Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 9, 2016

 Either Nov 4 or 5

To David Robertson and his Nov 4 response to my Nov 4 comment. In his comment, Robertson claimed that I was completely unable to describe what equality is. The original blogpost was about vendors refusing to provide service to a same-sex wedding. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog

David,
your notes are both clarifying and confusing. They are clarifying in terms of your penchant for making negative personal remarks about me. They are confusing because as much as you say I don't answer your questions, I already have. You asked what I mean by equality. IN one of previous notes, I defined equality for the LGBT community in society. I wrote the following on November 3:

So why do you have a problem with what equality means? Take the SSM issue for example. Wouldn’t equality mean that those from the LGBT community would have the same rights as those who are heterosexual: the right to work and live as they want just as heterosexuals have the right to work and live as they want. And part of living as they want would be the right to marry the person of their choice just as heterosexuals can.

I was very specific regarding what it would take to enable those in the LGBT community to experience equality in society.  So how can you say that I haven't answered your question about equality?

Establishing equality for a group depends on where their rights are not being recognized. During the Jim Crow era in the States, establishing equality meant something else because they didn't suffer inequality in the same way that the LGBT community does today. For Blacks back then, having the unencumbered right to vote and run for office along with the right to eat, work, live, and go to school where they desired was establishing equality for them. In other words, having the same rights and opportunities that all other groups have constitutes being equal. And that point should be clear from how I described what would make those from the LGBT community equal in society today.

Then how is my understanding of marriage bizarre? Viewing marriage as a complete union between two people is bizarre?

Remember that marriage in both of our countries is an institution for all in society. And society consists of both Christians and nonChristians. And the answer to your question about two brothers, a question I anticipated, is obvious from my previous answer. But what you want is a single source, like the Scriptures, that authoritatively tell us what we can and cannot do. And this is one of the key differences between us. That while I recognize the authority structures taught in the Scriptures, IMO, you seem to go beyond that and embrace an authoritarianism that does not know when to turn off the authority switch and work with others as equals in determining what laws we should pass and what kind of society we should have. In the meantime, you seem to be trying to paint the LGBT community and their practices as a threat to society which merits sanctions against at least some of their practices. Have you ever considered that the part of what Romans 1 teaches us is that homosexuality, though it is not normal in terms of how God designed us to be, could be normal among unbelievers? And if it is normal in terms of what we expect because man has fallen into sin, why are we trying so hard to suppress so many things through law.

Have you ever worked with any homosexuals or had close personal friendships with any? I have and that is regardless of the fact that they know what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In fact, some of those friends of mine and I have discussed it and we can because they know that I respect them as equals. They also know that we can because I very much appreciate their contributions to society, to my family, and to my own life.

Other than that, the counterexamples your bring up work only if one selectively employs equality. Your counterexaple of stealing does just that. It leaves out what was said about equality being measured in terms of opportunities and rights and focuses solely on possessions. Your bringing up polygamy and incest forgets the feasibility  and equality problems the former poses and the health and equality problems the latter poses. And this is despite the fact that I already addressed those points.

The real key issue here is that of authority and its use or abuse. It seems that you believe that we cannot relate to nonChristians as equals when it comes to sharing society with them. It seems that you believe that Christians must impose Biblical laws and principles on nonChristian members of society lest things become unmanageable. Unfortunately, Church history does not give Christians much evidence to support their right to have authority over nonChristians in society. Our past, and even current persecution, of the LGBT community shows why we should not rule over them. Our own intramural wars, colonialism, and empires give ample testimony as to why we should not rule over nonChristians. And yet, you want Christians to use the Bible to rule over nonChristians in society through the laws government passes.

And while we discuss these things, you continue to make negative personal remarks about me. And I am trying to think why ministers would assume the right to speak that way to me when we are all like the publican from the parable of the two men praying. Just as your negative personal remarks provide obstacles for me to take you seriously, Christians' efforts to control and impose their religious views on nonChristians through legislation make it very difficult for many of them to want to listen to the preaching of the Gospel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing 12 recommendations for the Religious Right. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Recommendations #2, 4, 5, 6,10, 11, and 12 are very good suggestions. However, there will be disagreement on how to implement some of those recommendations. For example, does religious liberty for all include the inclusion of those who do not have a BIblical view of sex who want to participate in SSM or its exclusion? Doesn't legally prohibiting SSM because of what the Scriptures say about sex and marriage deny the religious liberties of those who don't hold to the Biblical view?

