Does the Bible support a free market economy or did Jesus have a preferential option for the poor that supports welfare, universal health care and many of today’s social services programs? What would Jesus say about trillion dollar budget deficits and economic stimulus packages? And what would he think about President Obama’s plans for the American economy?

Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities professor

There is no doubt that liberation theologians and proponents of the “social” gospel will be thrilled by President Obama’s Marxist monetary and tax policies. His plan announced yesterday to redistribute wealth from the well-off to the poor via universal health care is classic socialism. Obama’s plan to turn the U.S. into a cradle-to-grave socialist welfare-state democracy ala Denmark is right on schedule. Of course, his actions reflect the platform he ran on, so it should come as no surprise. The problem, however, is that the Puritans who first arrived here in 1620 believed in personal responsibility and hard work, not reliance on the government to support the lazy and the indolent. Therefore, I suspect that one’s religious response to President Obama’s plans will be dictated by the underlying social and economic theories one adheres to. As I’ve suggested, Marxist Catholic and Episcopal liberation theologians and other “progressives,” for instance, will be thrilled. Calvinists, I assume, will be disappointed. As a direct descendant of those on the second voyage of the Mayflower, I must admit to a certain concern over the president’s hard left turn. I remain convinced that Jesus would understand better than anyone that socialism doesn’t work. Freedom works. Freedom is the deepest yearning in every human soul.

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus Christ teaches us to have fair and balanced scales in commerce, to deal justly with our neighbors, and to live at peace in our daily projects as we make our way in a fallen world; but He does not condemn earthly riches. He uses them in parables to teach us the value of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 25:31). But it is when men become more concerned about making money and amassing wealth than with the relationships that they have with God in Jesus, and with one another, that, in His teachings, He tries to restore balance.

“When you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing; your almsgiving must be in secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.” (Matt. 6: 24.)

“No one can be the slave of two masters: He  will either hate the first and love the second, or treat the first with respect, and the second with scorn. You cannot be the slave both of God and of money.” (Matt. 6:24)

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt 6: 19-21)

The abuse by the Israelites, especially of the poor, was one of Israel’s great sins (Amos 2: 6; 5: 11-12); abusing the poor to acquire wealth, failing to respond to their cries for justice. The wealthy, while in a position to help others, often close their hearts to the cry of the poor, and Jesus condemns this action, not the accumulation of wealth or wealth itself, but the hardness of heart (Luke16: 19-31)

But wealth and power can be a stumbling block, as any passion is, when seeking God. In Luke 18:18-34 we see that in the rich young ruler approaching Jesus Christ and asking for eternal life. “Sell all your possessions and distribute it (the money) to the poor and come follow me.” But it was too much for the young man. The deeper out roots in the secular, the harder it is to turn to the spiritual side of our nature, to God. Money does corrupt, often just enough to keep us from trusting in God.

Hence it is not possible to say that Our Holy Lord supports a free market economy, or welfare, or universal health care. For we would be making God like us when He came to make us like God.

Rev Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America (Sturgis)

Any one of the issues above is far too broad for any real discussion in this format.  I will be getting more jibes about long-winded posts just trying to summarize the relevant issues, for they are staggeringly complex.  I can recommend economist Dr. Gary North’s Economic Commentary on the Bible for any who are interested in beginning their studies.

I will assert the following ideas as basic to a biblical understanding of money, wealth, and economics.

1.  The earth and all that is in it belongs to God. (Ps 24:1)   He apportions it and its resources how he pleases.  Sometimes He does this via his acts of Providence in the normal course of history. (Acts 17:26)  Sometimes he does it via special acts of Providence. (e.g.  1Kings 17:1-14, John 6:1-13, Deut 6:101-12)  Sometimes he does it via his commandments to his people. (e.g. Lev 23:22, Rom 12:20, Prov 25:21-22)

2.  The concept of private property is a biblical concept (Ex 20:15, Acts 5:1-4)  Private property is defined as that which God has given ownership of or control over.  Therefore, nobody has the right to simply take something from another.  We must also understand that our ownership is transitory, as we do not live for very long. (1 Tim 6:7, Eccl. 2:8-9)  Therefore, we ought to view all of our economic decisions in this light.

