What's Most Important To Americans

 During the 2024 Presidential campaign, the #1 issue for American voters was money. It was inflation, grocery prices, and money spent on immigrants. The second issue for many conservatives was the culture wars. And the culture wars revolved around the equal rights for the LGBT community.

Now what is the #1 issue of conservative Americans? The polls tell us that. We could say that the #1 issue is the same for Americans in general; it is money. But that is not entirely accurate. The #1 issue for conservative Americans is oneself. How are conservative Americans concerned about themselves? They are concerned about themselves in terms of money issues including jobs, taxes, and prices. They are concerned about themselves in terms of whom they will share society with. They want the LGBT community to be put back into the margins of society. They are concerned about non-Christian influences on the lives of their families. They see themselves as being victims of  illegal immigration. In general they see themselves as being victims because their leader, Donald Trump, tells them so. And because they are victims by so many people and even countries, remember the Trade Wars, they could care less if Trump does not follow the rules to save them. And in thinking that way, they not only ignore history.

How America got to be this way must be told so that others might avoid our plight. It starts by thinking that one's own group is above all others. Because of America's great wealth, it starts by leaning toward finding more significance in what one consumes more than in what one contributes to others and society.

And though I am no longer a conservative American, I am not innocent of these charges. As I was talking with my best friend, she was talking about how her husband has always been a very hard worker. I had to tell her that I wasn't raised that way. I was raised to be a consumer and so hard work and how it contributed to others was, to me, the price of admission for consuming rather than a reward in and of itself. And so I didn't always work as hard and with the right attitudes as I should. I still struggle with having a good work ethic for the right reasons.

We Americans, especially conservative Americans, want two things in life. The first thing we want is to believe that we are special in a way that makes us and our nation superior to all others. Listen to conservative talk radio if you doubt that part of my analysis here.

And because we are special, or perhaps when we doubt ourselves, we want to consume as much as possible. So we make consumption the center of our lives. That is because, for us, consuming  is both a reward for being so special and an assurance that we are.

In an article (click here and use Google Translate if necessary) written by Richard Martineau for Le Journal de Montréal, Trump is described as the leader whom we all deserve because of our obsession with entertainment--something which we consume in great quantities. And so our consumption of entertainment results in our entertainment replacing culture. Our consumption of entertainment means that we eventually  become attracted to the spectacle and no one makes more of a spectacle of himself than Trump.

Read the comments on capitalism made by Martin Luther King Jr in his book, Stride Toward Freedom (click here and read pg 94-95). When describing what Marx saw as the danger when the profit motive becomes the 'sole basis for an economic system,' King said that Capitalism 'inspires' people to focus more on 'making a living' than on 'making a life.' That capitalism causes us to 'judge ourselves' more by our income and possessions than by what we contribute to others.

If we want to get Biblical about it, note what the prophet wrote in Ezekiel 16:48-50):

48 As I live,” declares the Lord God, “Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done! 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, plenty of food, and carefree ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50 So they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Paul wrote, in his letter to the Galatians, that the desires of the flesh oppose the desires of the Spirit . I believe that a secular parallel to that conflict can be found in the conflict between consumerism and Democracy with equality. Certainly not all consuming is bad; a certain amount of consuming  is necessary for both individuals and society. But when consuming becomes a main way of defining oneself, then we start caring less and less about Democracy with equality. When our own possessions and consumption of material and immaterial goods becomes too important to us, we start to care less and less about the injustices and inequities that those outside of our own tribes suffer. And the more we love to consume, the more we will see those outside of our own tribes as threats to our way of life. And so the more we care about consuming, the more we are likely to fall prey to authoritarian leaders who promise us pie in the sky while warning us, or using fear mongering, that those outside of our tribe are threatening to steal our slice of the pie from us. And the thing about authoritarian leaders who tell us what we want to hear is that they don't have to be rational, they just have to stroke our fears and egos to be persuasive.

