RSS

Category Archives: Poverty

Killing Black Babies and the Legacy of a Deceived King

Today, on a day when we pause to remember the towering legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I want to tell you a rather tragic story – a story about the intentional efforts to eradicate the black race.

It all begins back in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, a time when America was undergoing tremendous social change.  As a nation, we were riding high on the crest of the Gilded Age, a time when the United States economy grew at an unprecedented rate, and real wages, accumulated wealth and capital formation all exploded.  During this time, many within the social and academic elite were beginning to question the historical doctrines of the church.  The publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species had convinced many that man was nothing more than the unintended by-product of evolutionary forces that had been at play for millions upon millions of years.  And all of this contributed to the thinking of a small, but influential group of people beginning to dream of a new utopia – a world with few ethical boundaries.

Margaret Sanger, Found of Planned Parenthood

Enter Margaret Sanger. Sanger was an American socialist who dreamed of a world in which women had absolute power over their own bodies.  As a sex educator, nurse, and birth control activist, she spent her life in the pursuit of a dream: the establishment of the American Birth Control League, which later became known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  To many men and women in contemporary society, Sanger is a cultural hero, remembered much in the way that we remember Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.  But there is a much darker side to Sanger’s story.  For you see, Margaret Sanger was not simply an early feminist seeking to protect the rights of her oppressed sisters.  Margaret Sanger was a disciple of Thomas Malthus, a 19th century cleric and part-time political economist.  Listen to the words of Thomas Malthus:

“All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons.  Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too-frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.  Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits.  In our towns, we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.  In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.  But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”[1]

Much like her teachers, Malthus and Adolph Hitler, Sanger was a eugenicist who believed that we must seek to eradicate the “human weeds,” which she defined as “feeble-minded, syphilitic, irresponsible and defective stocks” that “bred unhindered.”  And who were these “defective stocks?”  They were the Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and anyone who wasn’t white and wealthy.  Consider Sanger’s own words:

“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists and Christians] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”[2]

Now, lest the reader think that this was an aberration in Sanger’s thinking, allow me to share a few more choice quotes from some of Sanger’s other writings:

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”[3]

“Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”[4]

While there is no doubt that these are wicked ideas masked by the language of freedom and choice, perhaps most despicable of all is Sanger’s contemptuous plan to enlist the aid of African American ministers in the genocide of their own people.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”[5]

This, of course, brings us back around to the subject of Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1966, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America inaugurated the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award, which is given in recognition of “excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.”  How ironic is it, that on May 5th, 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received the award named on behalf of a racist who sought to deceive the black clergy of America so as to further her agenda of racial purity.  How ironic that he would issue these words:

“Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.”[6]

Dr. King believed that the billions we spend on the “engines of war” made us a race of “insane men.”  I wonder how he would feel today knowing that we spend hunderds of millions every year – in the United States alone – on the planned termination of infants.[7]  I wonder how he would feel knowing that even today, 64% of all abortions are performed on women of color?  I wonder how he would feel knowing that 69% of the women who abort live just above or even below the poverty line?[8]  Is this the “mountaintop” of racial equality that Dr. King envisioned? Or is this Sanger’s mountaintop of racial purity?


[1] Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population. (McLean, IndyPublish: 2002).

[2] Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922.  Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

[3] Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

[4] Margaret Sanger, “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

[5] Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

[7] The average cost of an abortion in the United States is $413.  If 1.21 million were performed in 2005, that means that Americans collectively paid $499,730,000 to terminate babies that year.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John Perkins and the Road to Galatians 2:20

