Tag: poverty

Categories
Opinions

Why I Don’t Care About Abortion

In the aftermath of the L.I.F.E. Club panel, a good portion of the resulting conversation has been devoted to whether or not the question “When does life begin?” was properly addressed. No matter the speaker’s opinion about the panel as a whole, all voices seemed to agree that this is vital question that needs to be addressed before any dialogue concerning abortion can occur. I have to say, I think this precondition is incredibly damaging, regardless of which position you take.

lydai copyThe motives of those who ask this question are the same: to determine whether or not abortion can be considered morally wrong, and therefore punishable by the law. Pro-lifers push toward conception. Pro-choicers push toward birth. Each wants to feel justified in their argument. They want to feel irrefutable. And so they seek out ultimatums. Is abortion murder? From each side comes either a resounding yes or no. The problem is that this becomes the beginning and end of the conversation. No middle ground can be reached. And few people have realized that this is perhaps the most irrelevant question anyone could be asking.

To begin with, let’s look at what’s being said. There are those who are pro-life. They see abortion as a definitive act of killing. Something was created, and abortion destroyed it. They want abortion to be completely illegal. They are “anti-abortion.” If that’s one side of the argument, then the other side should be… “Pro-death”? No, that’s not it. Are they “pro-abortion”? No, that’s not it either. Pro-lifers are anti-abortion, but they are facing off against those who identify themselves as pro-CHOICE. Is it just me, or are “life” and “choice” not exactly opposites? Perhaps the reason the arguments between the two camps haven’t been going anywhere is that they aren’t actually arguing about the same thing.

No one, I can guarantee you, no one besides Daniel Tosh is out there in the world swinging a sign that reads “We should have abortions!” Rather, the appeal is this: “We should have the RIGHT to have abortions!” Most of you reading this will likely believe that abortion is killing, and that killing is wrong. You’ll also most likely think that no one should have the right to kill. But since there’s also no one out there (I’m guessing) with a sign that says “We should have the right to murder!” there must be something different about abortion. There’s clearly a reason that anyone would fight to allow this action, or to contradict its immorality. So, these are the questions that we should be asking, to replace the extraneous question of life: What are the reasons for abortion? And, what can we do to eliminate those reasons?

A person’s choice to have an abortion is, of course, inspired by any number of unfortunate factors: poverty, rape, incest, age, violence, medical issues, mental instability, and any number of extreme situations— there are babies born into slavery and prostitution, babies born destined to end up abandoned.  Whether or not you agree that all of these circumstances merit an abortion, certainly you can see how some of them do, or at the very least, you can recognize the need for a system that can be responsible for the infants it prevents from being aborted. You can recognize the need for improved sex education. You can recognize the need for a change.

So, is abortion murder? Who cares? The truth is, abortion does not matter. It doesn’t. If the main bone you have to pick is simply a question of the beginning and end of life, you need to broaden your focus to include any kind of death—death from war, death from starvation, death disease. All of these deaths, including death from abortion, grow out of the same causes—poverty, power and control, lack of education, terrible situations. Untimely deaths will not cease until these causes are eradicated. So in the meantime, yes: women should have the right to have an abortion. And, no: we should not talk about whether or not that’s wrong. Because the way to prevent abortion, and war, every other kind of injustice in the world is not to tell people to “just stop.” The way to prevent it is to make it unnecessary. That’s an enterprise I think everyone can support, be they pro-life or pro-choice.

 

Categories
Opinions

Hatchets, Fire, and Other Fun Parenting Techniques

Over the last few weeks a few of my friends on “The Facebook” have posted an article from The Atlantic entitled “The Overprotected Kid” by Hanna Rosin.

