Sanctity of Life

taken from http://www.verticalpoliticsinstitute.com

WHEN LIFE BEGINS

Life does begin at the point of conception. We should protect human life, the foundation of our civilization. It defines us as much as anything does, as to how we treat and how we even view another human life, as to whether it has intrinsic value or worth or whether it does not. Those of us who are pro life believe that we must do everything possible to protect that life, because protection of life is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as Americans. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all. That's why we search non-stop for that missing Boy Scout, or that missing young mother. That's why we search for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia after a mine explosion, or the hikers on Mount Hood. We value life and it is part of what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who celebrate death. They have a culture of death. We have a culture of life.

The clear science of when life begins is "When the male sperm and female egg join, a new and unique life form is created." Not at birth or viability, or when a lawyer says so. This happens at conception. This life is either human or something else. Science irrefutably would declare that the life which is starting from that moment is human. It's not a parrot, squirrel, or dolphin. It will never become a tree-it can only become a human. It has the entire DNA sequence that it will have for the rest of its life right then. In days it will begin to take on increasingly observable human characteristics and form, but at conception, it is biologically human.

A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EXIST

If this life is human, then the only issue left is whether this human life falls under the notion that it has a fundamental right of existence or not. If not, it is because we as a culture have decided that some human lives are simply not worth living. If we can decide that about an innocent and unborn baby, we can also decide it on the basis of less absolute criteria than that. If we make that choice (and this is all about "CHOICE," isn't it?) then someone may decide that a terminally ill person is not a life worth living. Maybe a severely disabled child is a life not worth living; what about a person with a limited IQ?

Some might say that's absurd--that an educated and enlightened society would never be so audacious as to begin to terminate life based on such arbitrary excuses? Well, Germany fell into just such a moral chasm in the 1930s. The murder of six million Jews, and millions of others, was justified because of their religion and millions of others were murdered because of their politics. Germany was not a primitive, superstitious culture. It was filled with those deemed to be intelligent and enlightened. But in the end, the truly good people were overwhelmed by the truly evil people.

THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE - FROM CONCEPTION TO DEATH

At the core of our society is the sanctity of human life. It is rooted in who we are as a culture and as a civilization. And should we turn our back on this fundamental truth, we have turned our back on the very essence and foundation of who we are as a people. We should always err on the side of life. We as a society believe life is precious. As Christians we believe that God is the creator and instigator of life.

At the heart of our belief in life is the understanding that if we are indeed equal all of us have intrinsic worth, and no one has more than another. But those of us who are pro life must recognize some fundamental facts. Life begins at conception but it doesn't end at birth. If we're really pro-life we have to be concerned about more than just the gestation period. Real pro-life people need to be concerned about affordable housing, safe neighborhoods, access to a college education. Every child deserves a quality education, first-rate health care, decent housing in a safe neighborhood, and clean air and drinking water. Every child deserves the opportunity to discover and use his God-given gifts and talents. That is what pro-life has to mean.

The issue of right to life is an issue of principle and conviction. If we value each other as human beings and believe that everybody has equal worth, and that that intrinsic value is not affected by net worth, or ancestry, or last name, or job description, or ability, or disability, then the issue of the sanctity of human life is far bigger than just being anti-abortion. Those of us who believe so strongly in the sanctity of life recognize that we became involved in politics because of our strong pro-life convictions. It's about being pro-life and exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day. Every human being has value. Every decision we make should always be on the side of life without equivocation.

Obama is back!

taken from http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2008/05/obama-is-back.html

For a while, on the long and torturous campaign trail, Obama seemed to focus excessively on the easier side of communitarianism: that we are all one; the hope and joy of togetherness. However, during his recent Wesleyan speech he revived the other half of his message: the call for service for the common good, a much more demanding subject.

For a time, we heard a lot of “we are not from red states, not from blue states, but from the United States.” We were invited to join the feel-good politics sprinkled liberally with the holy water of hope which has no cost.

In The Audacity of Hope, written before Obama declared his bid for the presidency, he was more mindful of the other half of the communitarian message, that we should “ground our politics in the notion of a common good.” He wrote, “We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies…We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation.”

On the campaign trail many of these profound insights faded. We heard painless declarations, such as “Our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat…we rise or fall as one nation,” and such undemanding observations as “…too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; [the] understanding that we are all tied together.”