Just nine hours ago, on the eve of this nation’s 28th annual celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I had the privilege of standing near an elderly black gentleman by the name of Dr. John Perkins.  Now please understand, in my life, I have had the somewhat unique opportunity to meet and speak with several well-known individuals, most notably Bono, N.T. Wright, and even, on one occasion, President Jimmy Carter.  But as I stood in that lobby at Willowcreek Community Church this morning, trying hard to summon the right words to explain the importance of Dr. Perkins to my seven-year old son, I couldn’t bring myself to stand in line for the chance to meet him.  Something in me just knew that I would have nothing to say.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Perkins, he is the son of an impoverished sharecropper who grew up in New Hebron, Mississippi. When his older brother was killed at the hands of a town marshal, Perkins fled to California in the hopes of never returning home.  But God had other plans.  In 1960, at the age of 27, Perkins returned to Mississippi to share his new found Christian faith.  And it was then that he began his public ministry, working to bring about racial reconciliation and healing through the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.  Dr. Perkins has been a leader in the black community for over 50 years, and has dedicated himself to galvanizing people and ministries to take up the call of working in concert with the poor and vulnerable.  He does this because he believes in the mighty truth of Galatians 2:20:

“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

Tonight, as I continue to ponder what it means for me to try to raise my sons in a way that encourages them to spend their lives in the fight for the fullest expression of the Kingdom of God, I find myself thinking of two passages penned by Dr. Perkins.  I leave them with you in the hopes that they will challenge you in the same way that they have challenged me.

“After one horrific night of torture in jail, Perkins underwent a crisis of faith.  ‘It was time for me to decide if I really did believe what I’d so often professed, that only in the love of Christ, not in power of violence, is there any hope for me or the world.  I began to see how hate could destroy me.  In the end, I had to agree with Dr. King that God wanted us to return good for evil, not evil for evil. ‘Love your enemy,’ Jesus said.  And I determined to do it.  It’s a profound, mysterious truth, Jesus’ concept of love overpowering hate.  I may not see it in my lifetime.  But I know it’s true.  Because on that bed, full of bruises and stitches, God made it true in me.  I got a transfusion of hope.”[1]

* * * * * * * *

“The existence of a compelling Christian witness in our time does not depend on our access to the White House, the size of our churches, or the cultural relevance of our pastors.  It depends instead, on our ability to sing better songs with our lives.  True conversion is always personal, but it is never solely about the individual who experiences God’s love and knows the good news of salvation.  True conversion is about learning to sing songs in which our life harmonizes with others’ – even the lives of those least like us.”[2]

Finally, for those of you who might enjoy the opportunity to hear from Dr. Perkins directly, I offer you this half-hour video from an interview he did at St. Norbert College.


[1] Charles Marsh and John Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Towards Beloved Community (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press: 2009), 12.

[2] Charles Marsh and John Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Towards Beloved Community (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press: 2009), 70.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Empire in Decline: Drowning out the “Vox Populi”

2012 is going to be an interesting year.  Assuming the Mayans got it wrong and the world does not end on December 21st, we are looking at year of ever-increasing instability.  As the Arab Spring shows no signs of letting up, as the economy continues to struggle amidst the euro-crisis, and as the national debt continues to soar, we Americans will be charged with the task of deciding who it is that we believe can best guide us through these tumultuous waters?

Unfortunately, as we approach the November elections, we do so as a people newly crippled by what the New York Times calls the “most conservative” Supreme Court in decades.[1]   Back in 2008, a non-profit corporation called Citizens United fought for the right to air a film called Hillary: The Movie within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.  At stake was the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which sought to regulate the financing of political campaigns.  While the lower courts upheld the 2002 BCRA, the Supreme Court took up the case on appeal in January of 2008 and reversed the ruling of the lower courts.

So what does that mean in practical terms?  Well, in short, the case did not alter the ban on corporations and unions donating to either candidate campaigns or political parties.  Those limitations are still in effect.  But what it did do was make it legal for corporations and unions to pump unlimited amounts of money into politically oriented groups that theoretically operate independently of individuals seeking office.

Still not seeing the problem?  Well let’s take Newt Gingrich as an example.  Prior to this ruling, no one could make a contribution to Gingrich’s campaign that was greater than $2500.  And that is still true.  But now, what someone can do is make a $30 million donation to a theoretically independent group that can invest that money into the election cycle in any way that it sees fit.

