"Saving Lives, Securing our Future Yesterday" is the ingenious motto of the nonpartisan ONE Vote ‘08 campaign, which launched yesterday in a church in Washington D.C. In a stroke of brilliant marketing, ONE Vote ‘08--an offshoot of the ONE Campaign--combines two quintessentially American traits: moral idealism (The world’s poorest countries are in crisis and we have a moral obligation to act) and strategic pragmatism (Fighting poverty is in the strategic interest of the United States).
ONE is a grassroots organization which attempts to mobilize supporters to pressure elected national leaders, particularly Congress, to fund more of the U.S’s international development and relief programs. The ONE Vote '08 Campaign extends that focus to the upcoming presidential race.
Although my favorite charity (World Vision) is a founding member of the coalition, I've tended to view the ONE Campaign with a degree of skepticism. The problems of humanity are too complex to be solved by government programs or increased funding of NGOs and no amount of money can substitute for the world's most pressing need: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Still, international aid can help alleviate the rampant poverty and disease that ravages our neighbors in Africa and threatens the security of the West. That is why I'm giving my tentative support for this campaign.
Here are five more reasons I support ONE Vote '08:
1. Because they have the right priorities -- ONE Vote '08 wants presidential candidates to agree to focus on the following five goals in the fight against extreme poverty:
- Save 15,000 lives a day by fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, three of the world's most devastating diseases.
- Prevent 5.4 million young children from dying each year from poverty-related illnesses and 400,000 women from dying in childbirth each year.
- Provide free access to primary education for 77 million out-of-school children with a special emphasis on girls.
- Improve the living conditions of vulnerable populations by, for example, providing access to clean water for 450 million people and basic sanitation to more than 700 million people.
- Reduce by half the number of people in the world who suffer from hunger, resulting in 300 million "fewer" hungry people each year.
2. Because they have a plan -- ONE Vote '08 has developed a presidential-platform of achievable solutions that – if championed by the next U.S. president – could have a profound impact on the poorest people in the world. The platform is built on the foundation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed to in 2000 by the United States and 188 other nations to achieve poverty reduction and sustainable development by 2015. The plan isn't perfect--no policy solution ever is--but it is workable. Until a better plan is presented, I'll support this one.
3. Because helping the poor is a national security issue. As former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told a group of us bloggers, "People do not go to war with people who have saved their children's lives." While that might not always be true, the Senator's underlying point remains valid. Extreme poverty promotes extreme instability. The poorest nations on earth are breeding grounds for radicalism. But by providing aid and improving living conditions, we can curtail future threats.
4. Because it’s a true nonpartisan coalition -- Yesterday I sat in a stuffy room in an Episcopal church with rival former House Majority Leaders (Senators Frist and Daschle), policy wonks from the left and right (John Podesta and Michael Gerson), and bloggers both liberal (Matthew Yglesias, John Aravosis) and conservative (Soren Dayton, Matt Lewis). We may not can agree on much else, but we all agree that these issues worthy of our time, money, and attention. Fortunately, we aren't alone. ONE Vote '08 has been endorsed by both the RNC and the DNC, by religious leaders and Hollywood secularists, and by millions of ordinary people across the country.
Bipartisanship is not inherently virtuous. But in a country as politically divided as America is today, it is comforting to know that there are still some issues that we can all agree upon.
5. Because the church hasn't done enough -- Conservative Christians often claim that feeding the hungry, comforting the afflicted, and tending to the orphans are roles that belong to the church, not the government. I completely agree. But I'm left with uncomfortable questions: Why then are so many people around the globe still in extreme poverty? Why are so many people dying of AIDS and malaria? Why are so many children still hungry? Either the church has failed to obey the commands of Jesus or we are doing the best we can and are still falling short. For whatever reason, the church needs help in carrying out our duty to our global neighbors. Hopefully, one day the ONE campaign will no longer be needed. But until then, I'll welcome whatever help we can get.
A Kenyan economist pleads with people to stop sending aid to Africa: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html It's an informative read, and explains the reality of the problems created by Western aid, as in campaigns like ONE.
Joe,
This statement bothers me:
Either the church has failed to obey the commands of Jesus or we are doing the best we can and are still falling short.
