I'm unclear on something. If McDonalds and YUM! have already made deals here, what does it mean to have the growers cancel those deals? Are they saying "we don't want your money", meaning that McD's and YUM don't have to pay that extra penny until BK agrees to? Or are McDs and YUM still paying up, but those pennies are accumulating somewhere-not-in-the-intended-hands?

Posted by: B-W | December 14, 2007 6:42 PM

I was not happy to find out Burger King is undermining the CIW agreement with MacDonald's by refusing to work with them to make sure of fair wages and decent working conditions for tomato pickers.

A penny a pound is really not that big a loss to Burger King and would give these people a raise in pay - their first in almost 30 years!

I think Burger King should show some respect to these hardworking people by working with the CIW to improve their wages by a penny per pound and to enforce a code of conduct for human rights in the fields.

Posted by: Cheryl Atkinson | December 14, 2007 7:58 PM

I made a comment about Jesus' sinfulness which is apropos here. When we eat at Burger King, we sin, because we support a corrupt system which exploits the poor--a sin which cries to heaven, according to Amos. And yet, the system is set up so we can't avoid it. Ultimately, one day, we are going to be hungry, tired, and in a hurry, and we're going to eat at Burger King or shop at Walmart. Here's the point--Jesus did, too. Jesus could not escape the system, either, and ultimately He sinned by buying the equivalent of a Whopper knowing that the workers who made that meal were being exploited by the sellers He was giving money to. No one who is born into this world is able to avoid the sin of the corrupt systems which run it. This inevitable participation in corruption is what Paul means by original sin--not some ancient mystical guilt passed down through some unknown gene, but the real present guilt of having to sin in order to live. And Jesus participated in this sin, too. With full knowledge, He ate the Whopper, because He was tired and hungry.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 14, 2007 8:49 PM

The idea I'm discussing, and which Burger King illustrates, was developed by Schliermacher:

"For Schleiermacher, the solidarity of the race and its mutual struggle toward spiritual existence from a starting place of sensuous existence accounts for the universal tendency of humans to act against one another’s good, and so against their own good as well. Sin is not an individual phenomenon, but a social phenomenon in the sense that each individual sin is only properly understood in relation to the backdrop of sin evidenced by the race as a whole. Further, the sin of one contributes to the deeper plight of the whole, for each one affects the condition of all. Solidarity, not individuality, is the fundamental basis for understanding sin. Thus Schleiermacher reestablished a notion of original sin apart from reliance on the myth of Adam." http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2817

This understanding of original sin and our participation in corporate sin is worth reviving in today's church.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 15, 2007 12:17 AM

"Perhaps we need to ask the feds to run some raids in these fields and processing plants...maybe one a month...and then do some checking of the records of these tomato growers. I would strongly suspect that not only are these folks taking advantage of impoverished workers, but they are also breaking the law regarding hiring of undocumented workers."

#1: That area in Florida has been the subject of many immigration raids;

#2: By saying this, would you seek to penalize those who seek a liveable wage by deporting them?

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 15, 2007 6:48 AM

"Perhaps we need to ask the feds to run some raids in these fields and processing plants...maybe one a month...and then do some checking of the records of these tomato growers. I would strongly suspect that not only are these folks taking advantage of impoverished workers, but they are also breaking the law regarding hiring of undocumented workers."

JamesMartin: "#1: That area in Florida has been the subject of many immigration raids;

#2: By saying this, would you seek to penalize those who seek a liveable wage by deporting them?"

Not at all! I seek to break the backs of the tomato growers who profit from exploiting these workers. The raids will deprive them of workers, and the workers will be deported to their home country no worse off than before they crossed the border. However, the companies employing them will be denied their labor and will watch their profits rot in the fields.

Take away the incentive to come to the US...easily had jobs...and the folks in Mexico will remain in their country and try to effect change there. A boycott is nearly impossible given the widespread nature of the problem, so the only other alternative is a huge enforcement effort targeted at this class of employer...the tomato grower. Sooner or later they will stop breaking the law, and the problem will be resolved.

Meanwhile we can turn our efforts towards getting NAFTA overturned and starting to use our economic might as a consumer to put pressure on Mexico to clean up its own house and work on building an economy that benefits its citizens instead of corporations.

I for one am tired of seeing our government execute a raid, only to have the deportation busses followed to the border by the company busses, who then load these workers up and bring them right back to the fields or packing plants. Enforcement means just that, and until the employers start to feel the pain of enforcement the problem will continue.

Let a few harvests rot and let a few corrupt growers go bankrupt...such is the cost of lawbreaking.