3.  We do not have an absolute right to or claim on our private property.  Others might have legitimate claims over our property, including God himself (Mal 3:8-10) and the government. (Romans 13:7)  Under certain circumstances, other people may have a limited claim over our property. (Rom 12:20, 1 Timothy 5:18, James 2:15-17, Luke 10:25-37)  The claims of other people on our property are not absolute, either.  They are a relative right, and the bounds are fixed by God himself.  For instance, God commands me to feed an enemy on the occasion that he brings a hungry enemy across my path.  He does not command me to feed my enemy for his whole life, nor does my hungry enemy have the right to demand my steak when I offer him my bread.

4.  There are to be NO FREELOADERS.  This concept is frequently overlooked.   I will quote this verse in full for those who are not bothering to look up my scripture citations:  “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.‘ “  2 Thess 3:10

5.  Everyone is to have what the Reformers called a “lawful calling” (i.e. a vocation) and they are to labor diligently in that calling in order to earn their bread.  (Ephesians 4:28, 1 Thess 4:11, Exodus 20:9)

6.  The level at which we ought to be content with our material lot in life is quite low.  Decent food, appropriate clothing, and (in climates like ours) decent shelter are enough.  (1 Timothy 6:8)  Anything beyond that is to be considered a superabundant blessing and thus, wealth.  The Christian is commanded to be content with what God gives, but may also increase his or her wealth by use of lawful and prudent means.  He or she ought to be careful in doing so, for the desire to be rich, simply for the sake of pleasing oneself, is a trap.  (1 Tim 6:9-10, Matt 6:24, Luke 12:13-34) and covetousness is a very grave sin.  (Ex 20:17)  It also happens to be what we’ve built our whole consumer-based society upon.

7.  God does decree that some shall be poor, some shall be rich, and that in the course of life, some of the rich shall be brought low and the poor be raised up (e.g. 1 Samuel 2:4-8)   It is the Lord who gives the ability to produce wealth. (Deut 8:18)  Therefore, wealth is not the occasion for pride.

8.  A person’s first line of approach when he or she is in need ought always to be their family.  (1 Timothy 5:8)  If that person is a Christian, he or she ought to apply next to their own church. (James 2:15-17)

From these fundamental principles, I conclude the following:

1.  The government does have a right to tax the populace and spend the money, and may include in that spending the giving of resources to those who have genuine need which they are not able to meet on their own.

2.  The government ought not to impose the burden and spend the money in such a way as to cause disincentives towards honest labor and production, nor should it reward indolence and idleness.  To take from one who produces and give to one who is capable of production, but is sinfully shirking his or her duties is to steal.  The government ought to cut off all support to those who are capable of honest labor, but are refusing to do so.  Hunger and cold are remarkably motivating.

3.  The government ought to calculate the nature of true need in such a way as it reckons those to be in need who lack sufficient food, clothing, and shelter.  Beyond those things, there is not true need.  I was once told by an African friend in seminary “America is the only place in the world where the poor people are fat.”  He professed amazement that the detached garage of one of my neighbors was larger and better constructed than the house in which he, his parents, his grandmother, and seven brothers and sisters lived.  The Christian Science Monitor had an excellent article a few years ago entitled “Poverty Now Comes With a Color TV.“  I recommend spending some time in a Third World country before launching into soliloquies about poverty in this country, at least as it is today.  We do not necessarily need to feel guilty for being as wealthy as we are, but we have very little grounds for comparison if we only know America.  I also ought to say that I do have deep forebodings about what may be coming in the near future.

Now, the Bailout is a different story.  I am not an alarmist, nor do I wish to be a Cassandra.  Nor am I one who is enamored with the apocalyptic.  Once again the issues are huge and complex, but the source of all of our problems begins with a fiat money system which is divorced from a relatively fixed base of value.  God gave gold and silver for money.  They limit economic growth to a natural and sustainable level.  Their limited supply serves as a check on the ambitions of rulers and emperors.  They worked very well in that capacity from the beginning of human history until the Federal Reserve Bank (which is a private bank, not a government institution) was established.  After that, gold and silver worked less effectively, but still fairly well, until 1971 when Nixon closed the Gold Window.  The last 38 years have been an experiment which is now ending very badly.  Our money has been backed by nothing for 38 years, and so has everyone else’s.  Each dollar is, itself, a debt.  I recommend this excellent video on how our system works now and how we got here, though I disagree with the producer’s remedies.