Do you really think that this is the primary function of the church (where we should be putting our energies? Are you going semi-liberal/postmodern on us?
Collin
Colin said,
"Do you really think that this is the primary function of the church (where we should be putting our energies? Are you going semi-liberal/postmodern on us?"
That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you want to call following the example and teachings of Jesus liberal, then have at it.
Being a liberal has nothing to do with caring (actually it is the opposite by having the government handle things so "I" don't have to). Being a liberal means that you feel the government should develop programs to take care of social issues by redistributing wealth.
Do you really think that this is the primary function of the church (where we should be putting our energies?
I certainly hope so.
Are you going semi-liberal/postmodern on us?
????? It is usually conservatives who claim that charity is the church's job. Yet, when Joe suggests that the church isn't doing it's job, you imply that he's going "post-modern?"
James 1:27 and 2:14-17, among very many verses that we might cite. The Church's role is to live and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Living the gospel necessarily means alleviating suffering, helping the poor, caring for the sick. Most of us, myself included, don't do enough, but yes, it is where we should be putting more of our energies.
Hmmm. It seems my rather brief statement is being misunderstood. So here's some clarification.
1. Jesus was neither Liberal nor Conservative. He's above our petty politics.
2. Meeting needs is a calling of the church, but not the calling of the church. We have first a ministry of reconciliation.
3. The church cannot be expected, by others or by itself, to do it all. The human condition has created a need greater than any institution can solve completely.
4. It might be difficult to live and work in DC and not have a knee-jerk reaction to the politics, lib and cons, of the area. My statement reflect both that and a concern about current trends in theology -- RO, Emergent, & other postmodern redefinitions of the purpose of the church.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
It seems like such a good idea to get behind...until you research HOW they are going to do it.
For example, one of the ways to 'solve' women dying in childbirth is to provide access to "safe abortions", as well as emergency contraception.
Building schools, especially to educate future wives and mothers seems laudable - until you review how that has worked out in the past, with schools pushing New Age idealogies (Oprah built a school that the Dali Lama would be proud of).
The devil is in the details, and this campaign won't be getting my support.
Mama Says
Collin,
In your most recent post, you seem to be strongly agreeing with Joe, so I'm having a hard time understanding what you meant when you said Joe might be going post-modern.
2. Meeting needs is a calling of the church, but not the calling of the church. We have first a ministry of reconciliation.
They're not mutually exclusive. Very often, reconciliation of man with God and man with man requires meeting needs.
3. The church cannot be expected, by others or by itself, to do it all. The human condition has created a need greater than any institution can solve completely.
Isn't this more or less what Joe was saying? For whatever reason, the church isn't doing it all. For that reason, the church can help to push government to do its part too.
Now, Joe might believe that the church could do it all if it was faithful, but as a practical matter, you and Joe seem to be advocating the same thing.
Nick,
The comment about going postmodern was meant as hyperbole. Apparently it didn't work.
I don't think the works are mutually exclusive, and didn't state such. My statement noted our first priority, not our only priority.
I'm not so sure how much this One Campaign will achieve, but perhaps it may be a step in the right direction.
Some of the commenters here like to say government's role is not to help people and government is too big and instrusive, yet are perfectly ok with the obscenely huge amounts spent on defense and maintaining military bases throughout the world. I say drastically cut our military spending and spend some of the savings on helping others (and then scale back the size of government and cut taxes).
Do we really need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to protect out country from a few religious nuts-aren't we smarter than that? Government needs to stop serving the military-industrial complex and start representing the will of "we, the people".
We need a second american revolution and return to a constitutional democracy. The presidential candidates ought to sign on to Bruce Fein's American Freedom Agenda.
Building schools, especially to educate future wives and mothers seems laudable - until you review how that has worked out in the past, with schools pushing New Age idealogies (Oprah built a school that the Dali Lama would be proud of).
The Dali Lama is a Tibetian Buddhist which is a 2,500 year old religion. Not a New Age cult that was created sometime between the third and fourth season of the Simpsons. If Oprah's school is teaching reading, writing and mathematics then it is probably a vast improvement over what was probably there before....even if it does have some New Age silliness. Twenty years from now the reading and writing will still be taught at that school while the copies of The Secret will be collecting dust just as today the Celestine Prophecy struggles to sell itself for $1 at used book bins.