America has already been caught in consumerism's vortex because of what we believe about ourselves. How we can escape alive I do not know. But perhaps our example can serve as a warning to our dearest neighbor to the North and our former allies to the East and to the rest of the free world.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 9, 2019

Oct 8

To Michael Matheson Miller and his blogpost on how to combat consumerism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We need to face the fact that consumerism is a product of Capitalism. That doesn't meant that consumerism needs Capitalism to exist, but the converse is true. Markets must always expand if Capitalism is to survive. Thus, people need to buy more and more and what is it that they are buying but goods and services that are designed to feed our pleasures and ensure our comfort.

Thus, Capitalism promotes a consumerism that is not only bad for us as people, it is harmful to the environment and contributes to climate change. The drive to maximize profits is incentivized by an increased ability to consume. And thus either curbing or replacing Capitalism could help reduce consumerism, but then again it might not. For we should note what Martin Luther King Jr. observed in that both Marxism and Capitalism promoted their own unique kinds of materialism.
Now the rules for combating consumerism listed in the above article might give temporary help to some, but it was what Martin Luther King Jr. said that provides the stake in the heart of consumerism. In speaking against the Vietnam War, King said the following:

We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Unless we learn to count people, remember those creatures each of whom is made in the image of God, as being more important than our possession and wealth, we will never defeat the 3-headed monster that included materialism. And unless we become a person-oriented society, the rules listed above will provide no permanent relief from consumerism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that talks about how St. Nikolas thinks Christians should view technology. This appeared in the Acton blog.

While Johnson states that technology is morally neutral, that has not been regarded as being always true by scientists. The creation of the atom bomb, for example, was seen as being wrong once it was completed even by some who participated in its development. In fact, the development of the atom bomb caused Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein to write a manifesto that declared that because of that bomb, people must choose between either relying on fighting wars or survival.

We should also consider that just because something is morally neutral doesn't mean that it a wise choice. When I taught my introduction ot Information Technology class, the first term I would teach my students is the word 'trade off.' The term means that when choosing a particular option, there are benefits and detriments that come with that choice. And that the mature adult way of deciding between options is to compare the trade offs for each choice. Unfortunately, too many of us want to fall in love at first sight with each new piece of technology than to measure its trade offs.

Then there come something that a fellow activist and very important friend of mine, Rita Corriel,  said to me. She said that we often measure progress by how far we can distance ourselves from nature. This perspective helps point to the trade offs that we should look for in each new technological product. For when our reliance on technology separates us too far from nature, we will pay a severe price both physically and personally.

Thus, there are other concerns besides the morality of using a new piece of technology that determines whether we should use it.


 

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 4 of 12

Today's post is late due to computer problems.

In part 4 of 12 of his A Cultural Case For Capitalism (click here), Witt wants to distinguish Capitalism from 2 unfavorable human traits, consumerism (the negative form as seen in the never ending growth in the accumulation of unnecessary goods and services) and greed by the business owner or producer. In essence, Witt is trying to separate Capitalism from greed regardless of the source of that greed. The question becomes whether he succeeded. 

In distinguishing Capitalism from Consumerism, Witt wants to assert that consumerism doesn't drive the economy, capital does. And, according to Witt, Capital cannot be accumulated by "running up credit card debt" on the retail level. Rather, the combining of capital with "creative labor" creates what people are willing to buy. But in trying prove his case, Witt oversimplifies what consumerism is and thus tries to separate Capitalism from consumerism using deductive reasoning--Conservatives often overuse deductive reasoning to prove their case. 

For a producer/business owner to get a satisfactory return on their use of capital, there must be an adequate market for their goods and services. So a producer/business owner will either be offering goods and services for which there is an adequate market demand or they will produce goods and services for which they believe they can create a market demand. Thus, we could say that an indication of a business' reliance on consumerism can be seen in the resources invested to create, maintain, or expand the perceived need for a business' goods and services. 

Note the perceived need is what is key. That is because there is a difference between an actual need and perceived need. And when there is a significant difference between the two, some kind of deceit is often employed to create the perception. 

In addition, we might want to note that to say that an economic system depends on consumerism, we might want to distinguish two kinds of consumers in whom market need is created: retail customers and government. The more that an economic system's resources are invested into motivating those from either group to buy more than what is necessary, the more that that economic system depends on consumerism. We should note how our government has overspent on military and medicine in order to maintain the financial health of some major businesses.  And personal experience along with marketing budgets from businesses tell us how many resources are invested in the advertising. For it is advertising that is used to shape our perceptions about what to buy. We should note that one parallel to advertising in driving the perceived need for government to consume goods and services is money spent on lobbying.