As for recommendation #7, the rejection of theocracy is not equal to the prevention of some kind of supremacy for Christians over the rest in society. And when we have some kind of supremacy, we don't fully have religious liberty. For liberty - equality = privilege. And the absence of theocracy does not equal the absence of supremacy especially when we measure supremacy on a continuum. The absence of theocracy simply means that there is no complete control over society by Christians. Paternalism is another way by which Christians seek to control over society. For with paternalism, Christians insist that the Biblical statements on a given individual issue be made law because of what is good for society. So Christians are trying to exercise a measure of control over society for society's sake. Again, the SSM issue comes to play here. One of the reasons why many Christians opposed SSM was because they believed that traditional marriage is essential for human flourishing and that society was not big enough for both traditional and same-sex marriages.

Or another way by which Christian paternalism can be exercised is for the government to grant special privileges and resources for the Church in order for the Church to take care of more and more of those who are in need. That means that instead of the government pitching in to help those people, it should bless the Church both financially and with political power so that the Church can have the resources to do the job.The Church, in essence, becomes the government's social service military force except that the Church does not take orders from the state. It is a way of making Christianity predominant in society without insisting on a theocracy. We should also note that after a certain threshold, the more the Church tries to replace the government in helping those in need, the louder the Church says that the government is not to represent all of its citizens, especially those citizens who are vulnerable.

As for recommendations #4 & 8, should we refuse to put those who have other political ideologies on trial or try to dethrone those conservatives who denigrate the character of either liberals or leftists? Should we do the same to liberals and leftists who try to do the same? If we are going to have a democracy, then we need to readily listen to and work with people from all sides otherwise we will be seeking control over them rather than sharing power with them.

As for recommendation #9, since politics and culture are so intertwined, it is too difficult to say that one should care more about the one or the other. It is the case that both culture affects politics and politics affects culture.

In short, those of us who are religiously conservative Christians, regardless of whether we are politically conservative, have a penchant for authoritarianism. That is because the Bible legitimately uses authority structures as a framework for so many of our relationships. As a result, we may not be able to turn off that authority switch when dealing with society. Just because we are not pushing for a theocracy doesn't mean that we are not seeking to have authority others in some way, shape, or form. Those who cannot turn off that authority switch probably embrace to some degree authoritarianism. And the problem with embracing authoritarianism, is that we have little patience with those who do not fall in line with our agenda.

A real democracy for a pluralistic society requires democratic processes as well as democratic state of being. That democratic state of being includes a preference to share power than to seize it. That state includes a concern for and solidarity with those who live in the margins of society so that we are not just pressing our own demands, we are pressing their demands as well. A true democracy is the sum of democratic processes and a democratic state of being. The latter can never be achieved without the former and the former without the latter simply results in the hijacking of democracy whether the hijacker is an individual, a small group, or the majority of people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mark Howard and his blogpost on politics in America and the Church in Iran. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

We should note the similarity between the effects of the Shah's rule over Iran with that of those who seized power after the revolution. That similarity can be called guilt by association. Whereby Christianity suffered significant setbacks with the rise of the revolution but is now growing, so too many Muslims suffered much because of the Shah's westernizing of Iran and that led to acceptance of Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979.

In addition, just as the pendulum swung in one direction under the Shah, how far the pendulum is swinging now is due to how far it was pushed before.

Both points here must be remembered when trying to understand Iran's current state of affairs as well as how we should work for change in all nations including our own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost about bringing back child labor but doing so without without the abuses of the past. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Kids as young as 16 already work. To allow children under 16 to work is to increase the supply of labor in the job market where the median age and average educational level for low skilled jobs have been rising. Of course, one of the accommodations for allowing younger children to work would be to establish an even lower minimum wage for them. Yes, that serves the interests of some corporations, but what does it do for the overall family income in which economic hopelessness is on the rise because of the loss of adequate paying low skilled jobs?