So what are candidates such as Gingrich, Romney, Obama, etc. doing?  All of them are creating Super-PACs, which can raise and spend as much money as they want.  Technically, these Super-PACs are not allowed to directly coordinate with any particular campaign.  But what happens is that supporters of each candidate create a Super-PAC on behalf of their candidate of choice and use the money solely to support his/her campaign.  Then, as happened last spring in Gingrich’s campaign, an aide will leave the official campaign to take on a leadership role with the affiliated Super-PAC.  Following that, the candidate will legally begin to raise money for his or her Super-PAC, effectively by-passing the limitations on how much an individual, corporation or union can contribute to the candidate.

Can you see where this is going?  In the past, Big Tabaco was prohibited from contributing money directly to an individual candidate.  Sure, there were other ways that pressure was applied, but there were limitations in place that sought to protect the integrity of the election process.  Now, if Big Tabaco wants a favorable ruling to pass, it has all the power of its bankroll at its disposal.  “Hey Newt.  You want a nice $20 million dollar donation going to your Super-PAC?  This is how you’re going to vote.  And if you don’t, we’ll take our $20 million elsewhere …”

In an interview with Time Magazine, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter had this to say:

“We’re suddenly entering a very different world where people with large sums of money, if they choose, are going to be able to spend it easily in ways that may buy elections.”

This is a problem for all American citizens.  But for those of us who profess to believe in Jesus the Christ – for those of us who are charged with defending the poor – this is monumental.  For the voice of the poor, which is already severely muted in our society, is only going to get weaker when money of this magnitude is allowed to be funneled into politics in this manner.  This is why, we, as Christians, should be on the forefront of the fight to restore campaign finance restrictions.  While I understand the issues related to the first amendment and the protection of free speech, we have to ask the question: whose right to speak is being protected here?  The vox populi or the vox opulenta?

 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 1, 2012 in Politics and Culture, Poverty

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Empire in Decline: The Poorest of the Poor

Three months ago, in September 2011, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a new study on income disparity and economic stability. While this may not seem like the kind of thing that I might be prone to discuss on a site that deals with Christian theology and culture, I would argue that the findings of this report are extremely significant for a Church that is seeking to bear witness to the realities and the justice of the Kingdom of God.

So let’s start by taking a look at the report.  According to the study, countries whose wealth was distributed more equitably between the poles of wealth and poverty tended to experience stronger and more consistent economic growth over a sustained period of time.   In other words, countries with a sizable and strong middle class tended to experience consistent economic growth that was accessible to broader portions of the population.

By contrast, in countries where there was a greater economic disparity between the wealthy citizens and the impoverished citizens, economies tended to experience more frequent recessions that lasted longer and plunged deeper.  So, in other words, countries with weak middle classes tended to experience greater economic instability, which in turn produced hardships for all levels of society.

So why should this concern us?  Because over the past 30 years, the income gap in the United States is growing at an alarming rate.  Thirty years ago, the wealthiest 1% of all Americans controlled just over 30% of the national wealth.  But today, that same group of people now controls 40% of the nation’s wealth.  So as the United States enters a period of time where its income gap is growing and its middle class is weakening, we, as Christians, need to ask some very serious questions regarding justice.  For in times of deep recession and economic hardship, it is not the wealthy that bear the weight of the burden.  The wealthy, by virtue of their economic power, tend to have the resources in reserve to sustain themselves in periods of hardship.  But the poorest of the poor, a group that we are called to defend as Christians, do not have the economic reserves to sustain themselves in these periods of instability.[1]

So the question is: how do we as American Christians defend the poor among us when the system that we live and breath within is currently being managed in such a way as to concentrate wealth within a miniscule segment of society?


[1] Interestingly enough, this same phenomenon appears to occur even within the United States itself.  According to the most recent 2010 census data, the 10 states with smallest average income gap had an average unemployment rate of 6%.  By comparison, the states with the highest average income gap experienced an unemployment rate of 8.9%, which is almost 50% higher than the states with lesser income gaps.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on December 31, 2011 in Politics and Culture, Poverty

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 661 other followers

%d bloggers like this: