. In fact, statistically since I wrote my first post on Malaria, over 6000 people have died of Malaria alone. Every 3 seconds a child dies.
I draw the comparison with the war in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, is not the point. What IS the point is that the US went to war with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein. Why? Well, WMD’s–and when those weren’t found–the purpose of the war became humanitarian. Saddam Hussein was a brutal evil man. (I’m trying hard to be balanced about a war I didn’t support, so cut me some slack on my rhetoric here.)
The point is, Saddam Hussein, not in his wildest evil dreams could’ve dreamt of murdering as many people that poverty has claimed in Africa. Now, I’ll be gracious and grant that the purpose of the war in Iraq was noble; however, isn’t the cause of ending poverty in Africa just as noble.
The US is about to spend an estimated 207 billion dollars on the war in Iraq by the end of 2005. As a liberal, even though I don’t support the war, I have no choice about this. All the ONE.org campaign seeks is 25 billion dollars (approximately 1 percent of the annual US budget.) This would certainly not solve the problem of poverty, but it’d be a pretty good start.
The rest of the world is poised to take part in campaigns like ONE.org. People in the UK, for example, are much more proactive about their government’s involvement in debt relief, poverty assistance, etc. If we’re willing to contribute 200 billion dollars to ‘do what is right’ why not take part in this campaign that takes even less money and requires no guns, no bombs, no accidental civilian deaths.
This isn’t about liberal or conservative. It’s about what’s right. People are dying. Every second. Caution seems frighteningly to me like arrogance of the worst kind. We have the luxury of caution without the penalty of facing the horrors of poverty. We’ve got rich privilege in that regard.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/04/23/why_the_time_for_caution_is_not_now/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics, culture, life at 10:16 am by
A few comments have been made in response to my poverty challenge–that people take the time to learn about and comment on issues of poverty–that I’d like to take a few moments to respond to.
E finished up her comment with this thought:
The solution to the issue is ONE. Not only ONE percent of the U.S. budget, but each ONE of us making a committment to affect the life of at least ONE person in poverty by donating ONE percent of our income and - why not - ONE percent of our time. The difference that each ONE of us would make in this world would be staggering. What an incredible opportunity each ONE of us has.
Couldn’t agree more. One percent of the U.S. budget won’t solve the problem. Each of us needs to step up and take steps to make a difference. This was actually my point in writing the referenced post. To provide people with an opportunity, beyond yacking about the problem, to have an outlet at which to pour their passion.
What I disagree with, was E’s tact in delivering her message. Here’s what concerned me about her message:
My concern about what I’ve read on the one.org web site is that it, in typical liberal fashion (if you can excuse my generality) looks to government to solve the problem. Where is the call for individuals to donate 1% of their income to fight poverty?
What is the purpose of playing the liberal / conservative game at this point? Who cares if the founders of the ONE campaign are liberal? I certainly couldn’t care less if they were conservative. This is in no way about liberalness or conservativeness. It’s about justice. People are dying, more of them every day. In fact, statistically since I wrote my first post on Malaria, over 6000 people have died of Malaria alone. Every 3 seconds a child dies.
I draw the comparison with the war in Iraq. Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, is not the point. What IS the point is that the US went to war with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein. Why? Well, WMD’s–and when those weren’t found–the purpose of the war became humanitarian. Saddam Hussein was a brutal evil man. (I’m trying hard to be balanced about a war I didn’t support, so cut me some slack on my rhetoric here.)
The point is, Saddam Hussein, not in his wildest evil dreams could’ve dreamt of murdering as many people that poverty has claimed in Africa. Now, I’ll be gracious and grant that the purpose of the war in Iraq was noble; however, isn’t the cause of ending poverty in Africa just as noble.
The US is about to spend an estimated 207 billion dollars on the war in Iraq by the end of 2005. As a liberal, even though I don’t support the war, I have no choice about this. All the ONE.org campaign seeks is 25 billion dollars (approximately 1 percent of the annual US budget.) This would certainly not solve the problem of poverty, but it’d be a pretty good start.
The rest of the world is poised to take part in campaigns like ONE.org. People in the UK, for example, are much more proactive about their government’s involvement in debt relief, poverty assistance, etc. If we’re willing to contribute 200 billion dollars to ‘do what is right’ why not take part in this campaign that takes even less money and requires no guns, no bombs, no accidental civilian deaths.
This isn’t about liberal or conservative. It’s about what’s right. People are dying. Every second. Caution seems frighteningly to me like arrogance of the worst kind. We have the luxury of caution without the penalty of facing the horrors of poverty. We’ve got rich privilege in that regard.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/04/23/why_the_time_for_caution_is_not_now/trackback/
James said,
April 23, 2005 at 11:45 am
If you look at the supporters of the ONE campaign, you’ll find a pretty broad cross-section of the USian political landscape. While Hollywood is typically described as ‘liberal’, there are key figures from the CCM world (such as arch-conservative Michael W Smith) who are acting as spokesmodels for the campaign alongside the film stars and others. ONE are making a concerted effort to be cross-partisan, and cross-ideology, and I think they’re doing pretty well at it.
In terms of government involvement, and increasing government giving, that is always going to be an ideological issue. Most studies I’ve read have suggested that government giving tends to be more stable in the long-term because it isn’t quite so oriented around what’s currently tugging at heart strings as consumer (and I use that word very deliberately) giving. But naturally there are good and bad examples of government involvement in development work. Just the other day I was having a conversation with a friend from a major US-based faith-based international development organisation who told me that many such organisations are going for grants from the UK’s Department for International Development rather than from USAID, because USAID tends to have a short-termist approach with barely any regard for participatory development strategies.
Such debates will continue to rage for years to come, but there are key areas where strategic government involvement is essential. Individual giving can’t change trade regulations or cancel international debt, two of the concerns behind the ONE campaign. Only informed public debate and concerted government action can do that, and there I think ONE are onto a very good thing.
Brandon said,
April 23, 2005 at 11:50 am
Thanks, James. I appreciate your comments here. You’ve certainly got more of a history in being passionate about bringing an end to poverty than I, thus I appreciate your wisdom and guidance.
Keith said,
April 23, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Well said, James