Finally,we might want to note that Witt's argument, which is designed to separate Capitalism from consumerism, is rather disingenuous. For just as Witt says that the capital necessary to drive the economy cannot coexist with huge credit card debt, we should note that those who use capital to create products are not necessarily from the same set of people who are overextended on their credit cards. For in these two groups, you have business owners who depend on accumulated capital to make new products for economy on the one hand, and retail customers who have overspent on their credit cards on the other hand. In addition, we might point out that credit cards themselves are a service that is provided by those in the financial sector of our economy. And, of course, examining credit card debt is another indicator of whether our economic system relies on consumerism.

In other words, when we look at the facts on the ground, we see that the unnecessary consumption of goods and services is a significant factor on which the current status of our economic system depends. These facts contradict Witt's contention that Capitalism and consumerism are not sleeping together.

Equally disingenuous to Witt's attempt to show that Capitalism and consumerism do not play well together can be seen in how Witt tries to show that Ayn Rand-style greed and Capitalism do not have to be playmates. Witt cites two examples of people who are business successes but who have proven themselves to be not greedy. He claims that lifestyles of Ikea's Ingrav Kamprad and Microsoft's Bill Gates by how they travel and both live and give to charity respectively speaking. 

But how do those parts of their lives show that their companies did not grow as large as they did because of greed? One only needs to look up the business practices of these two companies to see if greed was a necessary ingredient to their growth and success. In examining the business practices of these two companies, one should look at how these companies treated all of their employees and customers and how they competed with peer businesses. In particular, one should examine the available court transcripts of these businesses' dealings in court.

But whether greed is an integral part of the system cannot be proved or disproved by the examples from such a small sample. Rather, one needs to either look at the majority of businesses involved or obtain an overview of the system. From what this blog sees, greed is an essential part of Capitalism, at least our current form of Capitalism is. This can be shown by how self-interest is portrayed as being the driving force not only in one's own success, but in the success of others. Thus, self-interest is seen as a necessary ingredient to the success of our system. However, altruism and collective ownership are portrayed at best as luxuries in that the former is not mandated by law while the other is denied by how workers are treated and compensated. As a teacher, I have run across students who were former employees from a number of large businesses because their jobs were outsourced to those from other countries who would work for less pay.

From what we see in part 4 of his series, it seems that Witt is describing an ideal form, or logical definition, of Capitalism which does not match what we are witnessing in today's economic system. And his description seems to support an economic freedom that would deny interference from government regardless of how democratic that government was and regardless of the claims to the ownership of business that other stakeholders should rightfully have. The end result is that Witt is defending a system where the economic elite are proudly flying the flag that says, "Don't Tread On Me," while using their defended freedoms to tread on the rest of society. Perhaps, this is why we see less and less democracy being exercised in our political-economic system while wealth disparity is climbing. Remember that increased tyranny and wealth disparity are the results of a diminishing democracy and a shrinking collective ownership (click here).

The Highest Business Ethic Of All

I participate in discussions on other blogs. One of the blogs I periodically visit is the Business Ethics Blog administered by Chris MacDonald. Though Chris is far more conservative than I am, I very much appreciate and enjoy his blog. Whereas some try to control the blog discussions, Chris is very open in terms of letting discussions go on and is very patient with views with which he disagrees. Below is a part of a discussion that brings up an important ethical question for the business community. The blogpost was on whether it is right boycott Sodastream considering the jobs they give to Palestinians. The link to the post for this discussion can be found here. 

Chris MacDonald on February 17, 2014

Linda, Raj, Curt:

Now you see why I suggest that it’s not surprising when consumers choose to be agnostic about a war of both guns and words that has been going on for decades. You’ve illustrated my point nicely.

Chris

Reply

       ...