This system is an unbiblical system.  It is a wicked system.  It is an unconstitutional and therefore an illegal system.   It is a ruinous system.  And the whole world participates in it.  The stimulus package is like trying to give more heroin to an addict who is going through withdrawl symptoms.  It makes the addict feel better for awhile, but hardens the chains of his bondage.  There is not enough money in the world to pay all the debts in the world by a factor of 60 to 1 by some measures.  Therefore, they simply will not be paid.  We are, right now, in the beginning stages of a worldwide, debt default-driven demand collapse which is morphing into a deflationary depression.  The suffering which is coming is unimaginable to most of us, and will likely deeper than the Great Depression of the 1930’s.  A great social, economic, and political upheaval is coming because of this, and history shows that those often end badly.  There is good reason to be alarmed, and the U.S. Government’s plan to borrow several trillion dollars from the Chinese ought not soothe our nerves any at all, though if it’s any consolation, the U.S. will probably suffer less than most other countries in the world.  Since Presbyterianism is a worldwide phenomenon, I have friends all over the world.  My African and Latin American friends may well be looking at starvation in their countries in the next couple of years, and I am most concerned for their welfare.

My own prayer echoes the cry of Agur, son of Jakeh in the book of Proverbs:

“Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches- Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.”

Don Jones - Buddhist

I have permitted myself some very selective quotes from the Bible; something I have always detested when done by others.  This is only to show that even from the same chapter in Ecclesiastes there are two points of view regarding money depending on the quote.

Here is the first:

“8    If you see the oppression of the poor and the violent perversion of justice and righteousness in  a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high official watches over high official, and higher officials are over them.

9   Moreover the profit of the land is for all; the king himself is served from the field.

10  He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver;

nor he who loves abundance, with increase.

This is also vanity

11  When goods increase,

They increase who eat them

So what profit have the owners

Except to see them with their eyes?

12  The sleep of a laboring man is sweet

Whether he eats little or much;

But the abundance of the rich

will not permit him to sleep.”

Here is another:

“19  As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor - this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 5

A person can go on and on in any holy book and pull out any text that supports his/her view.  I was going to quote from Shantideva but he was too much of a rebel.(LOL)  Neither Buddha nor Jesus had much of an opinion about economies except that each wanted justice for the poor and compassion in the hearts of everyone.  Money, by itself is neither good nor evil but rather how it is used and/or gained is the measure of one’s heart.  Personally, I mistrust holy books due to their great age and dubious “truth”  Deep down, each of us knows about the value of charity, frugality, and integrity when it comes to money.  We do not need great teachers to tell us this.

Politically, I would like to “trust the American people” to do what is best for them, reduce the government and all that.  BUT, We cannot trust them to do what is right.  If they did, we would not need laws, courts, or police forces. All we would need is an executive cheerleader/economist/warlord.  We cannot even trust them to feed the poor.

BTW, The image of Jesus with a line item veto power, going through a multi-trillion dollar budget gave me a good laugh!! Thanks Mary.

I think Father Williams’s response to the issue was very nicely put. I would add that the danger comes when some argue that schools should present “creationism” and “intelligent design” as actual science. The Supreme Court has ruled that both are clearly religious perspectives, devoid of scientific fact, and thus cannot be presented to public school children as actual science. It terrifies me that major presidential contenders such as Gov. Mike Huckabee, Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Bobby Jindal wish to teach creationism and I.D. in schools. Can we really take the chance of giving the codes of the nuclear arsenal to someone who believes the dinosaurs lived only five thousand years ago? Yes, God gave us the Bible, but he also gave us reason. And it’s our God-given reason that brings us close to the angels, as the Medieval theologians taught.

Don Jones - Buddhist

Buddhists don’t have a problem with either science or religion per se.  The problem comes in when one or both are used to harm others.  The theory of relativity gave us nuclear fission as well as a better understanding of the nature of the universe.  Nuclear bombs we can do without, thank you.

I was just reading the Lakota creation story about how they are descended from an eagle and the last woman.  You can disagree with this if you want and it might even be taught in our schools here in SD.  I doubt that it is worth destroying friendships over or going to court if it disagrees with current science.  On PBS recently there was a story  about a town in Pennsylvania who went to court over “intelligent design” vs evolutionary theory.  It was telling that threatening letters were sent to science teachers by the ID people.  Why such anger?

