If Warren at the Inauguration Could Feed a Starving Child, Would You Let Him Speak?

McCamy Taylor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-21-08 03:45 AM
Original message

If Warren at the Inauguration Could Feed a Starving Child, Would You Let Him Speak?

A funny thing happened on the way to the election. The war in Iraq, which was supposed to be the defining issue of the election, took a back seat to the economy. The United States has been in recession for over a year. The Bush administration tried to hide this fact, but we have eyes in our heads. We could see. Home foreclosure rates in the early part of this year more than doubled from 2007. The U.S. lost 1.2 million jobs in 2008 and unemployment is now 6.5%. Forty-six million Americans, including nine million children have no health insurance. Twenty-eight million people are using food stamps to buy groceries�the highest number ever. The price of food and other necessities keeps rising, even as real wages keep going down for everyone except those in the very highest income brackets. Wealth disparity in our country has been getting worse since the late 1970s. The problems that accompany income disparity----depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, teenaged pregnancy, domestic violence, increased mortality from violence and chronic disease---continue to rise, particularly in areas which have extremes of poverty, like the south.

Barack Obama was elected, because the majority of Americans were fed up with the Republican culture of greed that allows business to feed at the trough of the public tax dollar, while condemning children to poverty. Paul Krugman wrote eloquently on the subject last winter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1

�Poverty in early childhood poisons the brain.� That was the opening of an article in Saturday�s Financial Times, summarizing research presented last week at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that �many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.� The effect is to impair language development and memory � and hence the ability to escape poverty � for the rest of the child�s life.

Snip

L. B. J. declared his �War on Poverty� 44 years ago. Contrary to cynical legend, there actually was a large reduction in poverty over the next few years, especially among children, who saw their poverty rate fall from 23 percent in 1963 to 14 percent in 1969.

But progress stalled thereafter: American politics shifted to the right, attention shifted from the suffering of the poor to the alleged abuses of welfare queens driving Cadillacs, and the fight against poverty was largely abandoned.

In 2006, 17.4 percent of children in America lived below the poverty line, substantially more than in 1969. And even this measure probably understates the true depth of many children�s misery.

Imagine that. Almost a ten percent drop in the rate of children living in poverty in six years, because one president cared to do something about the problem. Since then, no one has had the passion of LBJ, who was mentored by FDR during the New Deal. The historians have taken care to sully LBJ�s image. He is the Vietnam War president. Period. Never mind that he decided not to run again in 1968 so that he could end the war. He would have achieved that goal, except the great war criminal Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was supposed to be handling the negotiations, told the South Vietnamese not to go along, because if they could get Nixon elected instead of Humphrey, he would get them a better deal. The powers that be want us to forget that LBJ gave us Medicare and the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act and the War on Poverty. They want us to forget that a president out of Congress, a former Senator and a shrewd deal maker with a Vice President who was also a former Senator was able to pass landmark legislation that revolutionized this country.

The powers that be are scared to death that Obama/Biden will be another LBJ/Humphrey.

The Democrats and Obama were elected with a very clear mandate. The number one issue was not the war. It was not the corruption of the previous administration. It was not �values�. It was the economy. Those voting for the Democrats wanted to see economic justice. Workers deserve a fair wage for work performed in a safe environment with assurances that they can express grievances without fear of retaliation. They deserve some measure of job security, as long as they can work together with the owners to keep their company profitable. The U. S. government should never do anything to make it more profitable for a company to leave this country. Voters wanted to know that agencies charged with regulating the safety of the (overpriced) foods and drugs which they buy are safe. They wanted to know that the people writing their mortgage were giving them the best deal they could.

These are not �fringe� issues. They do not affect only white people or Black people or folks with kids or residents of the city or the country. You do not have to be a citizen to care about economic justice. Straight and gay are affected equally by workers� rights. So are men and women and young and old.

A funny thing happened on the way to the inauguration. Distractions started popping up right and left. Those who had schemed to get rich off the labor of the middle class had no intention of giving up any of their power. So, they started spreading the word to a certain group of workers---right of center, �clings to their guns and religion�--- that Obama�s agenda of ending poverty was a godless communist plot .