In addition, as one who taught college, I saw the conflict many students faced between putting in enough hours of work to pay their bills and putting in enough hours in their studies to get a true education. All too many times, the latter suffered significantly because of the former. Should we do the same on a wide scale with children who are younger than 16?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 8

To Joe Carter and his blogpost evaluating the different approaches to voting from a Christian perspective. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What needs commenting on is the quote from Jeremiah. For unlike the exiled Jews in Babylon, we American Christians have an earthly citizenship in America. And thus, we bear a responsibility for both America's prosperity and how it obtains that prosperity. So it seems to me that we shouldn't just pray and work for our prosperity, we should pray and work for justice so that our welfare doesn't come at the expense of the welfare of others either here or abroad.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 22, 2016

June 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost video showing Obama espousing belief in traditional marriage. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

So are we celebrating his belief in civil unions here as much as his definition of marriage?

Since there are legal differences between civil unions and marriages and we are sharing society with nonChristians, why should we oppose same-sex marriage in society? IMO, those who oppose same-sex marriage oppose the full equality of those from the LGBT community in society.  And for as long as Christians oppose full equality for those in the LGBT community in society, they sabotage their efforts to share the Gospel with those from that community.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 16

To R. Scott Clark on his blogpost quote about how to avoid biblicism from an article on how to interpret the Bible. This appeared in Heidelblog.

How can we avoid biblicism? It would be interesting to read his actual biblical interpretations of different parts of the Bible and on different issues to see if he avoided biblicism.

How can we avoid biblicism? It would be interesting to read his actual biblical interpretations of different parts of the Bible and on different issues to see if he avoided biblicism.

I do have a suggestion of my own on how to avoid biblicism: avoid using the Regulative Principle. We should first note that the Regulative Principle was not followed in Jesus' time.  Second, the regulative principle sets us up for mere imitation or following literal commands without reference to context and issues. Third, we need to combine a balance between relying on what was said in the past with doing new theology.  It was Henri Bouiard who said that when theology was not updated, it was false. And that is because when theology is not updated, because of the new issues we are facing, not updating theology causes us to try to wear the shoes of our ancestors. At the same time, the updating of our theology cannot change the essentials of our faith. Here we should note that how we should respond to the new issues of the day has always involved a one-and-many problem regarding the Christian faith. The Regulative Principle in essence does not recognize new historical contexts and new issues. As a result, we are forced to decontextualize what was said and done in the past to ensure that we imitate and follow literally what was done and said in the past in today's changing world.

But even after adding my proposal, the only way to ensure that we have avoided biblicism is through an inductive study of what we have written and said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong year and reference regarding England see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.648.7044&rep=rep1&type=pdf

June 17

To Josh Herring and his blogpost asking if America can afford to tolerate Muslims. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The idea of Christian freedom as presented in the article seems to have forgotten what it took to get there. That it because Christians haven't always tolerated freedom as it does today, especially when its views of homosexuality are contrasted with the views of Muslims today. 

The idea of today's Christian freedom in society is more due to modernity's influence on Christianity than on its ties to the past.  Christians have fought wars or persecuted each other if their theologies did not match or one belonged to the wrong denomination. If we study how the Christian Church has treated homosexuals, we must begin looking at how the Christian emperors of Rome put homosexuals to death. And for centuries, Christians used the Scriptures to justify either the Church or the state putting homosexuals to death. 

What helped stop the battles between and persecution of people from different denominations was need. They needed to unite Christian denominations in order to have sufficient pool for the army to fight the British in the Revolutionary War. We should note how some of the churches in the colonies battled each other. In fact, the Puritans martyred 4 Quakers.

We should also note how homosexuals were treated throughout our nation's history. The Puritans had people executed because they engaged in homosexual practices.  In fact, churches would also punish the child victims of pedophilia because, back then, they didn't always distinguish between the victim and the perpetrator.  In colonial days, crimes that could draw the death penalty included adultery, sodomy, witchcraft, and blasphemy and the Bible was used to justify all of that (see http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gff_homosexuality.htm ). It wasn't until 1786 that states began to drop the death penalty for engaging in homosexual acts. In England, it wasn't until 1851 that the death penalty was finally eliminated as a punishment for homosexuality. Instead, they settled for life imprisonment (see https://www.rca.org/homosexuality ).

For centuries, homosexual acts were criminalized and those who were convicted had to face various different punishments because of the Church's attitude toward homosexuality. It wasn't until a couple of decades ago that homosexuality because to be decriminalized. And that decriminalization might be due more to the sexual revolution than to the concept of freedom held by American Christians. And all of this happen, though this all doesn't tell the whole story, happened in Christian Europe and in Christian America.