• Curt Day on February 17, 2014

  Chris,
  For a consumer culture that, for the most part, is apathetic to its own government and its flaws, this is no surprise. If we have proven anything, we’ve shown that as long as people have what they want, they will ignore the abuse and exploitation of others. There is a synonym for Western individualism in a consumer society, it is called selfishness.
  ...

  Reply
  • Chris MacDonald on February 17, 2014

    My point is that even non-apathetic consumers will be frustrated by any attempt to sort through this issue in a finite amount of time. Just look at the exchange above! Several well-informed (it seems to me!) individuals can’t agree the basic facts of the story. A newcomer to the topic would be baffled.

    ...
• Curt Day on February 17, 2014

  First, those who are not apathetic will work through the frustration simply because being non-apathetic means one cares. But those who are consumers first, will be frustrated and that is my point about business ethics. That it is good for business to embrace a consumer culture and yet the more people embrace that culture, the less they will care about things that really matter ...

  ...

  
  The problem illustrated in the discussion is that the more we become consumers, the less we care about others And this concerns business because they are our bartender metaphorically speaking. They are the ones serving us drinks. And the question becomes, should business have the responsibiity to cut us off for the sake of society and even the world or is its only responsibility that of making a profit?
• We should note that not feeling responsible for more than one's own immediate welfare is a concept that easily passes from business to consumer. Just as business can follow the maximization of profit ethic, so the consumer can always shop for the lowest price. And in looking for the lowest price, the consumer can become cold to the suffering some have had to experience in providing the same low prices as well as other suffering. The suffering in order to provide low prices can range from the paying of poverty wages to the employing of sweatshop labor to the trafficking of labor or some combination. Examples of other suffering comes can be seen in today's wars and occupations or from famines. The consumer can also ignore the environmental impact that the production of some products cause and how that impact can hurt how others live. For when price is king, all other concerns becomes moot.
  
  So as businesses look to maximize profits, they can objectify us consumers by taking us for all we have. But as they do that, they drain from the consumer the energy and care needed to seek or provide help for others. 
  
  There is also another problem. As us consumers become drunk with more and more goods and services, we stop caring for ourselves. What happens is that as we focus more and more on being consumers, we care less and less about who is control. As long as we are getting our goodies, we feel life is good and we pay no attention to the people in control--remember the famous line from The Wizard Of Oz about the man behind the curtain. While we've been consuming, some businesses, especially big ones, have used their wealth to purchase political power and have used that power to shed themselves of their own responsibilities for maintaining society while working the system in order to benefit themselves. Such businesses become society's parasites much like the alien invaders from the movie Independence Day. So as the tax burden is shifted from the rich to the plethora of consumers----the trend for this shifting tax burden has precedent in France before its revolution --and the infrastructure enters into a state of disrepair, consumers eventually wake up to the effect. But by then it might be too late to do anything as we as we start to suffer just like the people we have ignored suffer.
  
  I guess it is asking to much to expect business to not turn us into mindless consumers by cutting us off after we have had too much. But if business won't cut us off, who will? How will we ever stop so we can care about others and what matters? How will we ever learn what our leaders and representatives need to learn before entering office? What they, in fact all of us, need to learn is that caring about how one's actions can affect others, especially those who are most vulnerable, is a necessary condition for any worthwhile society to survive.
  
  
  
  

