Well, it looks like some of my concerns here are also on the mind of the Foucs on the Family crowd.
Facing criticism, evangelicals urge flock to adopt
Churchgoers told opposing abortion, same-sex adoption just isn't enough
By ERIC GORSKI
DENVER — Prominent evangelical Christians are urging churchgoers to strongly consider adoption or foster care, not just out of kindness or biblical calling but also to answer criticism that their movement, while condemning abortion and same-sex adoption, doesn't do enough for children without parents.
Crossposted at Texas Kaos
With backing from Focus on the Family and best-selling author Rick Warren, the effort to promote "orphan care" among the nation's estimated 65 million evangelicals could drastically reduce foster care rolls if successful.
Yet sensitive issues lie ahead: about evangelizing, religious attitudes on corporal punishment, gay and lesbian foster children, racially mixed families, and resolving long-standing tensions between religious groups and the government.
First, I must commend Focus on the Family (FOF) and their allies for discovering orphans. Welcome to the real world guys. Who knows what other wonders await you, like say, discovering the children of the working poor? The children of divorice? The child victims of abuse?
Note that the only children apparently that deserve special concern are orphans. Note that this concern itself is couched in the rhetoric of abortion and same-sex adopations. Do children matter in tehir own right to the "Holier than thou" crowd?
Let's be fair. The article suggests that same sex adoptations and Pro-Choice critics were the occasion for many of these "Prominent evangelical Christians" to begin this initiative. Many some found it in the Bible first. Maybe.
Let's say that FOF and its allies actually follow through with their plans. What then?
George Lakoff is the first person who helped me understand the Religious Right's mind set and the limits on its compassion.
link
Moral Politics
"The battle between conservatives and liberals ends up being a battle of strictness against nurturance. Lakoff comes to these conclusions by dissecting the way in which conservatives and liberals function in the metaphor he believes all politics are based on; the Nation as a Family. In this metaphor, the country as a whole is a family, the government is the father, and the citizens are the children. The opposing models of this metaphor that each group follows is what divides conservatives and liberals. Conservatives follow the Strict Father model and liberals follow the Nurturant Parent model (12). Lakoff uses the pages of Moral Politics to explain how these different approaches account for the major dissimilarities and priorities of conservatives and liberals.
As its name suggests, the Strict Father model of the Nation as a Family metaphor is one that sees the exercise of authority as moral. This model follows that parents should teach their children obedience through the system of Reward and Punishment. This means that when children obey, they reward themselves with self-discipline which ultimately leads to success. If children disobey, they must suffer the consequences on their own and deal with the moral weaknesses that result. These sequences are seen as moral, so anything that interferes with them is immoral. Punishment is a positive that builds moral strength (72). The acquisition of moral strength is an active process. All humans are born immoral and it is the responsibility of one's parents to intercede and set standards of behavior that can be enforced through punishment (76)."
[snip]
The Strict Father model of the Nation as a Family metaphor also follows what Lakoff calls the Moral Order. This is a kind of hierarchy for all inhabitants on earth. The Moral Order shows that God has moral authority over people, people have moral authority over animals, adults have moral authority over children, and men have moral authority over women. The Strict Father model also puts the rich in charge of the poor because it's believed that since the rich possess enough self-discipline to live such a privileged life, they're morally superior to the poor. Each dominate being in these pairs is also responsible for the lesser being's welfare and quality of life (81).
What of aid to those who fall short of this John Calvin inspired, Puritanical worldview?
Well this helps explain it:
link
Lakoff's "Family" Metaphor (1 pg adaptation by Hugh Rank)
"Conservatives emphasize government's role in the encouragement and protection of business as being the source of the nation's prosperity and growth. They are opposed to rules, regulations, and red tape which retard and burden business. They see themselves as realistic and pragmatic, believe in a meritocracy, and oppose taxes which penalize success. Conservatives fear that nurturers are wasting money by not doing their jobs well (teachers); waste and mismanagement (health care) or that the unworthy poor (welfare cheats, addicts. bums) are getting care they don't deserve because of their own faults."
Specifcially unaddressed are the systemic problems I discussed here. From the times and this earlier posting:
In Turnabout, Infant Deaths Climb in South - New York Times
"HOLLANDALE, Miss. - For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.
Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers, some of whom tip the scales here at 300 to 400 pounds.
What price myopic self-righteous? It looks like the price is the very "lives" you claim to care about so much. Your votes put these bozos in office and sustain them thier. Wake up , or shutup about caring for life. You just care for the some life . In the end, that seems a pale comfort to the rest of us, and especially to the poor of the South
What Lakoff's analysis proves is that this "myopic self-righteous" is at the very core of FOF and its myopic followers.
I will continue this discussion in my next posting, where I recall Lesther Roloff's legacy and discuss what it can teach us.
link
""I'm sorry, Ma’am, I have to call the police. Your son has been tortured."
-- Emergency Room Doctor, to Teresa Calalay upon pulling her son, Justin Simons, from the modern Rolloff-inspired home[snip]
Collaterally, you can also checkout moiv's posting, The "Sanctity of Life" -- Priceless Until the Bill Comes In