Hazel Bonner — Seventh Day Adventist

It is difficult to reconcile the Biblical creation  with evolution. I however do not have a problem with it because I know that the ideas espoused are part of an overall scheme and that it all fits in some way, that we may never understand. We cannot know everything and that is the way I look at the Darwin theories.  I do believe in the creation theory espoused in the Bible. And I believe that the Bible stands for Best Instructions Before Leaving Earth!

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America

Once again, we are hampered by imprecise useage of terms in this debate.  My problems with Darwinism occur at several levels, but I think it is possible to be a faithful Christian and believe in evolution as the mechanism whereby God created life on earth.  I don’t happen to believe that myself.  I tried theistic evolution for awhile.  It seemed to create more problems than it solved.   But people I respect seem to have believed it… people like Charles Hodge, CS Lewis, and Francis Collins (the geneticist who headed up the Human Genome Project.)  To show how idiotic the debate has become, there are many people who say things like “I don’t believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design.  But I believe in God and that he created through evolution.”  To believe that IS to believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design of some sort.

The problem with Darwinism is really the problem of philosophical materialism, or naturalism.  Philosophical materialism is the assertion that the physical universe is all that exists, and there is nothing outside of it, and that all that has come about is simply the result of random activity which is, by definition, without meaning.  The problem is that philosophical materialism is self-refuting.  If philosophical materialism is true, then all of our thoughts and feelings are simply a result of the motions of the atoms in our heads.  There is no reason to suppose the result of these motions yield truth.  We’ve already taken steps in this direction via Marxism, and Freudianism.  The Marxist will tell you that you are a Republican because simply because you are a member of the bourgeois class and to be a Republican benefits you at the expense of the proletariat.  The Freudian will tell you that you are a Republican because you grew up with a strict, distant, authoritarian father and now project that image onto the State.  Now we have the new science of Evolutionary Psychology, which tries to explain all of your thinking and behavior as simply a phosphorescence that covers an deep genetically-derived drive to survive and pass on your genes to the next generation.  The Evolutionary Psychologist will tell you that you became a Republican because it was the most prominent party among your friends, coworkers, and most importantly, your superiors at work.  You need their goodwill to survive, prosper, and pass on your genes to the next generation.

Notice that nobody ever tries to find out if you’re adhering to these ideals because you think they’re true.  And they are even further removed from investigating whether or not these ideas are actually true.  That is not even a question on the agenda.  You behave the way you behave for irrational reasons driven by other forces buried deep inside you.  You think the way you think, not because it’s true, but because of some other irrational influence.  You feel the way you feel, and act the way you act, not because of any transcendent standard of right and wrong, but simply as the result of irrational forces.  You fall in love and marry, not because love is a real, transcendent value, but because of chemicals secreted by some gland in the brain.  You care for your children sacrificially, not because it’s right or good, but because your genes compel you to care for them.  You explain all your behavior with high-sounding rationalizations that have nothing to do with truth.  Conversely, a man might cheat on his wife because it’s in his genetic self-interest to spread his genes as far as he can.  If he beats and neglects his child, well, that’s just because he’s got a genetic mutation that keeps him from behaving in his own genetic self-interest.  If he beats and neglects his stepchildren, that’s to be expected.  Why should he spend his hard-earned resources to care for some other man’s genetic spawn?  Right and wrong don’t enter into it.  This is the standard explanation for human behavior in the so-called hard sciences.

The trouble is that the scientists who are forming and propogating these ideas are pretending that they’re able to stand outside of the whole thing on some objective, neutral ground and judge what’s happening with some sort of standard of objective truth.  But if their philosophy is correct, there is no objective, neutral ground.  If my thoughts are not to be trusted because they’re just rationalizations which provide a facade to cover the irrational molecular processes in my brain, then what grounds to I have for believing that the scientist’s thoughts are any more rational and valid than mine?  The thought that all thoughts are meaningless is, itself, meaningless.  This is intellectual suicide.  If you fail, you fail.  If you succeed, you fail all the more.

C.S. Lewis did a masterful job of making this case in an essay called “Is Naturalism Self Refuting?” and there is a good chapter in the book “Miracles” on this subject.  Victor Rippert wrote a book called “C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument From Reason” that explored and developed it more thoroughly.