ONIM For Dec 9, 2013

Christian News

• No Sign Of Recovery For Poorest, Says Foodbank Operator -- Christian Today (UK)
• Secular Scotland -- Christian Today (UK)
• South Africa After Nelson Mandela: The Church 'Has Its Work Cut Out' -- Christian Today (UK)
• Getting New Yorkers To Hear The Word -- Christianity Today
• Some South African Pastors React To Mandela's Death -- Christianity Today
• Rick Warren On Redefining Marriage -- The Christian Post
• David Jeremiah Draws Thousands To NYC -- The Christian Post
• Christmas And Consumerism -- The Christian Post
• Remembering Nelson Mandela -- Religion Dispatches
• Civility, Unity, Tolerance And Other Dangerous Terms -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Fukushima's Radioactive Water Will Be Dumped Into Pacific Ocean -- ABC News
• How Many Minimum Wage Hours Does It Take To Afford A Two Bedroom Apartment In Your State -- Upworthy
• Staff Accuses UN Of Violating Human Rights -- IPS
• 36 Aid Groups Demand End To House Demolitions By Israel -- Palestine Chronicle
• Press Body Accuses Israel Army Of Targeting Journalists -- Yahoo News
• The Gap Between The Rich And The Poor In South Africa Remains The Same -- The Independent
• Mass Murder In The Middle East Is Funded By Our Friends The Saudis -- The Independent
• All Syrian Chemical Weapons Munitions Destroyed, Says Watchdog -- Haaretz
• Ukraine Opposition Seeks Million-Strong Rally In Kiev -- Reuters
• French, African Troops Try To Halt C. Africa Republic Killings -- Reuters
• US Fast-Food Workers Strike Over Low Wages In Nationwide Protests -- The Gaurdian
• Indonesia's Volcano Erupts -- Extinction Protocol
• Turkey Warned Of Potential Eruption Hazards From 14 Active Volcanoes -- Extinction Protocol

Most Important Story (or Pick Of the Litter)

• Nelson Mandela: Loved Universally In Death -- But Not In Life -- National Journal

Will The Real Status Quo Please Stand Up

While listening to Christian conservatives John Piper, Tim Keller, and Anthony Bradley talk about racism, I saw a faint glimmer that one of my two pet peeves against the American Conservative Christian Church might finally be addressed. This pet peeve is that the American Conservative Christian Church does not challenge the status quo and the systemic evil that exists in society. Here, we will focus on the talk given by Keller in the event pictured with this paragraph. To access his talk directly, move the time bar to 25:52 in the video to jump to where he talks about how racism is a systemic problem and thus carries a corporate responsibility. There are some helpful comments made by Anthony Bradley in both his following lecture and in the video containing the Q&A session that he moderates.

Keller's first task was to define corporate responsibility. In talking about corporate responsibility, Keller wants to dispel of the notion that sin is solely due to individual choices. The family and or community bear some responsibility as well. But rather than just say that corporate responsibility flows in a oneway direction, he shows how it flows in a two-way direction, both from the community to the individual and from the individual to the community. Both have a hand in and need to respond to the sins of the other.

In citing Joshua 7, Keller tells how Achan and his family were stoned to death for the sin of Achan. This, according to Keller, seems foreign to the mind of many White Americans, to Whites from the West, because of our emphasis on individualism. But he adds that this is understandable to the rest of the world because they know that a person's sins are not just the result of individual choices, but of how the family interacted with him in what they taught and what they prohibited. So Achan, along with all of his family, were held responsible for his sin and were punished.

In citing Daniel 9, Keller tells how corporate responsibility flows the others way when Daniel laments over the sins of his ancestors. Here, Keller says Daniel does this because he is part of the culture that, in the past, moved his ancestors to sin against God. Keller goes on to show how Romans 5 shows that faith in Christ is a corporate deal rather than an individual one. By this he means that just as our punishment comes because of Adam, so our reward comes because of Christ.

Keller goes on to give two illustrations on why certain sins, like racism, must be handled on the corporate and individual levels. In mentioning the Holocaust, he shows how all of German society was responsible for the mass murder of the Jews and others and how each part of society cooperated with the mass murders and thus carried a different level of responsibility. This goes for the Nazi commander who carried out orders to slaughter innocent people to the German citizen who saw his or her duty to be that of just working for a living and paying their taxes. This German citizen had probably heard something about what was going on but shirked their responsibility for finding out and responding. 

Keller also relayed a story from Robert Linthicum who described a young convert of his who later turned to prostitution. When he asked why she became a prostitute, she told how the police came and threatened to beat up her father and her brother if she did not work as a prostitute. It was at this point that Linthicum realized that individual salvation was not enough to help this woman, the system had to be addressed.

What was so good in Keller's presentation? It was Keller's emphasis on our responsibility to challenge unjust systems. Maybe I am not as exposed to Reformed and other conservative sources as I should be but I found Keller's call for us to challenge the system to be refreshing; it was both new and correct. And though Keller's grounds for why we should challenge the system were based mostly on Biblical argument, he did mention the need for Whites to identify with minorities at the end, Anthony Bradley, in his presentation, added that our working for right systems should be based on love for the victims. 