Thus the comparison made here between how Islam views and treats homosexuals from how Christianity does is a bit skewed in that it forgets much of the history of how Christianity has regarded and abused homosexuals. Thus, the question in the title of this article needs to be readdressed. Why? Because we haven't been the lovers of freedom, tolerance, and limited government that we claim to be. In fact, when one considers the West's history of intervention, colonialism, and support of tyrants in the Middle East, one would be tempted to ask a parallel question: Can Muslims afford to tolerate Western influence in the Middle East. Since the repercussions of our actions and policies there have been more far reaching than that of Islam's in the West, the obvious answer in a word would be: NO WAY!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on how Christians are being blamed by some for the massacre in Orlando. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Before we comment on Mateen's murderous rampage, we should first do the minimum research. And in this day and age, that minimum research would be to read wikipedia--a resource I would not allow my students to use in any papers. That research tells us that the FBI investigate Mateen and considered him not to be a terrorist threat. In addition, we should note that Mateen claimed to have connections or pledged allegiance to Islamic groups that were opponents of each other (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen ).

We should also note that Mateen was a disturbed individual who was fixated on both sex and violence from an early age. He used steroids and abused his wife and was described by his first wife as being unstable . There were also questions about his sexual orientation. (See previous source). Now how many of those facts made it into either the above blogpost or the article by David French? 

At this time, we really don't know what drove Mateen to massacre the people at the Pulse. In fact, we may never know. But the above contains some additional information besides the fact that Mateen called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS. And that information is easily accessible with a minimum effort. And yet, it was not included in the these articles speculating on why Mateen did what he did. Instead, the information used to describe Mateen was heavily filtered and then the articles started playing the Christian persecution card as if the main story here is about us. To those who read within small circles, the lack of info used will not be an issue at all. But the world to which we are to witness sees this kind of reporting and it cannot be impressed by it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 18

To Steve Turley and his article on why Christians were being blamed for Mateen’s mass shooting at the gay club in Orlando. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two problems here. The first problem is with its analysis of the attack of the article. The second problem with its use of quotes to say people are blaming Christianity for the attack.

The problem with this article's analysis of the attack is that it isn't based on research. The FBI cleared Mateen of suspicion of being involved with terrorist groups and thus removed him from the terrorist watch list in late 2013. Why did they do that? One reason was Mateen had satisfactorily explained why he made questionable statements. The second was because his acclaimed connections and pledge of allegiance to ISIS was complicated by the fact that his allegiances were to opposing terrorist groups. On the other hand, Mateen was described as an unstable person by his first wife whom he abused. He had a history of being fixated on violence and sex since he was young. He took steroids. And sexual orientation itself was in question Thus, using his 911 call to blame his attack on his self-acclaimed allegiance to ISIS to blame his connections to a terrorist group for his attack is premature. In addition, we don't hear investigators blaming the attack on his ISIS connections.

The second problem with this article's use of quotes to claim people are blaming Christianity for the attack. This article listed two sources for this blaming Christianity for the attack. The first one, the ACLU reference, allegedly blamed Christianity for the attack but there is not direct quote that proves that. But let's suppose he did blame Christianity. Why would he? It is due to the combination of the numerous laws Christians have proposed and supported that target the LGBT community along with this person's personal history of having to battle Christian homophobia while he experienced love and support from a Muslim family.

We should note that no accusation was being made in the quote from the NCLR spokesperson. There, the second quote was said in the context of the need to eliminate bigotry and discrimination, not in the context of discussing who is responsible for the attack.

Even with Strange's "accusation," the actual quotes provided by The Examiner's article gives us reason to consider the accusation. For the accusation is around the toxic, anti-gay environment Conservative Christians have sought to produce in our country. And the question of whether this toxic environment had any role in the shooting is well worth considering. If the toxic environment was not there, would Mateen have targeted gays for his lashing out?

And let's face it, we have tried, and continue to do so, to provide a toxic environment for gays in society by the laws we propose and support. We should note that not more than 200 years ago, gays could be executed by the state for their sexual orientation in some places, Homosexuality was criminalized for centuries here and in Europe. In addition, one of the reasons why many of us religiously conservative Christians oppose same-sex marriages is because we don't want society to view homosexuality as normal. Many of us want society to view homosexuals as a threat because of their deviancy. Some Christians have preemptively scapegoated homosexuals for any coming judgment this country receives from God. So the question becomes this: Has conservative Christianity provided the kind of environment that contributed to Mateen's decision to engage in the mass shooting at the night club?

