What's your definition of "Pro-Life?"

New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, wrote a thought provoking article, Why I am Pro-Life, that I think is worth sharing a snippet from...

Canada geese in flight

In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”  - Thomas Friedman

Perhaps as someone concerned about public welfare and the environment you too might want to claim your "pro-life" identity.

Treasonous "patriots"

Here in the US we have a political group, the Tea Party, that seems intent on dismantling much of the government's role in society.  Seems ironic that these individuals run for political office when they don't believe in the value of government to serve the common good.

One recent example is their pledge not to raise taxes, despite a huge government deficit.  Earlier this year our Minnesota governor recommended a modest income tax on the wealthiest 2% of individuals to help address our budget shortfall.  This proposal was not even given a reasonable hearing by the Republicans, who were unduly influence by the vociferous Tea Party. The same resistance has been realized at the national level, most recently when the Tea Party extorted their no new taxes pledge upon the nation's government when it needed to raise the debt limit.

Our once stable, prosperous American society was upheld by a three-legged stool, consisting of the public sector (government and politicians), the private sector (business and corporations) and the nonprofit sector (charities that serve the public good).  Each of these sectors is dependent upon the others for their success.  For example, publicly funded research institutions provided much of the research that fueled corporate growth and innovation.  Businesses depend upon an educated workforce, which is primarily the result of quality public schools.  Nonprofits typically are funded through corporate and government funding, including most of those who are identified as "faith-based".  Environmental efforts are dependent upon the government to monitor and hold accountable individuals and corporations who, without restraint, might otherwise pollute and waste resources.

The Tea Party's belief isn't shared by all conservatives or those people that have prospered thanks to the American economy".  One millionaire who believes he should be taxed more to support the economy noted "Rich people aren't the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy".  He understands that it is patriotic to pay taxes in order to support the common good.

In the effort to defund most all government services the nation risks cutting of its nose to spite its face.  This is not smart or pretty, and certainly not patriotic.

Taxes for common good

Sign identifying work being done

Just down the road for us there is a major landscaping effort to reinforce the banks of Bassett Creek.  There must be hundreds of tons of rock being dumped along the banks of the creek.  In a recent visit with a neighbor who lives along the creek he noted how a while back, after years of unsuccessful pleading for government help, he spent many thousands of dollars on just such an effort to keep the creek from eroding his back yard.

Shoreline of Bassett Creek

Isn't this the sort of thing we do better collectively than individually?  I would hate to think of how much worse our roads might be if it were up to the property owners to fix pot holes, etc.

In this time of "anti-tax" sentiment, it seems many think we ought to all be fending for ourselves.  Collective government/tax payer supported work is now suspect, with the exception of national defense.  In the case of military spending it seems the sky is the limit.

Though I don't have property that abuts Bassett Creek, I'm happy for the neighbors that will no longer have to worry about having their back yards being eroded.  I hope that the erosion of concern for the common good will also soon be stemmed.

Government, taxes and the common good

Listening to talk radio and hearing the anti-tax sentiment being promoted by groups such as the "tea party", it appears there are many skeptics of government services and workers.  Even our nation's public school teachers have come under attack.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Bishop Peter Rogness has a thoughtful commentary, "Government is not the enemy" in the StarTribune.  Seems that our nation's founders had a clear understanding of the common good.  Ironically, as people become more affluent, with more to share, they become increasingly selfish; guarded of their abundant worldly possessions.

Many times I've heard from people who have traveled to economically impoverished parts of the world to have shamefully discovered the tremendous generosity provided by their guests.

So, how is it with us? Is government "us" or "them"?