We humans are such a sanctimonious bunch. We look around us, find folks that don't look or act like us, and conclude that the world would be a better place if there were less of them. In every such thought or claim or screed, there is the implication that "we" are in some way better, and "they" are in some way worse.
Islamofacists would like to see fewer Jews and Westerners, Communists and socialists would prefer fewer rich folks and those who would like to be rich (proletariats). Northern Sudanese are working overtime to eliminate Southern Sudanese, much like "Christian" Yugoslavians tried to rid their country of Muslims a decade ago.
There seem to be an abundance of reasons for these feelings that lead to a desire to reduce various population groups, and it seems clear that almost every group with such feelings can point to understandable reasons for such an effort. In the US we have honestly believed (and not without some reason) that we are the most moral nation on earth in both intent and action when it comes to allowing everyone of every persuasion to live and prosper. We work overtime to protect every group who can claim to have a grievance with regard to possible discrimination, much less annihilation.
Now that we have ended slavery, and assimilated huge numbers of virtually ever race, color, creed, and sexual orientation into our body-politic, we have become the world's policeperson hoping to convince or force the rest of the world's cultures into acceptance of this great American virtue.
Oh sure, we still have plenty of hate and distrust among groups in America, but we're working on it. Right? Well, there is much written about the new bigotry against Christians, especially those who actually believe the Bible is true. Sure, the white, heterosexual male feels put upon, especially if he is competing for an acceptance letter to an elite college. But we're making progress.
I would propose the following. The group Americans most want to go away is the poor. We spend billions trying to get rid of them, not just in America, but in other countries, as well. Really nice people take up an entire career with the intent of eradicating poor people (they call it eradicating poverty, but it is just a euphemism.) These really nice people and the country as a whole would argue that there motives are pure. Their desire is to see that the poor move up in the world. If we spend enough money, time, and energy surely we can give every poor person appropriate food, shelter, health care, and the other trappings of the good life. We feel bad for these poor people, and want to give them a leg up.
Granting the good intentions and even some of the core reasons, it is also about our selfish interests. We don't want to be panhandled. We don't like to feel guilty about our own disproportionate wealth. We don't like to see the filth, the rundown homes, the unscrubbed kids and unwashed adults. We cringe at the statistics regarding poverty and literacy levels, longevity, and crime, and our comparatively poor national scores on these issues. Our shortfalls point right to the poor among us.
So, we have programs: Aid to Dependent Children, Section 8 Housing, Food Stamps, and the list is very long of all the programs. We have counselors at Federal, State, County, and City levels. We have churches and community groups offering all kinds of assistance, counsel, education, and guidance.
But do we ever ask the question: Are we doing the poor a big favor with all this aid? Jesus said we should feed the poor, but He also said the poor would always be with us. There are many interpretations of the beatitudes, but the literal translation suggests that poor, meek folks might be positioned better for the hereafter. There seems to be clear guidance in the New Testament that money and material accumulation are pathways to sinful behavior.
Enter science on the issue. We are a generation that believes that if we apply science to any complex issue, we can come up with great solutions. But science suggests evolutionary principles that would not in any way encourage assistance to the poor. Surely if we want the human race to be strong, we need to keep poor and sick folks from breeding more poor and sick kids. But most scientists don't say this out loud anymore. It sounds to much like eugenics, Hitler, or Ayn Rand. But every once in a while you get a sneak peak into the real thinking of the elites. Reproduced in its entirety is this recent, chilling article in WorldNetDaily.Com
WND MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH
Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor'
In unearthed letter urged President-elect Clinton to 'reform' country
Posted: May 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws.
Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.
The missive turned up in an exhibit put together by the watchdog legal group Judicial Watch, which has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on the abortion drug RU-486, notes James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.
Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population."
He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."
Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.
"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican."
Weddington explained he was "not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion."
He points to President Clinton and his soon-to-be first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the "perfect example."
"Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20?" he asked. "No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do."
Later, Weddington took a shot at the "religious right."
"Having convinced the poor that they can't get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work. The religious right has had 12 years to preach its message. It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible."
Weddington then argued that with 30 million abortions up to that point since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, America is a much better place.
"Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario," he said. "We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."
The lawyer also delved into biblical theology.
"The biblical exhortation to 'be fruitful and multiply' was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies," he argued. "We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies."
In his postscript, Weddington said: "I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, [and] have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book, "A Question of Choice" (Grosset/Putnam, 1992) I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret."
The Weddingtons divorced in 1974.
Their client in the 1973 case, Norma McCorvey, recently attempted to challenge the ruling that struck down all state laws restricting abortion, arguing changes in law and new scientific research make the prior decision "no longer just."
Commenting on a 2004 court ruling dismissing the challenge, Sarah Weddington said those who filed it "got publicity but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved."
After announcement of McCorvey's challenge, Weddington received about two dozen offers to help defend the Roe decision.
Please note that the elimination of 30,000,000 people through abortion is seen as a good thing, not a monumental tragedy to those who lost their lives, those who took those lives, and to a nation who allowed the most innocent among us to be killed without apparent remorse. No. Here we have exultation. If only we could do more. Kill more babies. We could potentially, finally, solve the problems of having these poor, unhealthy, uneducated folks around us.
Solutions? I don't propose to know what to do, exactly. I believe we have to stop killing millions of babies each year. We certainly need to be certain that babies don't get killed because of misguided ideas about population control or to eugenically control certain population groups. Both of those ideas are barbaric in the extreme.
It might seem far-fetched, but we could return to a time when the greatest expression of love between a man and a woman would be a lifetime commitment called marriage, and that the commitment would mean something. And that sex would be reserved for those who have made such a commitment.
We might stop looking down our noses at the poor. Those who have succeeded financially or in their careers are not better than those who have not. In fact, in many cases those who have merely humbly served others are much, much more loving and lovable than those who are using Tums, aspirin, and other stronger substances to get through their busy, successful days.
We would probably do well to stop glorifying wealth, celebrity, power, influence, and sexuality. Surely this nation of 87% Christians would agree that nothing in their Bible suggests that the pursuit of these things is the pathway to joy.
And, maybe, just maybe, the next time you encounter a poor person, and you are inclined to help them become more like you, ask them first: "Are you joyful and content?" If they say yes, and you can't say that, see if THEY would be willing to help YOU.