Instead of considering the above question, the above article  overindulged in some logical exercise in an effort to explain why Christians were being blamed while it was negligent in researching the possible reasons why Mateen did hat he did. And this article exaggerated how much blame was being pushed our way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 20

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how in trying to prevent children from being exploited on jobs, the choice has become poverty or prostitution for many children in Bangladesh. This appeared in the Acton Blog

What is astonishing, in a horrific sense, is that after given the choices of A, B, and C, is that Carter tolerates the situation that only offers those choices? It's like our two party system. During each presidential election, we complain about the two choices we have for president never asking ourselves whether we should replace the two party system with a multi party system.

There is a reason why child labor has been prohibited: it is called History. And while Carter argues that child labor beats child prostitution, he obediently tells us that our options are limited. And our options are limited if we don't question and change the current economic system. 

Capitalism has forever looked for exploitable labor markets. In America, we have had slavery, prison labor, trafficked labor, child labor, sweatshop labor, and labor that is paid poverty wages where income must be supplemented by government assistance programs. And that has all been or is still being employed in order to make business and financial elites wealthier. Then those who are exploited are told that they should live vicariously through the lives of the rich and famous. And it isn't just the wealthy who benefit from exploited labor, it is the Middle Class whose members often consume goods that products of exploited labor--note the $0.53 per day a child is paid. 

The problem with Carter's article is not necessarily in his description of the situation, it is in his acceptance of it. He accepts this situation while standing under the flag of economic freedom and liberty. And many of us might be tempted to join him in accepting the situation by claiming that such is the real world. In other words, exploiting child labor is not a social problem because nothing can be done about it. And it is our acceptance of that status quo that maintains Carter's options  of A, B, and C for these children. But what if we worked to change the systems that relies on such exploitation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost consisting of a video where John Green attempts to distinguish Capitalism from Socialism in 12 minutes. This appeared on the Acton Blog.

The key to any discussion on Capitalism and Socialism revolves around the set of working definitions used. And the key to a good definition is that it accurately distinguishes an idea or object from all other ideas and objects. So when one defines Capitalism, though some are tempted to define it by the benefits or positive attributes credited to Capitalism, to the extent that other systems share those characteristics given in one's definition is the extent to which the presentation's definition of Capitalism is compromised. That of Capitalism is given below and starts around the 2:21 mark of the video and consists of the following:

An economic system that relies on investment of capital in machines and technology that are used to increase production of marketable goods.

So the question here is does the above definition of Capitalism distinguish it from all other economic systems. For example, in what was known as Communism, or more precisely Bolshevism, was there any investments of wealth into gadgets and technology for the purpose of increasing the production of goods that would be bought and sold? For if Bolshevism and Capitalism were two disjoint systems where capital is invested machines and technologies to increase the production of goods, then such a definition is flawed. And I think it would be easy to see that in the USSR, there were investments in machines and technologies for the sake of producing goods that were sold. Thus, we are either compelled to acknowledge that such a definition is either inadequate or that Bolshevism is a kind of Capitalism--a point not lost on some of Lenin's contemporary critics.

A more informative and appropriate distinction between Capitalism and Marxist Socialism, which is often confused with Bolshevism, revolves around the identity of those who have wealth and power. For in Capitalism, the identity of those with power and wealth rests on elites from the private sector. In Marxist Socialism, those who owned wealth and power were the workers and that was evident both at the workplace as well as in government. Marx would call this consolidation of power by workers the proletariate dictatorship.

For those who think Communism or Socialism is determined by the presence of centralized power in by the government, they should consider the following. Power is closely tied to wealth in a number of different relationships. And whether power is centralized or not depends on whether wealth is consolidated regardless of whether the government or private sector elites control the wealth. Here, we should note Adam Smith's observation about the Mercantilism of his day. He stated that those with power controlled policies with their own interests in mind regardless of others were affected. The same holds true for today's Capitalism.

Though there was Socialism before Marx, we would be more accurate if we were to start to compare Capitalism and Socialism at the departure point of who owns what.. 

Other than all of that, this comparison between Capitalism and Socialism showed improvement over past attempts.

Living For Riches Is Waiting To Die

I will always remember April 25, 1984. My father was dying of  lung cancer caused by smoking. We tried to make him as comfortable as possible during the end. Right before he died, I and a very saintly nurse stood by his bed. She held his hand and right after he passed away, she kissed him on the forehead.