That is where Rick Warren comes in.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2005/06/Evangelicals-Embrace-New-Global-Priorities.aspx

Usually when the words "evangelical" and "poverty" appear in the same sentence, the minister at the helm is Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, or Tony Campolo. And when Rick Warren is written and talked about, it's almost never in the context of any political issue.

But Warren, who is the pastor of Saddleback Church, a megachurch in Lake Forest, California and the author of the blockbuster book "The Purpose-Driven Life," is diving into the issue of Christian responsibility to combat global poverty.

The move took the form of an open letter campaign to President Bush, launched June 3 by Warren together with heavyweights Billy Graham and British evangelical John Stott and sent to over 150,000 evangelicals nationwide.

"I deeply believe that if we as evangelicals remain silent and do not speak up in defense of the poor, we lose our credibility and our right to witness about God's love for the world," Warren wrote in his appeal for participants in the campaign.

A top evangelical leader, Warren's support lends powerful weight to the cause of ending global poverty. Barna polls have found that Warren comes in near the top of the list when pastors are asked who they feel is the most influential evangelical leader. He was listed first in the "Time" magazine list of the 25 most influential evangelicals, along with other more traditionally political evangelical leaders such as NAE president Ted Haggard and Southern Baptist Richard Land.

Through his appearance at the inauguration, Warren will negate Sarah Palin�s socialist charges. Those who fear that the country is heading towards godless communism will be reassured. God does not look kindly on wealth disparity, his presence will say. Jesus smiles when we alleviate poverty.

Obama has invited another minister to speak at the inauguration. A veteran of the civil rights movement, Rev. Joseph Lowery. Rev. Lowery has spoken out in support of gay clergy and gay marriage, and he represents a much more liberal Church.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2008/12/60178434/1

Obviously, he and the Southern Baptist Warren do not see eye to eye on homosexuality. What about poverty?

Here is a Fox interview with Rev. Lowery, who issued stinging criticism of the Bush administration at Rosa Parks� funeral earlier this year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184603,00.html

Lowery: But right now we're witnessing the widening of the gap. There's something wrong when a handful of people have more than they'll ever need while millions of people have less than they always need. The gap is widening. There's something wrong.

Snip

But what I'm concerned about is public policy. We need a public policy that addresses the needs of the poor, that works toward full employment, that develops more opportunities for training, for job development, job training, for health care. We've got 48 million to 50 million people in this country with no health insurance. That's a weapon of mass destruction.

President-elect Obama is about to do what LBJ did. He is going to declare war on poverty. LBJ was able to use the memory of the slain President Kennedy to get revolutionary legislation through Congress. Obama will need overwhelming public support. Big business will call the workers� right agenda �communism�. In a country like the United States, where over three quarters of adults consider themselves Christians, this can be a deal breaker. However, if you look to the south, the Liberation Theologists have worked political miracles in Latin American countries. If President Obama can get enough prominent ministers to support his economic plan, the Republicans can go fuck themselves.

For those who insist that it is intolerable to have anyone who is opposed to homosexuality speak about anything at the inauguration, consider that half of the Christians in the United States are Baptists or Catholics, and both Churches are intolerant of not just homosexuality, but also birth control, women�s right and a whole host of issues. Are members of both religions to be denied the right to speak in public at all about any issue, even when they have the power to do good, because they hold opinions that others find offensive? I think that the death penalty is murder. Can I insist that anyone who ever thinks that the death penalty is ever justified be prevented from ever speaking out on any topic, since I believe that person is a murderer? Can a vegetarian insist that a meat eater never speak out, because he believes that killing and eating an animal is murder?

On the other hand, if Rev. Warren is really serious about devoting himself to the issue of poverty, he will eventually have to make a decision. Which is more important? Work aimed at "curing" gays or the much more important task of alleviating the suffering of the world's poor. He can not continue to do both, because as this episode will have already shown him, one detracts from his ability to be effective at the other. If he is a real Christian, I do not think that there is any question which he will pick, once he is part of an effective anti-poverty campaign. The rewards will be too great.