The article centers on “playgrounds” in North Wales, UK that are essentially a junk heap of objects that children can play in. The idea is that if children are able to tackle seemingly dangerous scenarios (building forts, lighting fires, etc.) they will better understand the mechanics of such things and gain confidence. The article’s tagline states, “A preoccupation with safety has stripped childhood of independence, risk taking, and discovery—without making it safer. A new kind of playground points to a better solution.”

childredUnsurprisingly the article has gained some attention and thus I see it posted by varying groups of my Facebook friends. Being at an age (25) where I have friends both still in college and reaching well into adulthood I have an opportunity to see decades of opinions. And, consequently, I see and hear a lot on the topic of “parenting techniques.”

And parenting techniques, quite frankly, baffle me. The easy argument would be: I am not a parent. But more than that the topic seeps into a greater world view that I just don’t understand.

Having a “parenting technique” seems to be something new since I was a child. A quick guess would be that this has to do with technology. In the same way that teenage girls take 100 selfies to get just the right one, mothers and fathers are saving those sunlit living room photos for the next blog post on whatever Christian or Hipster website they blog through. And every other parent is reading it and seeing their inferiority. So they, and consequently all of us, overanalyze everything.

And it drives me crazy.

I just don’t believe that my parents (or generations before them) had a “technique” in raising us. OF COURSE they had rights and wrongs. There was a reason my parents did not homeschool us, that we attended cultural events regularly, that we were not allowed to watch TV every day or allowed to talk back. But I think my parents saw that as something they dealt with as it came- knowing they wanted to instill good moral values and respectful children. What I see now is a crazed attempt to plan a perfect child who grows into a depression-and-anxiety-free adult.

So back to the article. A playground where children can play with stuff and light fires with minimal supervision.

Sure, fine. Except I don’t understand why it is necessary for so many of the folks who posted this article.

The article focuses on a middle-class populated area. There really isn’t space for kids to “spread their wings.” Instead the crappy alternative is a pile of junk. Scraps and trash litter the floor, rotting couches strewn in the photos. This might be the sad alternative to those kids but my friends posting it are from rural West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and even here.

So I find myself baffled and frustrated. Frustrated because I think if we stopped overanalyzing things and let things happen we would end up with kids who love the outdoors and express empathy for fellow human beings. Baffled because I can’t imagine a parent who thinks putting their children in a caged area with controlled fire is a better courage builder than exploring the woods or making a friend from a different social, economic, or racial background.

There are things to worry about. OF COURSE THERE ARE. Kidnapping is terrifying and so is hitting your head. But as the article points out- that stuff has not stopped since we began over-analyzing and implementing these “parenting techniques.”

It makes me so grateful for my childhood and how I was raised. My parents both worked, we all went to public school in a poor area. We were bound to do stupid things and get knocked around a bit. I had well-educated interesting GOOD parents and a stable home. But not everyone around me did and so I inherited some of those bruises too which I count only as good.

When he was 8 my parents bought my brother a hatchet-yes A HATCHET. He and his friends would go into the woods by themselves to hack away at old logs. My sister, being our extrovert, would join with masses of bored teenagers in the evenings looking for things to do.

We were expected to call if we were going to miss dinner and to do well in school. We were expected to sit quietly in church and concerts. My parents were stringent but we were allowed to explore our world as best we could.

And perhaps more importantly than the freedom given us in our own backyard was the freedom given us with our friends. Occasionally our parents would question the quality of a person of interest but generally they respected our judgment.

I learned as much in the broken-down trailers and smoke-filled homes of my friends as I have anywhere. I learned of my privilege. I learned to help out in scary situations and how to cope. I learned that kids with reduced lunches had them for a reason. I learned that fathers that were scary went hand-in-hand with mothers that were frightened and much of my classmate’s life would be spent trying to gingerly navigate that. I learned that poverty and hungry and fear and neglect and abuse were all rolled into a crazy cycle.

I am surprised that these kinds of risks are not mentioned in this article since I see them wrapped into the same kind of over-protection it’s talking about. And I see it wrapped in the same kinds of “parenting techniques.”