We need both arguments, those grounded in Biblically based logic and those grounded in love. Arguments based on logic alone takes the personal involvement out of the picture. Arguments based on logic alone can make addressing the system something we do for ourselves and an accomplishment to be proud of. Arguments based on logic alone do not move us to listen to those whom we are trying to help and thus our intentions will more easily go astray. 

So we need to add love to arguments based on Biblical logic. Love helps us to be more outwardly directed. Love helps us to work with those we want to help rather than being paternalistic. 

What Keller's presentation, along with Bradley's followup, lacked was that we should challenge the system not just for the sake of the victim, but for the sake of the victimizer too. After all, it is the victimizer who will be judged by God. In other words, we are to challenge the system for the sake of those who are suffering unjustly and for the sake of those who are oppressing the vulnerable. Both need love though that love might be demonstrated in different ways. That we should show love to win over the victimizers was a passion for Martin Luther King and it should be our passion as well.

In addition to what was lacking, Keller makes significant error at the end. As he is exhorting the audience to challenge the system, he warns them about the self-righteousness and arrogance of many who are currently challenging racism. He could have said that self-rightousness and arrogance are temptations that can become stronger when one challenges any part of the system. But by saying what he said, he almost gives his Christian audience a reason for singing to those who are already in the fight, "Anything you can do we can do better." And once we sing that, we become prideful and self-righteous. Keller's warning about those who are self-rightoues doesn't invite us to come along those who have been laboring for the rights of others; it warns us to reinvent the wheel and work apart from them simply because they don't have the humility that comes from being saved by grace. So obviously, humility does not always come once one is saved by grace.

In addition to this talk, I would strongly suggest to those who struggle to understand what White Privilege is, to go to the 16:56 mark of the followup Q&A session to hear Anthony Bradley give a concrete example. I have heard the term but have never really understood it until he described one of his experiences as a teacher. This video accompanies this paragraph.

Finally, we need to mention what needs to be discussed in the future by Piper, Keller, Bradley, and others. Keller alluded to this briefly when he talked about other systems that need to be challenged. We need Christian leaders to talk about the multiple isms that shape the systems that make up the status quo. For our status quo does not exist by racism alone. We can divide these isms into two groups. The one group are the isms used by those who shape and run our society while the other group are the isms that are followed by those who must comply with the status quo to survive. 

There are at least 4 isms used by those who mold our society. They are racism, economic classism, elitism, and militarism. Why these isms belong to those who control the status quo is because these are the isms that those in charge follow to marginalize and displace others. These isms keep the weak dependent on those who wish to hold the whip to tame the rest. What we should note here is that while racism, economic classism, and elitism diminish the voices and power of those inside our country, militarism does the same to those outside of our borders. And we should also note how economic classism received a partial challenge by Occupy Wall Street's Declaration Of The Occupation Of New York City.

If racism is to be challenged because of how it unjustly and harshly suppresses people because of their ethnicity, then we should regard and approach economic classism, elitism, and militarism with the same energy because these isms are harsh and conquer many people too. These isms create the systems that make the status quo so good for a relative few and so miserable for a growing number of people. I don't know where Keller stands on these other issues but I do think that Bradley unintentionally supports economic classism with some of his writings and lectures. For in these writings and lectures, I have yet, and this might be my fault, to read or hear him challenge those running the system to repent of their greed and oppression and to change the economic system. I hope that I am wrong here.

The isms of those who receive the whip in the status quo include: consumerism, tribalism, and authoritarianism. These isms lead the rest in society to do their job at being complicit with injustice.  Consumerism numbs us from feeling the pain of others. Tribalism diverts our attention from morals and justice to parochial concerns and moves us to embrace a moral relativity. And authoritarianism has us following orders without asking questions and causes us to accept what is said based more on the credentials of the source rather than the logic of the content.

Certainly, the above list of isms is not exhaustive. But they are pervasively followed by all in society, by the haves and the have nots. And these isms contribute to why our oppressive systems are not adequately challenged and thus why the status quo remains.

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.