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted; the regard in which America is held overseas is at an all time low; and major economic and security challenges pile up like so many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures on a tight leash. In plain English— restoration means sacrifices and a commitment to serve, to give rather than just to take.

At Wesleyan, Obama re-embraced this theme. He told the graduating class—and the rest of us— about the days in which he first served as a community organizer in Chicago: “…I had worked for weeks on this project. We waited and waited for people to show up, and finally, a group of older people walked into the hall. And they sat down. And a little old lady raised her hand and asked, ‘Is this where the bingo game is?’”

He continued, “It wasn't easy, but eventually, we made progress. Day by day, block by block, we brought the community together, and registered new voters, and we set up after school programs, and fought for new jobs, and helped people live lives with some measure of dignity.”

Better yet, he introduced a new note, one of great import: “I also began to realize that I wasn't just helping other people. Through service, I found a community that embraced me; citizenship that was meaningful; the direction that I'd been seeking. Through service, I discovered how my own improbable story fit in to the larger story of America.”

If you want to read more, go here, but the main point is clear: unless we all put our shoulders to the wheel, America with be stuck in the rut that it is in now. Right on, Obama.

Declaration of Principles agreed by IDU founders, London 1983.

taken from http://www.idu.org/principle.aspx

HAVING REGARD to their common convictions that democratic societies provide individuals throughout the world with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore

BEING COMMITTED to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organisation, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organise effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity;

HAVING REGARD to their common beliefs in an open society, where power is dispersed widely amongst free institutions, dedicated to creating conditions that will enable each individual to reach his full potential and to carry out his responsibilities to his fellow man; and where the central task of government is to serve the individual and to safeguard and promote individual freedom; and equally

STRESSING the moral commitments of a free and open society, supporting the institution of the family as its fundamental social and cohesive force, as well as social responsibility towards the weak and less fortunate, particularly by encouraging self-help and individual enterprise and choice in the provision of services;

BEING DEDICATED to a society of individuals working together in partnership for the common good;

HAVING REGARD to their common views that political democracy and private property are inseparable components of individual liberty and that the socially-oriented market economy provides the best means of creating the wealth and material prosperity to meet the legitimate aspirations of individuals, and of tackling social evils such as unemployment and inflation;

BELIEVING that this is the most effective and beneficial way of providing individual initiative and enterprise, responsible economic development, employment opportunities, low taxation and consumer choice;

HAVING REGARD to the threats posed by the extreme Left and the extreme Right;

REJECTING any form of totalitarianism, which brings so much suffering and restricts so many freedoms today;

HAVING REGARD to the important global tasks which render necessary and desirable a closer and efficient collaboration of their parties, inspired by their common conviction;

PLEDGING THEMSELVES to work towards ever-closer co-operation among all the peoples of democratic nations, while recognising the right of each individual nation to preserve its identity and to safeguard its vital interests, to use their influence and above all their political values for the greater good of the world, especially by promoting the mutual responsibilities of all nations for global economic development;

DECLARE their dedication to a just and lasting peace and freedom throughout the world; and

FURTHER DECLARE that the cause of peace will be advanced by adherence to the principles expressed in this Declaration; and in

ACTIVELY INVITING other parties to subscribe to them;

AGREE to create a working association in pursuance of their common beliefs, hereinafter referred to as the INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRAT UNION.

Criminal Justice

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/crime.html

Thinking about criminal justice has undergone a major transformation over the past decade. At the core of the shift has been a rediscovery of the importance of community. "Community policing" has become the byword of police departments in numerous cities big and small. Many observers argue that these new police methods--which, among other things, emphasize the importance of order in public spaces and rely on stronger cooperation between police and neighborhood communities--bear at least part of the responsibility for the recent significant declines in crime.

Communitarians have long stressed the importance of the community as a powerful "third force" operating in the middle terrain between the individual and the government. Community norms can often be more effective than laws in regulating conduct. Indeed, without the support of the community’s "moral voice," laws and law enforcement can often be unavailing. Transforming a high-crime neighborhood into a livable community usually requires more than police action. The community itself must will a change.

The concept of community policing grew out of an important article by political scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling called "Broken Windows" (see below). In recent years communitarian-oriented sociologists and political scientists have contributed to the development of a broader concept of "community justice," which integrates insights from criminology with communitarian themes. An important collection of essays on the emerging concept of community justice was edited by David R. Karp, formerly of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies and now an assistant professor of sociology at Skidmore College.