I know these things are risky. There is really horrible stuff that can happen. But freedom to explore, befriend and fumble creates fiber, embeds humanity and opens eyes. Just like we need exposure to antibodies to create immunities we need experience to grabble with life.

Often people say “when you have kids you will understand.” And maybe that’s part of the problem, this belief that our kid somehow has a chance to be THE BEST EVER. I just hope if that day ever comes I can take a breath, hand over a bag of gluten-free vegan kale chips, and tell my kid to come back before it gets dark. Oh – and no fire, just no.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Two Views: Are Non-profit Careers Necessary for Christian Students?

I don’t think it is necessary for Christians to steer their careers toward nonprofit work or the helping professions. I think Christians should steer their careers towards the skills and passions the Lord has blessed them with and that they have gained throughout life. As Christians, we can often get wrapped up in thinking a calling only means becoming a full time missionary or being a pastor. Though some are called into those fields, many are not. A calling can be in almost any place of employment, whether it is a “helping profession” or “non-helping profession”. It could be a stock broker, a realtor, a computer engineer, or a music teacher; we can still serve God wherever we are working.

MichelleWith that being said, what about the Christians who do have the skills and passions that can be used in a nonprofit or go into a help-related profession?  These Christians must still be wary of the implications behind this line of work. Sometimes Christians jump into this realm of work thinking that since they are working for a nonprofit organization or are in the “helping profession” they are automatically “helping” and serving other people. Unfortunately, just the intention of “helping”, especially internationally could actually hurt those they are trying to help and serve.

Our society in the West often promotes the idea that we know everything and have all the answers to the world’s problems. In the book When Helping Hurts by Brian Fikkert, Fikkert talks about this issue and the unconscious “god complex” that many Christians in the West have. This “god complex” is a way we sometimes act towards the “economically poor,” in that we are superior and they are inferior. We believe that if we provide the “things” the poor are lacking they will rise out of poverty and have better lives. Though this can be a part of the solution, solely giving out monetary or material goods will not solve the issue of poverty. I am not trying to steer people away from this field of work (I myself hope to work in this field one day) but as Christians, and really anyone who steers their career toward non-profit work, we need to be very aware of this false concept.

When we do approach the nonprofit and helping professions world with the humble understanding that we do not have all the answers to poverty, and that money and material goods will not solve all the world’s problems, we can then be a small part of the process of changing people’s lives. Throughout my college experience, I have gained a better understanding of what this looks like through becoming more culturally sensitive, looking at poverty with a bottom-up holistic approach, and realizing I do not have all the answers. In Bryant Myer’s book Walking with the Poor, he talks about this holistic or transformational form of development which is “seeking positive change in the whole of human life materially, socially, psychologically, and spiritually”. When we approach these fields of work this way, we will not only go in with the right intentions but also the right mindset.

At the end of the day, no matter what field of work we as Christians go into, whether it’s working as a financial planner for a corporation or as a development worker in Guatemala, God can use us in those places in unexpected ways.

 

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

Would marriage help solve America’s poverty problems? Senator Marco Rubio seems to think so. Since the War on Poverty was declared 50 years ago there have been many theories and ideas about how to solve the problem of poverty. But Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a new theory. In a recent speech that addressed wealth inequality, Senator Rubio asserted that the “greatest tool to lift children and families out of poverty” is “marriage.” Senator Rubio keenly pointed out that marriage has become more and more unpopular over the past 50 years, but he believes that it is the greatest solution to the poverty problems that young people face.

So is marriage the ultimate tool that will fix America’s poverty problems?

jedNow before we begin to critique Senator Rubio’s bold statement, it is important to point out that in the Senator’s speech he cites some interesting data concerning the links between marriage and a college education. Indeed, the Senator showed that 64% of adults who have a college degree are married in contrast to only 47% of adults who only have a high school diploma.