It is not a matter of who should be helping the poor but who does it better. Private charitable organizations tend to do a much better job of using their funds and resources to actually benefit the poor. On the other hand, governments are really good at growing bureaucracies and lining the pockets of political allies.
Add to that the fact that forces charity is often resented and there are plenty of people who resent our current foreign aid outpouring in one way or another. While charity may be a calling of the church, supporting forced charity surely isn't. Didn't Jesus give the rich young man a choice? Could not Jesus have given the man a stronger imperative than he did? Could not he have preached fire and brimstone at the man and browbeat him until the man gave up his wealth? Jesus certainly could have, but it clearly would not have accomplished anything worthwhile.
That is why I oppose foreign aid. I may think it worthwhile to support Israel, but others may resent it. Others may believe it worthwhile to send more money to Africa and I see it as pouring money into a bottomless pit. Perhaps we could agree to reduce foreign aid to just those items that are truly strategically important to our national security and reduces taxes so that individuals can be more charitable.
That is why I oppose foreign aid. I may think it worthwhile to support Israel, but others may resent it. Others may believe it worthwhile to send more money to Africa and I see it as pouring money into a bottomless pit. Perhaps we could agree to reduce foreign aid to just those items that are truly strategically important to our national security and reduces taxes so that individuals can be more charitable.
We are already paying less in taxes than we are spending so what are you complaining about? Just pretend the food aid isn't being paid for by your tax dollars and vola! You have your choice!
Seriously, though, I agree private organizations are generally more efficient than gov'ts but government has the ability to call up and organize huge amounts of resources and sometimes this is necessary. It's not right to analyze foreign aid as pure charity IMO. For example, a lot of the aid we give to Israel and Egypt is not charity but is a judgement that it's cheaper to just give them money than for us to have to increase our defense budget accordingly.
As for choice, you already have one...it is called voting. Part of the unspoken agreement of living in a society is that you live with its gov't. Just as the government enforces the laws and policies that make it possible for you to earn your living it also taxes some of your living and spends it. You will never agree 100% with every spending decision made by the gov't BUT neither will anyone else but we do agree that we have a system for making such decisions and we abide by that system even when it makes calls we disagree with.
I did not mean to imply that Buddhism and American New Age were interchangeable. I was simply trying to keep my comment short and sweet.
Although, in modern American culture, it is fairly interchangeable in people's minds - what they perceive the New Age ideology to be, a mix of Buddhism, Feng Shui, Hindu beliefs, in short, a melting pot of Eastern philosophies.
Joe,
World Vision is also a favorite charity of mine. But there is one other that I also love to give to. Opportunity Internationa. Micro-loans is the way to go! http://tinyurl.com/zll6r
Milehimama,
Fair enough, often Buddhists themselves let the two mix more than they really should. New Agers also like to mix up Christian and Jewish beliefs as well into their mixes.
At least from my personal experience with my sister-in-law, I tend to find them very amateurish. It's a bit of a stretch IMO to talk about New Age ideology. It seems to me that many New Agers aren't really intellectuallly mature enough to really formulate an ideology. But I'll admit my sample size here is limited. We'd be in pretty bad shape if we all judged humanity by our in-laws.
Even if Oprah opens some schools in improverished areas with New Age ideologies I don't think it's anything to get upset about. People in developing nations aren't idiots. In fact they often have to be smarter than your typical American or European because just getting thru the day requires so much more effort on their part. I suspect many American New Agers who travel there to teach them would end up learning quite a bit more from them.
The Dali Lama is a Tibetian Buddhist which is a 2,500 year old religion. Not a New Age cult that was created sometime between the third and fourth season of the Simpsons.
The "New Age" movement is as old as humanity. The term may be new but the underlying philosophy is not. Many theologians would trace the roots of the New Age movement all the way back to Adam and Eve eating the apple. The attempt to be like God, to find the divine within us, the disavowal of a "God" outside of us whose word is sacrosanct and whose authority is absolute, etc. I certainly understand if people don't think Adam and Eve were literal, but the point is that there has been New Age type thinking all throughout human history. Buddhism and the modern New Age share much in common. They are a far different beast than the western religions.