When I think of anyone who lives for riches, whether one is part of the one percent or one is comfortable in their middle class, I think of someone who has something in common with many who are about to die. That is they seek to be in a perpetual state of comfort. And their goal is to both avoid discomfort when possible and, when not possible, eliminate it as soon as possible.

It is certainly understandable, and a moral duty, to make those who are about to die as comfortable as possible. If we know them, doing so shows appreciation for what they done. If we do not know them, then we are showing respect as well as a recognition of how we would like to be treated when it is our turn, and it will be our turn. But the question becomes should we strive to live in a continual state of comfort before that time.  By a continual state of comfort, I do not just mean physical comfort, but I include maintaining a personal comfort too. So, in order to live in this pampered mental state, we surround ourselves with the entertaining, the positive and the inspiring while turning a deaf hear to the cries for help coming from those being hurt by others.

When we live for riches, we not only strive to live in constant comfort, we fail to think about the impact that our relaxed lifestyle can have on others--as we just said, we drown out the cries for help coming from others. First, we neglect to think about what we could do for others. And this does not apply just to the time we are enjoying ourselves, it also applies to any extra time we spend to earn the money needed to maintain our lifestyle. What we can do for others includes spending time to learn about today's issues and who needs help, participating in activism, volunteering to  help those in need, volunteering to help in the community, and being a good Samaritan. The more we live for riches, the more we care about our own inner world and the less we are involved in the world around us. This is because it takes time, effort and caring to be involved. It takes a willingness to be interrupted and be discomforted by others.

Second, we need to be aware of the fact that the more we consume, the less there is for others. Here, I like to tell a parable about a missionary who met a poor starving man in the village in which he was serving.  Remembering the saying, "if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime," he proceeded to teach the man to fish. The missionary left for other villages and when he returned, he found this man in the same state in which he left him. The missionary asked the man what happened. The man replied that while he now knew how to fish, it wasn't long after he began fishing that the pond became fished out because of the number of people fishing and there was no catch limit. He went on to say that while some could afford to go to another fishing hole, he was unable to.

We live in a world with both limited or diminishing resources and an increasing population. When we consume nonrenewable resources, not only are we taking away from those who live now, we take away from those who come after us. So the more we consume beyond our needs, the less we have to share with others and the less there is for others live on.

Finally, we must be aware of the costs others must pay for what we consume. For example, the following link lists the companies that do not employ child-slave labor in the production of cocoa (directory of ethical chocolate companies). In addition, you can read about the previous efforts of some in our government to help stop use of child slaves and trafficking that is involved in cocoa production as well as who resisted (efforts). The same goes for the production of goods like diamonds, to the making of clothing, carpets, and even sporting equipment (child slave labor). This means that, among others, children are often abused in the production of what we consume.

The reason such labor is used is to sell goods and services at low prices by cutting the cost of production. Using slaver,  sweatshop, and child labor are ways some major companies employ to reduce the costs and improve their own bottom line. And we enable this when we embrace the consumer version of maximizing profits by always buying our stuff at the lowest price which, in turn, enables us to consume more and more and enjoy more comfort.

Of course, there are costs that others pay besides suffering abuse at work. Another cost can be the efforts our government expends in raising up and maintaining proxy leaders in other countries. Our oil prices, for example, are due to fact that America has joined a few other countries in helping to control who becomes the head of state and who does not. The earliest example of this occurred in 1953 in Iran where the U.S. and the U.K. worked together to overthrow the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil resources, and replace him with a dictator.  Currently, we support the reign of the royal family in Saudi Arabia as well as the rulers of Bahrain, neither of whom support democracy. And we just participated in a bloody coup in Libya where we demonized a self-demonizing leader while ignoring the injustices those we sided with practiced. If we look back through history we could find other examples where our country overthrew governments, some of them democratically elected, to further the interests of some business which, in turn, often furthered the consumer power of Americans.

Whether we tolerate all of this goes back to why we live. Do we live for riches, to die with the most toys, to be made as comfortable as possible until the end? Will the measure of our lives be based on how much fun we experienced in life and how much we consumed? Or, do we enjoy riches from time to time but live to give to, serve, and help others, especially those who are being oppressed? Here, we could ask ourselves how would Jesus live. Or we should ask, how did Jesus live when He was with us.