Rubio’s theory goes like this: an individual’s economic future is dependent not only upon having money and a good income but is also heavily dependent upon social capital. Marriage and a strong family structure create an environment that manifests social capital. When an individual is raised in a family that invests in him/her socially then the person will be better equipped to handle the challenges in the future. Increases in marriage will cause increases in social capital, which will then increase an individual’s opportunities for economic success.

No one could refute the merits of this argument. But how does this help the millions of children and adults who were not raised in a home with married parents?

Getting married would not make an unemployed person become employed. Getting married would not miraculously increase a person’s low wages. Marriage would certainly have an impact on wealth inequality for future generations but it would not solve the poverty problem for people right now.

Another approach must be taken for those that are already entrapped by their poverty.

Right now, over 47 million Americans do not have health insurance, almost 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps and over 5 million Americans are currently receiving unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, it is estimated that over 15 percent of Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or have completely given up on finding a job and have stopped looking for employment.

Lifting America out poverty will depend on whether lawmakers can find a way to increase employment, wealth, and wages. President Obama addressed this in his State of the Union speech. Ideas like raising the minimum wage to $10.10, extending unemployment benefits for an additional 14 weeks, and lowering fees and costs for businesses that hire minority workers would have an immediate impact on the lives of poor people right now.

There are key factors that will contribute to solving these problems that have nothing to do with being married. Having a job, having a job that is full time, having a job that pays a sustainable wage, and having a substantial income that provides for a person’s needs are all positive growth factors that contribute to a person’s ability to provide for himself. The common link between all of those factors is income. Having the ability to purchase, having the ability to make your own destiny, and having money at your disposal are all keys to freeing a person from the prison of poverty.

Categories
Opinions Two Views

Is Marriage the Greatest Tool for Lifting Families out of Poverty?

“Marriage” is a hard topic to broach in public debate, particularly in the context of economics. Many women, like myself, view it with a certain amount of trepidation when the subject comes up; the floodgates seem to be open to derogatory comments about “welfare queens” and single-motherhood, with poor women bearing the brunt of poorly-disguised scorn and highly insensitive gaffes. The conversation and ensuing media rigamorale can be so off-putting.

sarahHowever, it’s not a conversation that we should tune out. Some have suggested that the collapse of the married, two-parent family – the result of decades of rising divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, and rising numbers of couples who do not marry – has resulted in much of the poverty we see today.

Indeed, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) recently made bold a speech on the fifty year anniversary of the War on Poverty in which he said “The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”

I would agree with Rubio, though with a few objections. To begin with, I don’t think marriage is a panacea to the current economic climate. (Granted, it’s not clear that in context of his speech that Rubio was assuming that it was.) I’m not even sure that it’s “the greatest” tool to combat poverty, either. That lends itself too much to a messianic definition of marriage, which I don’t think is appropriate. (It also seems to cheapen other equally important strategies to combat poverty.)

However, whether we like it or not, marriage and other social relationships do affect us and how rich and how poor we are. As Nick Schultz of the American Enterprise Institute points out in “Home Economics: the Consequences of a Changing Family Structure,” economics is not solely a study of numbers and monetary transactions. The most important economic questions of our time – rising income inequality, depressed wages, and slow economic growth – cannot be answered without touching upon our social institutions. If this is the case, marriage must be addressed.

Marriage delivers on a number of good things that can help relieve poverty. For one, it seems to  promote economic  mobilization. Our modern version of marriage has all the promise to provide a stable home for children, helping them succeed later in life. Though they acknowledge that the effects of marriage are not the only factor, a new Brookings Institution study makes the claim that “children born into continuously married family  [sic] have much better economic mobility than those in single parent families.” So, marriage seems to be good for the kids.

It’s also good for the adults. In the absence of marriage, single parents, particularly single moms, have to struggle working one or more job, along with the regular housework and childrearing.  According to a study undertaken by the Atlantic, poor women and single moms are more likely to have higher levels of anxiety, to live with regret, to stress about their kids, and rely on their family and friends for money. Marriage can relieve some of the pressure by turning one income into two.