There are other reasons to doubt Darwin, of course.  Molecular biologist Michael Behe has put a pretty sharp pin in the balloon with his research showing that organisms are filled with structures which are irreducibly complex, something Darwin freely admitted would shoot his whole theory to pieces if it could be shown to be true.  I recommend “Darwin’s Black Box.”  Stanford Law Professor Philip E Johnson took the logical underpinnings out from under naturalistic Darwinism in his book “Darwin on Trial.”

The final argument which I find most compelling comes from a former atheist.  Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, investigating the creation of the carbon atom in the moments after the big bang noticed something quite amazing.  When you look at the way things had to work out for there to be carbon, it was extremely unlikely that it would happen.  If there was no carbon, there would be no you and me.  Hoyle said that nothing had shaken his atheism like this discovery.  In a Cal Tech science journal he wrote:

Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have

designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding

such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of

course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a

super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,

and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers

one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this

conclusion almost beyond question.”

Dr. Hoyle later became a Christian.

Babies are God’s opinion that the world should go on, right? So, when somebody gives birth to eight of them all at once after in vitro fertilization — without a husband, without a job and with six other kids at home –  is that a blessing or an unethical outrage?  What’s your take on the moral, religious and social implications of the octuplet birth in California last week?

Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities professor

I reject unequivocally the idea that God gets involved in the day-to-day lives of humans. I thus reject the premise that babies have anything to do with God’s wishes for the world to go on. Indeed, the God I believe in is a radical environmentalist who wishes for fewer babies rather than more (in fact, perferably no babies at all, so that the world can eventually be given back to the animals and the forests and the oceans, and taken away from the human species that has desecrated it). As such, I find the octuplet birth sickening and disgusting. Worse than that–it’s an abomination.

Brian Carpenter– Presbyterian Church in America

I’m afraid I don’t share Dr. Wallerstein’s view of Providence, his misanthropy, nor his gaia-esque leanings about the planet.  One wonders why he chooses to continue his own existence on into that period of life marked by declining usefulness and rising consumption of society’s resources.  Let us hope he will change is views before he is brought up against his convicitons by life’s cirucmstances and considers Hemmingway’s exit strategy for himself.  Nor, I suppose, do I care much for the idea of a God who has “opinions” or “wishes.”  I believe in a God who issues commands and decrees, not opinions and wishes.

I believe that children are a blessing from the Lord, not a burden on the planet.  Our society is anti-child at a profoundly deep level.  This manifests itself in many ways.   For instance, my friends who have large or even medium-sized families get snide comments about birth control from total strangers, even though they are quite capable of providing for the wellbeing of all the children.   But we also see it in our child-centric rearing practices which turn little developing human beings who are already egomaniacs by nature into overfed, loutish adults who are egomaniacs by conviction.   We do not care to take the trouble to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6) and prefer to have it done as much as possible by (poorly) paid “professionals” armed with the latest faddish, unverifieable theories issued ex cathedra from the Psychology Departments of the University system.  When the blind insist on being led by the blind, there will be guided tours of many ditches in the near future.

That said, the usual Divine design for the family is one father and one mother in the lifelong commitment of wedlock, diligently performing their duties to God, to one another, and to their children with mutual love and affection.  There are certain exceptions from time to time, of course.  Infertility has meant that my wife and I became adoptive parents instead of biological parents, for instance.  I know of another family situation where the parents have been unable to care for the children and have given custody over to people who can.  The facts of human mortality, human frailty, and human sin sometimes create less than optimal circumstances which God is well able to redeem, but those should be looked upon as the exception, not the rule.  Those situations ought not to be actively pursued as if they are they are the equivalent of the Divinely ordained model, for they aren’t, and every single mother struggling by herself to raise a couple of children knows it.

I know very little about this woman, but what is presented to us is disturbing.  She has no husband.  She has no means of support besides her own parents, a Workmen’s Compensation settlement for on the job injuries, and the State.  She began obsessively pursuing pregnancy in her teens.  She admits to going through bouts of withdrawl, depression, and suicidal thoughts, even in the midst of her long-sought pregnancies.  I struggle to see how all of these children could be appropriately nurtured, trained, and disciplined in such an environment.  She puts one in mind of those odd women who live in ramshackle, filthy homes full of cats.

