I'm a Catholic appalled by the moron Bush and the oxymoron 'Christian conservative'. To express part of what I feel about this, I composed this Parable just now:
There will be a special room reserved in hell which will temporarily house libertarian layfolk and rightwing clergy.
The clergymen will cry out, "We should never have listened to you. We led many souls to hell
because we told them that their duties of charity didn't involve government programs, and so they did nothing to help the poor. But it's your fault for saying use of government programs to help the poor was immoral"
The libertarians will cry out, "We should never have listened to you. Why didn't you explain to us that sins of omission are just as serious as sins of commission. Why didn't you tell us about Matthew 25?"
Cont'd below.
The dialogue goes on as follows:
The clergymen will cry out, "We didn't emphasize that lest people think we were advocating government programs. And we didn't advocate them because you told us not to!"
The libertarians will cry out, "But we only did so because we thought that sins of omission are not as grave as sins of commission. We might have realized they can be just as grave had you emphasized Matthew 25 more."
The clergymen will cry out, "But it was YOU who told us that there was an important moral difference between comission and omission."
The libertarians will cry out, "But you should have told us that we were wrong, precisely on the basis of Matthew 25. Scripture is your area of expertise!"
The clergymen will cry out, "But you wouldn't have listened to us. You were too blinded by libertarian ideology and selfishness."
The libertarians will cry out, "But it was your job to convert us. Instead you just went along with our mistaken ideas."
The clergymen will cry out, "Yes, you converted us instead. You failed to see that using government action could be a legitimate means of complying with duties of charity, care, and justice. Foolishly, we listened to you, because for some strange reason we thought you were smart."
The libertarians will cry out, "But Jesus never told us that government action was ok in principle to help the poor. He should have said explicitly that it was ok. It's Jesus' fault for not being clearer."
The clergymen will cry out, "Well, silence implies consent. How could you have not understood that? Jesus did not specify possible means of compliance with these strict duties to help the poor, true, but that doesn't means that government programs couldn't be such means of compliance with those duties, you idiots! "
The libertarians will cry out, "Ok, we made a mistake. But how were we to know? You should have instructed us better."
The clergymen will cry out. "You know, you're right, Jesus wasn't clear enough. Damn him!"
At this point a rich man who once knew a poor man called Lazarus walks in, and says, "Ok, guys, induction procedures have now been completed. Please follow me. Rightwing bishops, please jump into the lake of everlasting fire. That's on the right of the corridor. Libertarian layfolk, please take your places in the fiery furnace where their worm dieth not. That's on the left of the corridor. Any questions?"
Clergy and libertarians cry out in unison: "When is the first break-time?"
Lazarus' rich acquaintance replies: "Break-time? Oh, break-time is what we call a 'pre-eternity' concept. There's no break-time. Now remove the asbestos suits and follow me."
What inspired me to write this? Well, one thing is the fact that the Bush Administration opposed a chance to save SIX TIMES the number of lives ended annually by abortion in America, yet preferred to give up twice the cost of the relevant World Health Organization proposal that would save those 8 million African lives when it pushed through the abolition of the estate tax.
As Paul Krugman explained more than two years ago:
Bono was furious, declaring that the projects demonstrated just the opposite, that the well was "an example of why we
need big money for development. And it is absolutely not an example of why we don't. And if the secretary can't see that, we're going to have to get him a pair of glasses and a new set of ears."
Maybe the easiest way to refute Mr. O'Neill is to recall last year's proposal by the World Health Organization, which wants to provide poor countries with such basic items as antibiotics and insecticide-treated mosquito nets. If the U.S. had backed the proposed program, which the W.H.O.
estimated would save eight million lives each year, America's contribution would have been about $10 billion annually - a dime a day per American, but nonetheless a doubling of our current spending on foreign aid. Saving lives---even African lives---costs money.
But is Mr. O'Neill really blind and deaf to Africa's needs? Probably not. He is caught between a rock star and a hard place: he wants to show concern about global poverty, but Washington has other priorities.
A striking demonstration of those priorities is the contrast between the Bush administration's curt dismissal of the W.H.O. proposal and the bipartisan drive to make permanent the recent repeal of the estate tax. What's notable about that drive is that opponents of the estate tax didn't even try to make a trickle-down argument, to assert that reducing taxes on wealthy heirs is good for all of us. Instead, they made an emotional appeal---they wanted us to feel the pain of those who pay the "death tax." And the sob stories worked; Congress brushed aside proposals to retain the tax, even proposals that would raise the exemption---the share of any estate that is free from tax---to $5 million.
Let's do the math here. An estate tax with an exemption of $5 million would affect only a handful of very wealthy families: in 1999 only 3,300 estates had a taxable value of more than $5 million. The average value of those estates was $16 million. If the excess over $5 million were taxed at pre-2001 rates, the average taxed family would be left with $10 million---which doesn't sound like hardship to me---and the government would collect $20 billion in revenue each year. But no; the whole tax must go.
So here are our priorities. Faced with a proposal that would save the lives of eight million people every year, many of them children, we balk at the cost. But when asked to give up revenue equal to twice that cost, in order to allow each of 3,300 lucky families to collect its full $16 million inheritance rather than a mere $10 million, we don't hesitate. Leave no heir behind!
Which brings us back to the Bono-O'Neill tour. The rock star must have hoped that top American officials are ignorant rather than callous---that they just don't realize what conditions are like in poor countries, and how foreign aid can make a difference. By showing Mr. O'Neill the realities of poverty and the benefits aid can bring, Bono
hoped to find and kindle the spark of compassion that surely must lurk in the hearts of those who claim to be compassionate conservatives.
But he still hasn't found what he's looking for.
Krugman's article has stayed with me all this time. It really needs to be shown to all who profess to follow the teachings of a famous working class guy from Nazareth and yet are contemplating voting for Bush.