PopConsumer

Thank You John Mackey

The part of Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey's recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare"that is, as Lisa Richardson at The Los Angeles Times describes, getting Whole Foods in a whole lot of trouble is this:

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Translation: "We wouldn't be in this mess if you people would just shop at my stores!"

What jumped out to me, however, is Mackey's articulation of the fundamental moral and philosophical heart of the debate on health care reform:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America.

I could not disagree with Mr. Mackey more but I really appreciate him outlining so bluntly the crucial question we as a nation have to ask ourselves in this debate.

Rick Warren and the Inauguration: Can We Find Common Ground?

When President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration team announced the pick of pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation a firestorm of controversy was unleashed.

A wide range of groups on the left and the right immediately denounced Obama's choice. Supporters of gay rights, still reeling from the passage of Proposition 8 in California, joined women, pro-choice supporters and progressives of many stripes in criticizing Obama for the choice and calling for the invitation to be revoked. Some conservatives denounced Warren for accepting Obama's invitation because of Obama's support for abortion rights.

Many Americans know Warren as the genial Hawaiian shirt-wearing author of one of the all time best-selling books, The Purpose Driven Life. Warren is also known for championing issues such as fighting global warming, poverty and HIV/AIDS. In an era where evangelical Christian leaders are better known for their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, why the controversy over the choice of Warren?

Despite Warren's support for issues that cause some in the Christian Right to view him as unacceptably moderate, Warren is a Southern Baptist who, consistent with his denomination's theology, holds a very conservative, fundamental Christian perspective on social issues. [Note: Billy Graham who has counseled every sitting president for decades is also a Southern Baptist who did not garner such protest] Those who are hurt, disappointed, insulted and angry at the choice of Warren point to his comparisons of gay marriage to pedophilia, polygamy and incest, his equating abortion rights supporters to Nazis and Holocaust deniers, his preaching of Southern Baptist theology of wifely submission and a central fundamental Christian view that non-Christians of any sort are condemned to hell. Accordingly, his church's work abroad to combat HIV and AIDS includes a healthy component of conversion work which further taints the image of Warren pushing for some sort of new selfless, liberal evangelical Christianity.

In the ensuing debate cynicism, disappointment and mistrust abound. Some pundits claim that this is merely a political calculation on the part of Obama - throw a bone to the right to create cover so he can move left once in office. Some progressives claim that this is further evidence that Obama merely claimed to be a lefty liberal and is moving to the "center-right." Some women and members of the LGBT community who supported Obama warily feel sucker punched and view this as proof that he does not actually support their causes. Others are having flashbacks to Bill Clinton's promises to the gay community which he immediately caved on instituting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act" and therefore are understandably suspicious of Obama's claims of being a "fierce advocate for equality." One prominent LGBT leader has decided not to attend the inauguration. Others still plan to go but will turn their backs to Warren in silent protest.

Some are asking if there is a way in which we can overcome this divide. Obama campaigned on a belief and promise that he would reach out to even those who disagree with him, that there are ways in which we can find common ground and that there is no red America, no blue America, just the United States of America. Obama has spoken about Warren's willingness to invite him to Saddleback church when many on the right were outraged that Warren would offer him a platform. Some point to the Reverend Joseph Lowrey, civil rights activist and icon and gay marriage supporter who will also share the stage with Obama and bless his inauguration by giving the benediction. Others point out that Warren's prayer will be short and symbolic and that he will not make policy and therefore should not be seen as representative of what Obama's administration will mean for gays, women, non-Christians and liberals.

I am torn. Everytime I read an opinion on this topic I wobble back and forth. I absolutely understand why many are outraged over Obama's invitation to Warren. I too wonder along with others why couldn't Jim Wallis of Sojurners been the evangelical to get the invitation? Others suggest recently ousted leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Richard Cizik. Despite Warren's explanations and claims of support for civil unions, his "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage which certainly sound like he puts gay people in the same class as pedophilia, polygamy and incest is hateful and I agree with Stephen Waldman of Beliefnet and political reporter and author of Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right, E.J. Dionne Jr. that Warren should apologize. Making what many view as too little, too late progress and then making videos dismissing such views as "silly" and calling it just the rants of slacker bloggers does not make me feel better about seeking common ground and reconciliation. I totally get why those of us who disagree so thoroughly with Warren wonder why it is we who supported Obama who are asked to compromise and understand while those who vehemently opposed Obama are offered an olive branch.

However, when I read calls to embrace what I have in common with Rick Warren such as Lee Stranahan's I want to get there. I voted for Obama because he is pragmatic and seeks compromise. I don't think that by maintaining divides we can accomplish anything. I think we must find a way to heal partisan divides and find common ground. I have a perhaps crazy, naive belief that if we can just listen to and hear each other we will find that most of us want most of the same things. But I don't know how we get there.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Are you mad, sad or glad about the choice to invite Warren to give the invocation? Should Warren's invitation be rescinded? Should Warren reject the invitation? Is there a way to resolve this issue?

An Abortion Dialogue

At BlogHer, Shannon from Rocks In My Dryer has a post titled "Why I'm Pro-Life" and I have the other side of the conversation with "Why I'm Pro-Choice."

Check it out and marvel in the relatively calm, reasonable discussion going on.

I love BlogHer!

Vote for Mitt - He's Got Faith!

I highly encourage folks to read Mitt Romney's speech on faith in America and not just rely on the breathless media reports about how this speech was a bold achievement yet did nothing to persuade those who believe Mormonism to be a cult.  “He didn’t sway me one way or the other,” he said. “I don’t know anything he could have said.”

So what did Romney say and what beliefs did he profess?  (Followed by my translation - but, make your own and share it, please!)

"A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."  (Vote for me even if you think I'm a member of the world's fastest growing cult.)

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree." (Except Islam* which poses the biggest threat** to Americans though I sure do wish I had their nifty "commitment to frequent prayer"***)

*"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical, violent Islam seeks to destroy us."

**"These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance."

***[Actually, Mitt, I don't think there is anything in your faith that prohibits you from a commitment to frequent prayer so perhaps if you drop to your knees five times a day that might assuage the concerns some Americans have about your faith.]

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I'm fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."  (I'll be the president of everyone who is religious* and a monotheist**)

*"Freedom requires religion..."

**"...any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."  (Like when I said I believe in a woman's right to choose and now I am jettisoning that belief to gain the presidency and asserting that it is crucial that I use an instrument of the state* in order to enforce my personal religious beliefs on all Americans.)

*"Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

And I'll leave you with this interesting nugget... Naomi Schaeffer Riley, the Wall Street Journal's deputy Taste editor offers this portrait of young Mormons...

So let me offer a brief snapshot, not in the hope that Iowans will vote for Mr. Romney but in the hope that, if they don't vote for him, their decision won't have anything to do with his religion.

The young men and women at Brigham Young University are among the smartest, hardest-working and most pleasant college kids you will find anywhere. (For better or worse, I have visited dozens of college campuses.) The student body lives by the Mormon principle: "The glory of God is intelligence." Most reside off campus without adult supervision, yet they adhere strictly to curfews, rules about contact with the opposite sex and every other church directive. They are purposeful but seem to enjoy themselves, spending their free time hiking in the sprawling desert. And BYU has America's largest ROTC program outside of our military schools.

And Ms. Riley muses...

A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?

So, vote for Mitt because his cult faith is that of nice, clean cut, patriotic Americans not the evil 9/11 hijackers.