But since as a society we’ve lost the moral consensus that allows us to continue to define a family using the Divinely ordained model, the only means we have of judging her actions is either the criterion of mental health (if you’re a Democrat) or piggish use of taxpayer resources in a time of strained budgets and a poor economy (if you’re a Republican.)  Both of those are valid points, but not the main point in my opinion.

 

Don Jones - Buddhist

 

I cannot speak for all Buddhists but I can say that judging people on their follies and delusions is not what we do.  Also, we don’t get involved with arguments about what “God” wants, opines, decrees, commands, or whatever.  These arguments often do more to separate people than unite them.  Mainly what we do is see how we can help with a mind of compassion.  If this means direct financial help for this woman or campaigning to change laws regarding the use of such drugs then that is the Buddhist way.  Anger, frustration, disdain, and judgmental views are not helpful states of mind in dealing with the problems of suffering in this world.  Buddhists do not turn away or disengage themselves either. (a myth about Buddhism) Only when we face things as they are without condemnation, can we change ourselves and perhaps others as well.

 

Here is a classical Jewish Midrash:

There once was a King who wondered how his “servants” would care for his possessions if he were absent and did not constantly oversee their activity.  Thus, he told everyone that he would soon leave on a trip and would not return for a long time, but asked that his beautiful buildings and land be allowed to remain intact until he returned, and made them the caretakers of his earthly possessions.  He  handed the keys to his castle and his kingdom to the people, he told them to enjoy wisely, compassionately and collectively the plenty of his kingdom , to balance their personal needs and desires with the responsible and collective concern for all. He  then pretended to leave—only to alter his appearance as a commoner, and watch  carefully their actions    The message, of course, is that G-d has given humans control over nature and life, that these are not actually ours to  use and consume  as we selfishly desire, that we are all gardeners and keepers of that  which is not ours, and that we are to relish  our brief grasp of this life while we carefully  “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and house the homeless”—as would the wise and compassionate King were he actively present.  

What does this ancient story   have to do with the recent case in question? Simply this: we live in a “castle” of limited resources—both human and environmental–and we humans must not legitimize narcissistic activities that operate against the positive “upkeep” of that which is not ours; we must carefully balance our human activities for the larger responsibility toward others and our planet.     In my opinion, the fertility clinicians ethically failed to use their power and abilities by allowing far too many fertilized eggs to mature in the patient.  The doctors apparently failed to consider the challenges facing a woman without a partner and with fourteen children, the lack of her financial resources, who claimed this morning that she wants lots of children because she was “lonesome” as a child, and who willingly and certainly will depend upon the society for assistance.   The medical boards governing the practice of in vitro fertilization have relinquished any ethical control by not insisting upon limitations on such practice.  The woman acted selfishly by  forcing society to care for the medical and family expenses she can’t possibly afford because—as she stated this morning on television—she always dreamed of having many children because she was “lonely” as a child.  We as a society have acted unethically by allowing the medical profession and scientific advances to serve the selfish desires of this quite probably disturbed patient and those with money and influence rather than the greater society as a whole.  Our health system has become morally destitute when we can spend millions of dollars on producing more children than any single family can reasonably raise and the planet can accommodate while allowing millions of others  to live without basic medical care and support.  Even if the family has two loving and committed partners the planet can ill afford” unlimited birth rates or growth; but many in our society—and many religious spokesmen,  have chosen to applaud  high birth rates and reject the need to fund family planning and care for the environment. For a woman to give birth to fourteen children in any family—even if she is financially secure and has a traditional partnership–and assume that each child is a gift from G-d illustrates a rejection of good stewardship.   In short, the whole situation appears to illustrate a society more concerned with satisfying personal desires, individual and corporate aggrandizement, scientific “advancement” and narrow self interest rather than care for the basic needs of others, of that which is not ours and  of that which must be returned to its original owner. This whole episode, like Bernie Madoff, symbolizes our culture’s current problem, “Greed Gone Wild,” a failure of self regulation in pursuit of selfish self interest, the glorification of individualism, and the assumption that each person’s or corporate entity’s gratification should takes priority of the collective good.

 

Yes, this mother of fourteen deserves our criticism, but before we “throw stones” at this woman perhaps we best look at ourselves.