But I'm left with uncomfortable questions: Why then are so many people around the globe still in extreme poverty?
Perhaps because Jesus said "You will always have the poor"? Christ knew that poverty could not be eliminated (and the rest of scripture testifies to that... in summary, given human nature and a sinful, fallen world, the goal of eliminating poverty is short-sighted and naive).
That doesn't mean it's not to be attacked. Christ commands as much, especially on a local and personal level (which is why conservative and religious people are far more giving of their own money while liberals tend to sanctimoniously prescribe what should be done with other people's money, and hypocritically hold tight to their own wallets).
Now, I've neither proved nor disproved that "the Church isn't doing enough", but likewise, the mere existence of poverty says nothing about that either.
I'm not opposed to cobelligerence, but I personally would be wary of entanglements with the world system merely for supposed utilitarian benefit. As has been noted by others, foreign aid often fails miserably, in accordance with the Law of Unintended Consequences. That is, if the money makes it to its intended recipients at all. If One Vote has a plan to overcome these types of things, then perhaps it's a worthwhile venture. If not, it's a waste and a shame.
no amount of money can substitute for the world's most pressing need: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Joe, you like to complain about Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. In fact, you've admitted that you pretty much detest Mr. Dawkins for his missionary zeal in promoting atheism.
But if many Christians believe that the world's most pressing need is the gospel, and if many Muslims believe the world's most pressing need is Islam, and if some other group thinks their absolute dogma is the world's most pressing need, then it seems to me that Hitchens, Dawkins, and anyone else who raises a red flag about evangelical religion is actually performing a tremendous public service.
Anyway, just wanted to express my disagreement on this particular point of yours. Let's get on with fixing the world, shall we ;)
no amount of money can substitute for the world's most pressing need: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I tend to find that people who start making a big deal of ideas such as this can often be counted on to supply very little of either.
Please don't trash talk my friend Joe, Boonton.
Mr. Carter has done way more than his share of making the world a better place -- and that's despite the great handicap of being more Calvinistic than Calvin :)
For example, his commitment to upholding biological ethics, and just as importantly, to honestly confronting and analyzing biological moral dilemmas is most commendable and impressive. If I end up making such a constructive contribution to the welfare of society, I would be pretty darn pleased with myself.
And of course, Joe is also a first-class blogger. He is not necessarily, as he admits, always the best shot in the archery class, but his energy and intelligence allows him to produce a first-rate and innovative blog.
I have just tagged you back in our Iraq discussion (the comment thread for "Thirty-Three Things, Volume 13", from May 29th). Your last comment in the thread was very good, so it took me a while to come up with a worthy response.
Cheers,
Matthew
Actually I wasn't directing that at Joe but at the type that says that sort of thing. I don't believe any person who seriously committed themselves to spreading the Gospel in impoverished areas could just ignore suffering. I do believe many say things like that and then don't do either. In other words it's an excuse not to write out a check at that moment and forget about the problem. I also think the reverse is true. Someone who seriously devoted themselves to helping others could not avoid a spiritual transformation. (OK, not necessarily a Christian one but nonetheless I think it would make them more spiritual...sorry if that's touchy feely sounding).
I wouldn't apply that to Joe, though, even though he did write it. He is, after all, trying to promote this charity and I don't doubt that he does what he can to help others.
I feel like I need to bring this up again...please read the article linked in the first comment: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html It is of great importance to have mercy and compassion for those in need, but it is also important that we use wisdom in how we apply this assistance. Throwing money at a problem can in fact make it worse, as explained in this article. If this is true, then we would do better to consider our approach to situations that move us emotionally, by injecting some objective analysis.
"Update": I guess the Air Force is serious about the whole thing. But I think I know a little about how the Air Force is 'interested' in things. I am still quite hopeful. I still pray regularly that the New York Stock Exchange will move here and be renamed the Great Falls Stock Exchange. Then maybe we'll find oil under Gore Hill and gold while panning in the Missouri River. After that, Steve Jobs, Dell, and the whole silicon crowd will move their operations here. Then every bit of technology in the country...