Assemblies of God Perspectives on Social Issues

links taken from http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topic_index.cfm

The following statements are based upon Assemblies of God common understanding of scriptural teaching.

Abortion: Sanctity of Human Life Including Abortion and Euthanasia, Abuse, Alcohol, Tobacco & Drugs, Balancing Relationships and Responsibilities, Capital Punishment, Civil Disobedience, Counseling and Psychology, Environmental Protection, Family - A Biblical Institution, Feminism and Appropriate Roles for Women, Financial Practices & Credit, Governments and Political Parties, Immigration, Law: Law and Crime, Poverty: The Poor, Racism, War and Conscientious Objectors

Thumbnail Sketch of the FairTax

taken from http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail

The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax Plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or compliance costs, which together drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.
Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutral: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers.
Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

What is the FairTax Plan?
The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org)?
FairTax.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots organization solely dedicated to replacing the current tax system. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its plan supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the Web page: www.FairTax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.

For more information, check out the Research Papers

Episcopal Social Involvement

taken from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/advocacy.htm

The focus of the Advocacy Center is domestic and international peace and justice, giving a voice to the voiceless. The following mission areas serve under advocacy:

Our Mission Areas

• Social & Economic Justice
• Environmental Affairs
• Domestic Policy Advocacy (coming soon)
• Social Justice & Domestic Poverty (Jubilee)

• International Policy Advocacy (coming soon)
• ONE Campaign
• International Peace & Justice Making
• Migration & Refugee Advocacy

• Native American / Indigenous Ministries
• Anti-racism & Racial Justice
• Gender Equality (coming soon)

• Public Policy Network

• Advocacy Resources (coming soon)

Free Trade Is Anything but Fair, and Lousy Economics Besides

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/B448.html

"Free trade" is God's gift to modern economies, and for a politician to support "fair trade" is tantamount to worshiping graven images.

Dick Gephardt, who dared to touch the free-trade icon, was burned at the stake. John Edwards, who questioned free trade, failed as a candidate, while John F. Kerry, who dances around this issue as if it were gay marriage, now has beaten the Democratic pack. Moreover, when President Bush protected U.S. steel from ruinous competition, he was dumped on as if he were a labor Neanderthal.

But politics aside, is free trade really good economics? Free trade would be all that it was promised to be if we lived in a world in which not just jobs but also goods, people and capital freely flowed from one country to another. In such a never-never land, indeed, everyone would do what he was best at, and we all would be richer for it. Unfortunately, when one country lowers its trade barriers and other countries don't lower theirs as much — making for freer, but not free, trade — who gets what becomes extremely murky. And that is the world in which we find ourselves today.

U.S. corporations love to move their plants and our jobs to other countries — countries that sometimes block our products and services from entering. As we lowered our trade barriers, a good part of our car and television manufacturing was done in Japan. But for decades Japan prevented our financial institutions from serving its citizens, and its corporate culture of keiretsu (close business relationships) still hampers the work of these institutions. American construction companies can bid all they want for public works in the huge Japanese market, but a cabal of Japanese firms decides whose turn it is to submit the lowest bid this time, and somehow it very rarely turns out to be a foreign company. Scores of countries block the import of what we are best at producing: low-cost food.

Many free-market champions believe we should export lowbrow jobs but do the "creative" stuff ourselves, thus keeping our hands clean and our wages high. This notion assumes that God has anointed the United States to be the creator while the rest of the world has been chosen to do the menial work. Perhaps no one told the rest of the world. Israelis and Finns, for instance, are not exactly laggards. Indian engineers and Chinese computer programmers are rapidly bridging the creativity gap. Moreover, the U.S. has a range of talent distribution. What will our less-talented workers do if they are not gifted enough to make "Finding Nemo" or if there are not enough "creative" jobs to go around? Will they move — or be moved — to the nations where their jobs were outsourced, as free-trade theory calls for?

If Americans are not to follow their jobs to Third World countries, they will need to be retrained and relocated within our borders, a transition that, even when it works, generates high adjustment costs.

Every time we pare down an industry because its labor can be performed more cheaply overseas — say, most recently reading X-rays — those who used to work in it here either need to be retrained to do something else or live off unemployment or welfare. Such transitions also entail, as studies have shown, a significant increase in mental illness, suicides and family breakdowns, all hefty human and social costs. Economists tend to ignore all these public costs, which end up in the laps of taxpayers, when they tell people how wonderful it is that they can buy T-shirts at Wal-Mart at a discount.