Altogether, marriage creates a miniature economy that has the potential to benefit all parties and, in the best marriages, this is fueled by a love and warmth that cannot be reproduced elsewhere.

That being said, the solution to poverty in the United States can’t just be “get married,” nor should we expect that to be the solution for every individual. However, marriage is nonetheless an important aspect to resolving poverty and one of our greatest tools. Given its benefits, why don’t we encourage it enough? Let’s stop tuning out the conversation based on political rhetoric and start looking at marriage as the great thing that it is.

Categories
News

Praxis 2013: Hunger, Poverty, and the Christian Walk

Students receive their soup and bread as part of Praxis events.
Students receive their soup and bread as part of Praxis events.

Praxis, defined on the Houghton College website as “a reflection aimed toward action,” spanned the week of January 20-25th  and reflected on the topic “Feasting and Fasting” through various events, chapels, and workshops.
This spring’s Praxis week featured Houghton professors Michael Jordan and Sarah Derck, as well as Duke Divinity School’s Norman Wirzba and the global executive officer of Food for the Hungry, Luis Noda.

Sarah Derck, professor of Old Testament, commenced the week’s events in Monday’s chapel, where she explored the topic “Food in the Old Testament,” and introduced ways for Christians to relate to seemingly outdated Biblical tradition.  Derck explained that while considering this topic, she fittingly prefers to start at the beginning, with the original sin. In introducing her lecture, Derck said, “Americans have a love/hate relationship with our food.”  She went on to voice her hope that we might recover strength in such a relationship.

After Derck’s lecture, Sodexo challenged students to exchange one cafeteria meal for a simpler dinner of bread and soup.  Participation in this event not only encouraged students to discipline their bodies through eating less, but also allowed them to better the community, as Sodexo will be donating the cost of each forfeited dinner to a local food pantry.

Other related activities and discussions included a workshop on how to create and maintain a window garden, a panel discussion considering various subcategories of vegetarianism, and a campus-wide potluck, followed by communion, held Thursday evening as a conclusive event to the week’s reflection.

Tuesday’s workshop discussions included a lecture presented by Mike Walters, Professor of Christian Ministries, examining “Feasting and Fasting as Spiritual Disciplines.”  The lecture explored aspects of feasting and fasting such as choosing to limit food intake in order to move closer to God, and how not doing so potentially leads away from His will.

Also held on Tuesday were two panel discussions: one on vegetarianism and another concerned with informing attendees about members in the community currently producing food.
Luis Noda led Wednesday’s chapel with a lecture on “Food and Social Justice,” focusing on the indisputable lack of food in the world today. As part of the organization Food for the Hungry, Noda is understandably interested in this lack of food and how it relates to the presence of hunger.
In a description concerning the topic of his lecture, Noda wrote, “Psalm 146 mentions how the Lord gives food to the hungry, as well as how he responds to other social justice issues.  Chronic hunger and malnourishment is intimately linked to the lack of social justice from the Biblical point of view and interrelated to poverty.”  Noda discussed ways in which Christians should react to such an injustice.

Thursday offered a variety of workshops and discussions including Michael Jordan’s lecture exploring “Feasting and Fasting Through the Christian Year.”  Jordan said, concerning both his lecture and Praxis as a whole, “I hope it will help students to develop a closer connection to the source of their food.”  He encouraged those who listened to learn from traditional feasts and fasts of the Christian year, as they often create paths for spiritual growth.

Norman Wirzba’s Friday lecture on “Eating as a Christian Act” signified a final conclusion to the week’s reflection.  Wirzba said, “My focus for the talk [was] on what it looks like for Christians to think about food as a gift from God, rather than a commodity, like so much of our industrial food system wants us to think.”

Concerning the spring Praxis, Michael Jordan said, “Through feasting and fasting, we are disciplining our bodies.  We need to be more content to do that.”