In the same vein:

Slavery ended less than 150 years ago–that's barely two or three generations. And segregatition (i.e. de facto slavery) didn't end, on paper, until just 30 years ago, and the socio-economic redress is still going on. While individuals are not wholly in the thrall of historic forces, neither are they wholly free of them. Slavery was rape and murder and spiritual destruction on a scale that is hard to imagine. There IS a reason why blacks are still largely impoverished, imprisoned, etc. etc. And that reason STILL is slavery.

And people are saying the days of “affirmative action” are OVER????

Hah! The NEGATIVE action of centuries is NOT wiped out in a matter of decades. Again, individual freedom and responsibility are important to cultivate and encourage; but collective and institutional response to damage done is still necessary.

It explains why wealthy areas have lower birth rates. There is an inverse relationship between consumption rate and fertility rate. (And I think you are right in that a lot of people, in wealthy countries especially, do not listen (and rightly so) to the RCC on the issue of birth control.)

But unfortunately we would need more than ten planet earths for this trend to create population equilibrium.

Also, that wealth (and food) in Europe or the US draws immigrants which bring the population up in the wealthy country without slowing the birthrate in the country of origin.

How do you explain the facts that Europe has more food than ever in its history yet its birth rate has been declining for years?

Yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to preach that contraception is a sin and many European countries are seeing declining birthrates. One doesn't have to stop in order for the other to become reality. The issue really is how many people listen to the RCC on this issue.

Here's an article about the “crisis of confidence” speech that you might enjoy. I'm thinking of ordering the book this scholar has written. http://www.hnn.us/articles/95308.html#

Peace,
D

The idea that those with wealth must, by the compulsion of law and penalty, give to those who have little has a spiritual flaw, a political flaw, an ethical flaw and an economic flaw.

The spiritual flaw is thinking that this equates to charity. Charity is grounded in a compassionate heart not compulsion. The spiritual benefit to both the giver and receiver are in grave danger in any system that makes charitable giving compulsory.

The political flaw is that in every compulsory redistribution system, there must be an entity that decides what gets redistributed to whom. This may work well when a benevolent and reasonably altruistic person runs that entity, but the very creation of the entity creates a point of power which will eventually be sought by those who would use power for their own sake.

The ethical flaw is the assumption that it is 'just' to redistribute wealth. Most people of wealth have worked hard and made great sacrifices to attain their wealth. Many people who are now hard-working and poor aspire to be hard-working and well-off. It seems manifestly unjust to take from someone who works 11 hour days while continuing to improve their knowledge and skills and give to someone who punches the clock and puts in their 8 hours.

The economic flaw is two-fold. First, the assumption that productivity and thus wealth will continue to be produced at the same pace under a system that involves compulsory redistribution of the product of a person’s labor. Each person is motivated by whatever motivates them. The individual liberty to use the product of your labor as you see fit is the most universal motivator of labor and productivity. The idea that people will work as hard when they get to keep less and less gravely mistakes what motivates hard work. As wealth redistribution increases, the overall productivity of a society will decrease because those who would otherwise choose to work long and hard to increase their earnings are less motivated.

Second, people who are motivated to ‘get ahead,’ in a society that emphasizes ‘redistributive justice,’ will get ahead through befriending the right people and saying the right things – through political maneuvering which is not wealth producing. People who get ahead in a capitalist society do so by producing goods or services that are of value to other people. This dynamic, in conjunction with the process outlined in the previous paragraph, further erodes the overall productivity of a society.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe in charity and philanthropy. I believe in voluntary redistribution of wealth because that provides a mental/emotional/spiritual benefit to both the giver and the receiver. I believe in justice, defined as having a clear and impartial set of rules that are enforced equally upon every member of a society or community.

I can see the attractiveness of “redistributive justice.” However, redistribution does not bring about the visions of the future that entice people to embrace it. “Redistributive justice”, in the long run, lead to courser human relations, a warped sense of justice, and a decrease in the overall wealth of a community or country. I will admit that communism can be a beautiful alternative on a small scale (say, up to 50 people) because each person has a relationship with all the others and has a sense of caring for the community in a voluntary and loving fashion. After all, most families are little one household communist communities. However, without the face-to-face voluntary relationships of love that motivate caring, sharing and mutual accountability, the possible good of ‘redistributive justice’ turns rancid and ugly. The history of countries that have embraced redistribution proves this to be true.

It is critical that all women have access to health care, including access to contraceptives. When they have fewer children those children do better.

The Pope must recognize his responsibility in today's global crises. He also needs to free up the monumental wealth of the Catholic Church to bring about change.

Thirty years ago next week, on July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter delivered his (in)famous “crisis of confidence” speech, sometimes labeled the “malaise” speech, even though Carter never used that word. Here are two excerpts:

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

“We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.”

Clearly, materialism and consumerism were on Carter's mind as issues the nation needed to confront that night.

The beginning of the materialistic binge probably can be dated sometime during the Vietnam War era, at the time when consumerism began trumping productivity–the time when we began importing more goods than we were exporting.

You are absolutely right that taking on the corporate powers won't be enough. We need to confront this problem as individuals and as a society, because we all are part of the problem. Carter's words, whatever any of us thought of his presidency at the time, were prophetic.

What I appreciate is that the pope is not bound by political dogmatism, as it seems so many others are, but by a sense of not only peace and justice, but Truth. The Church, Catholic or Protestant, should never aquiesce (sp) to the powers and principalities of this age. It needs to speak the truth in love, whether it be taking on the corporate powers or the political ideologies that often plague the most innocent of society.

Thank you, Pope Benedict. I heard a Catholic professor speak yesterday on my state's public radio aft. talk show. She noted that the Pope not only takes on corporate powers, but also takes on those who did not tell the truth in order to secure loans they couldn't afford. In other words, it's about taking on corporate powers, but it's also about how the rest of us are also part of the problem by participating in this materialistic binge starting under Reagan and perpetuated by the Clintons and Bushes.

http://www.UnitedNationsUS.com
It is NOT a blog website! Get info, then come back here to write your thoughts!

UN overall General News with 5 World geographical areas defined and 10 subject areas such as Worldwide Human Rights, World Pease and Security, Humanitarian Aid and Refugees…
WHO overall General News with 6 subject areas such as 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu, Disease Outbreak Suppression, Emergency and Disaster Update…
WFP-IFAD-FAO World Food overall General News with 6 subject areas such as Geo Hot Spots, On Location Observations…
US CDC (Centers for Disease Control) overall General News…
US Dept of Homeland Security overall General News…

GREAT website for the Person who does NOT (or want to) belong to one of the SOCIAL NETWORKING websites (Twitter, FaceBook etc) and does NOT understand RSS Feeds… It's all right here for them!

Another BENEFIT: can navigate WITHOUT having to Go To the Home page, next subject… CLICK and there.

Basically, more food means more people. Hunger can never be solved, because increasing food availability causes an increase in human population, just as in deer population, cockroach population, or any other population. Then, as the population numbers get high relative to the available food, scarcity sets in and then famine. It is very sad and very painful, but we are not doing anyone any favors over the long term by increasing agricultural yields using fossil fuels and modern machinery.

I also found it interesting that when the Pope was visiting Israel he said, and I am paraphrasing: [When one institution has too much say and diversity is not allowed to thrive, people become repressed and ineffective and tyranny sets in.” This was during the same period that a group of Catholics and other “fundamentalist” Christians were condemning Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to speak at their graduation commencement ceremony.

Social Justice, in my opinion, cannot occur unless contradictions are removed
and “leaders” realize that justice should not be approached from a narrow self-serving perspective.