Organized labor's claim that free trade involves a race to the bottom is valid. As flight attendants and grocery workers recently discovered, the pressure is on to reduce benefits, job security and the wages given to new employees and possibly to old ones.

Remaining competitive in a world in which billions of workers are paid about a dollar a day and have no benefits, and in which corporations need not worry about environmental costs, requires us to drastically lower our own standard of living.

Economists argue that eventually other countries will raise their living standards (as South Korea and Taiwan already are doing) and then we will all compete on equal footing. But there are two ways to get there: lower our standards until the rest of the world catches up or insist that we compete freely only with those countries where companies give their workers a basic basket of benefits and elementary environmental protection. This is what is referred to as "fair trade."

Americans should have the opportunity to vote in November on which form of trade they prefer: the mismanaged variety (masquerading as free trade) or fair trade. They will have this opportunity only if one of the political parties has the civic courage to lift the fog in which economists, big business and naive liberals have shrouded this whole sordid business. Then fair trade will not only be sound economics for America but also good politics.

Amitai Etzioni, a professor of sociology at the George Washington University, is the author most recently of "My Brother's Keeper: A Memoir and a Message" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

Hindu Social Issues

taken from http://hinduism.iskcon.com/lifestyle/903.htm

Poverty

The affluent world often perceives a simple, rural life as abject poverty, and a sign of social retardation. Hindus traditionally considered it virtuous to voluntarily accept an uncomplicated life for spiritual purposes. With different views on wealth, poverty and success, the West is prone to hastily dismiss India's socio-religious practices as backward and irrelevant. Nonetheless, poverty remains a real problem in many areas.

The role of women

Hindu texts stress the importance of stable family ties and valuing and protecting women. Nonetheless, there has been – and there still is – wide abuse. Despite this, the tradition largely rejects the post-modern notion that social justice is achieved simply through promoting material equality.

Child marriage

Texts recommend marriage at an early age, particularly for girls in order to protect their chastity. Sexual transgression is considered particularly detrimental to spiritual life. Many so-called child marriages were actually a form of betrothal and marriage was not consummated until the wife was of age.

Sati

Sati was voluntarily performed on the basis of overwhelming affection for the partner and a desire to follow him into the next life. Hindu texts forbid its performance in Kali-yuga, the present age.

Polygamy

Polygamy was made illegal in 1952. It was previously considered essential for a limited number of responsible and qualified men to redress the gender imbalance in a society where practically all women were supposed to get married and significant numbers of men remained celibate.

The dowry system

The dowry system was originally a sign of affection by the father for his daughter. The dowry remained the wife's personal property, not that of her husband or his family. This system has been abused by unscrupulous in-laws who terrorise and even murder those brides who don't provide a sufficient dowry.

Civil Society

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/civil.html

A communitarian perspective recognizes that the preservation of individual liberty depends on the active maintenance of the institutions of civil society where citizens learn respect for others as well as self-respect; where we acquire a lively sense of our personal and civic responsibilities, along with an appreciation of our own rights and the rights of others; where we develop the skills of self-government as well as the habit of governing ourselves, and learn to serve others-- not just self. . . .

Generally, no social task should be assigned to an institution that is larger than necessary to do the job. What can be done by families, should not be assigned to an intermediate group--school etc. What can be done at the local level should not be passed on to the state or federal level, and so on. There are, of course, plenty of urgent tasks--environmental ones--that do require national and even international action. But to remove tasks to higher levels than is necessary weakens the constituent communities. This principle holds for duties of attending to the sick, troubled, delinquent, homeless and new immigrants; and for public safety, public health and protection of the environment--from a neighborhood crime-watch to CPR to sorting the garbage. The government should step in only to the extent that other social subsystems fail, rather than seek to replace them. . . .

Many social goals . . . require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned.
--The Responsive Communitarian Platform

Communitarians have sought to refocus attention on the vast and richly textured social space between the individual, on the one hand, and the state, on the other. The quality of our society depends not only on the nature of our Constitution and laws, or on the health of our economy, but also on the vitality of civil society, of the scores mediating institutions--neighborhoods, schools, churches, and voluntary associations--that define our immediate social environment. Political debate over the past fifty years has centered on the tug of war between government and the individual. Liberals have sought to nationalize and bureaucratize the care-taking functions of society, while libertarians in turn have sought to strip the government of power and resources. In the process, the crucial role of civil society in shaping the quality of life has often been neglected.

Recent years have seen a rediscovery across the political spectrum of the importance of civil society. The increasing interest in the delivery of social services by nonprofit and faith-based organizations, the growing recognition of the special capacities of churches and faith-based groups in addressing such problems as juvenile crime, the increasing exploration of partnership arrangements between government agencies and nongovernmental groups--all point toward a new and promising communitarian approach to solving our deepest social problems. One of the key developments of the 1990s has been the reactivation of the community as a powerful "third force" in shaping the destiny of our citizens.

A Summary of Lutheran Social Teaching

taken from http://www.lssmn.org/teach.htm

Lutheran social teaching is rich and complex. It shares some important elements with the Catholic tradition, out of which it springs. But it differs in that it is not organized in a systematic way like the Catholic is. It is found in Luther's writings, but also in those of the generations of church teachers, writers, thinkers and pastors who have followed him. The following principles can be understood to be a fair summary of how Lutherans have thought about matters of social justice.

Dignity of the Human Person
"I believe that God has created me and all that exists," declared Luther in his explanation to the First Article of the Creed. For Lutherans the belief that all humanity is created in the image of God is what powers their mission. People do not lose dignity regardless of their color, disability, age, physical beauty, economic status, language, sex, or any other observable characteristic. For Lutherans, people are more important than things, being is more important than doing or having.

Community and the Common Good
Lutherans understand that we live in two realms: one that is of God and the other that is of the created world. We understand that our call is to seek to become more fully God's while at the same time we seek to enter more deeply into the world. "Common", "community", "communion" are all terms held in high value by Lutherans: "We are one body in Christ".

Rights and Responsibilities
Lutherans believe that each human person has a right to employment, food and shelter, health care, education and dignity. All people have a right to participate in the helping make the decisions that affect their lives. At the same time, we understand that we each have the responsibility to respect the rights of others and to work for the common good.

Option for the Poor
Lutherans are both motivated by gratitude for Christ's ministry to us and convicted by evidence of God's overwhelming option for the poor, the naked and unfed, the powerless and the imprisoned. Consequently, we have been highly active for five centuries in ministries of healing for the sick, safety and shelter for the homeless, provision of goods for the hungry and naked, and release for the imprisoned. We serve because Christ first served us.

Dignity of Work
All people have a right to decent and productive work, fair wages, private property and economic initiative. The economy exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

Solidarity
Lutherans view all of humanity as one, belonging to the Creator and Redeemer of
the world. Our vision of, our responsibility to, God's world and God's people crosses all lines of politics, race, creed, culture, economies, ideologies-all the barriers that people erect against each other. Lutherans believe that they are called to work globally for justice and peace.

Still Getting Started

I would like to thank all of you who take the time to look into these ideas. Please feel free to leave you thoughts in the comments, I would love to see discussions developing. If you would like to make posts here instead of just leaving coments, E-mail me your first post and I'll add you to the team. - Matthew Bartko
MWBartko@CommunitarianParty.org

The Communitarian Vision

taken from http://www.gwu.edu/~icps/vision.html

mericans have been struggling during the 1990s to restore the integrity of our basic institutions and turn back disturbing trends toward crime, social disorder, and family breakdown. The past decade has been an era of important social reforms: in the public schools, in the criminal justice system, in family policy. In states and localities across the nation, citizens have fought for greater emphasis on character, individual responsibility, and virtues and values in the public square. Partly as a result, on a host of "leading social indicators"—rates of violent crime, rates of youth crime, levels of teenage pregnancy, even student test scores—the nation is showing incremental but significant improvements.

Communitarian ideas and policy approaches have been playing a major role in this growing movement of cultural and institutional regeneration. Communitarian thinkers are in the forefront of the Character Education movement, which is fostering a return to the teaching of good personal conduct and individual responsibility in thousands of public schools around the country. Likewise, communitarians have been played a role in the new community-based approaches to criminal justice, which are showing solid success in restoring neighborhood order and achieving real reductions in violent crime. In the area of family policy, communitarians have worked for policies to strengthen families and discourage divorce. They have led in devising fresh, incentive-based policies designed to discourage a casual approach to marriage and to promote "children-first" thinking and family stability--while at the same time preserving the rights of women and men.

In contrast to conventional "right" or "left" approaches to social policy, communitarians emphasize the need for a balance between rights and responsibilities. Communitarians believe that strong rights presume strong responsibilities and that the pendulum of contemporary society has swung too far in the direction of individual autonomy at the expense of individual and social responsibility. One key to solving contemporary America’s social problems is replacing our pervasive "rights talk" with "responsibility talk."

In finding solutions to our social problems, communitarians seek to rely neither on costly government programs nor on the market alone, but on the powerful "third force" of the community. By reawakening communities and empowering communities to assert their moral standards, communitarians seek to hold individuals accountable for their conduct.

Communitarianism is essentially an optimistic approach to issues of public policy. While mindful of human tendencies to act in self-interested ways, Communitarians believe that it is possible to build a good society based on the desire of human beings to cooperate to achieve community goals that are based on positive values. This has been the essential optimistic view that has animated Americans throughout our history. New times raise new issues, but the communitarian focus on the values of the good society provides a vital guide to maintaining the good society.

Innovative, deadlock-breaking policy ideas that promote a fresh consensus around positive social action--such has been the hallmark of the communitarian movement over the past decade.

Learn more about communitarianism and become a part of one of the most innovative movements working to renew and revitalize American society.

The Orthodox Church on Controversial Issues

excerpts taken from http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7101

Marriage and Divorce

The church will permit up to, but not more than, three marriages for any Orthodox Christian. If both partners are entering a second or third marriage, another form of the marriage ceremony is conducted, much more subdued and penitential in character. Marriages end either through the death of one of the partners or through ecclesiastical recognition of divorce. The Church grants "ecclesiastical divorces" on the basis of the exception given by Christ to his general prohibition of the practice. The Church has frequently deplored the rise of divorce and generally sees divorce as a tragic failure. Yet, the Orthodox Church also recognizes that sometimes the spiritual well-being of Christians caught in a broken and essentially nonexistent marriage justifies a divorce, with the right of one or both of the partners to remarry. Each parish priest is required to do all he can to help couples resolve their differences. If they cannot, and they obtain a civil divorce, they may apply for an ecclesiastical divorce in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. In others, the judgment is left to the parish priest when and if a civilly divorced person seeks to remarry.

Questions on Sexual Issues

The Orthodox Church remains faithful to the biblical and traditional norms regarding premarital sexual relations between men and women. The only appropriate and morally fitting place for the exercise of sexual relations, according to the teachings of the Church, is marriage. The moral teaching of the Church on this matter has been unchanging since its foundation. In sum, the sanctity of marriage is the cornerstone of sexual morality. The whole range of sexual activity outside marriage - fornication, adultery and homosexuality - are thus seen as not fitting and appropriate to the Christian way of life. Like the teaching on fornication, the teachings of the Church on these and similar issues have remained constant. Expressed in Scripture, the continuing Tradition of the Church, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils and the canons, these views have been restated by theologians, hierarchs and local Orthodox churches in our own day. For example, the Decalogue prohibits adultery. In the tradition of the Church, the second-century Epistle of Barnabas commands "Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor a corrupter, nor be like to them that are such." The fourth-century Church Father St. Basil wrote against the practice (Canons 35 and 77); and the Quinisext Council (A.D. 691) repeated the same condemnation in its eighty-seventh canon. All major Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States have had occasion to repeat the condemnation of adultery.

Euthanasia

The Church accompanies its faithful from even before birth, through all the steps of life to death and beyond, with its prayers, rites, sacraments, preaching, teaching, and its love, faith and hope. All of life, and even death itself, are drawn into the realm of the life of the Church. Death is seen as evil in itself, and symbolic of all those forces which oppose God-given life and its fulfillment. Salvation and redemption are normally understood in Eastern Christianity in terms of sharing in Jesus Christ's victory over death, sin and evil through His crucifixion and His resurrection. The Orthodox Church has a very strong pro-life stand which in part expresses itself in opposition to doctrinaire advocacy of euthanasia.

The Church and Politics

The official Church strongly prefers that its laity be involved in government and politics, and embody Christian values to the extent possible given the governmental and political systems in force. This approach avoids the evils of a theocratic system, while encouraging a more general lay involvement in the embodiment of the ideal of the Kingdom of Heaven in Church-State relationships.