Posted by: ds0490 | December 15, 2007 1:00 PM

Check that strategy. Instead of having the king give out the pennies, have him tied to a chair while nice people give out the pennies.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 15, 2007 1:40 PM

"The raids will deprive them of workers, and the workers will be deported to their home country no worse off than before they crossed the border." ds0490

Gee, you are such a humanitarian! You even will send these people back to where they are in no worse shape than in Southern Florida. I stand in awe of your compassion and wisdom- it is such a transcendent wisdom that even the workers in Imokalee didn't even realize that Southern Florida was really no better than Mexico.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 15, 2007 4:52 PM

A penny a pound is a penny for every three tomatoes. If they can pick three hundred tomatoes an hour, which seems more than reasonable to me, that translated into a dollar more an hour. A dollar an hour raise can be quite significant. It works out to $2,000 a year per worker.

How many small business owners amongst us could afford to give all of our employees a $2,000 raise?

How were the wages for these workers originally set? Obviously they agreed to work for the terms they are laboring for, so where's the injustice?

I think the comments about sending migrant workers home are the worst. Why should it matter what side of an arbitrary line someone was born on? These people work honestly for a living, and improve their own lives as well as ours in the process. Many of their children are able to rise out of poverty and to become quite productive, returning vastly more to the economy than either they or their ancestors took out.

Finally, regulation over prices is damaging to all involved. Prices reflect not the labor put into a product, but the value the final customer is willing to pay. The price of tomatoes is low because we keep it low by buying tomatoes at low prices. If we were to stop, that is, no more pizza, spaghetti, catsup, french dressing, tomato based soups, and plain tomatoes, then these people wouldn't have any jobs at all. If the wage is too low, then not so many people will work for it. If it is too high, then more people will want to work, until competition for the jobs is once again bid down.

If we were to try to fix this based on some arbitrary idea about what the right wage is we would create distortions elsewhere in the economy making other people, perhaps even poorer, worse off.

Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 15, 2007 7:48 PM

Nathanael: "Finally, regulation over prices is damaging to all involved. Prices reflect not the labor put into a product, but the value the final customer is willing to pay. The price of tomatoes is low because we keep it low by buying tomatoes at low prices. If we were to stop, that is, no more pizza, spaghetti, catsup, french dressing, tomato based soups, and plain tomatoes, then these people wouldn't have any jobs at all. If the wage is too low, then not so many people will work for it. If it is too high, then more people will want to work, until competition for the jobs is once again bid down."

Government is not attempting to regulate prices in this scenario, Nathanael. It is the workers attempting to negotiate a higher wage for their work. Are you suggesting that the worker does not have the right to attempt to negotiate a higher wage for his/her work?

Posted by: RJohnson64 | December 16, 2007 9:19 AM

Nathanael,

In my illustration, the additional 1 cent added to the cost of the burger was more than TEN TIMES the amount of cost increase that the agreement would bring to that hamburger. In other words, Burger King could raise the price 1 cent and pocket over 80 percent of that price increase.

In other words, the increase cost of labor from this agreement, to the restaurants, would be negligible.

But the real problem is not the additional one cent. The real problem is the system...our economic system...and the engine that drives it, consumers. Our price-driven economic system looks at the value of the good purchased rather than the value of those who produced it. Far too many Christians take the position that you seem to take with regards to the system, that it cannot be adjusted to reflect the value of the labor put in at the lower end of the cycle.

This is not what Jesus taught in the Scripture. Through numerous parables He taught that the worth of the worker was to be the primary measure of the economy, not the worth of the product. He also cautioned Christians not to become "of the world," and I fear that far to many, for far too long, have been more of the world than in it.

When the economic system is such that there must be a subclass at the lowest end of the system that is kept poor and needy in order that the top end of the system may prosper in ways that Solomon would envy, there is a problem with the system.

Posted by: RJohnson64 | December 16, 2007 10:22 PM

Rjohnson64,
I share your concern and compassion for the poor. I lived and worked in one of the worst neighborhoods in Durham, NC for eight years. I shared my bedroom, my clothes, my entire life with people whom I came to know, appreciate, and love.

For Christians, the standard is Jesus. I don't believe Jesus would approve of using political methods or mechanisms to achieve what He did and calls us to do through personal sacrifice.

The price system is the best system for people who are self-interested. We shouldn't seek to change people's behavior first. We should seek to introduce them to Christ first, and then allow regeneration to shape their attitude towards self-interestedness.

Politics cannot realistically make altruistic behavior part of its foundation. It has to take greed as given.

So, instead, I say that it is the full and exclusive responsibility of the church to care for the least of these.

What does that mean in regards to the tomato harvesters? It means first not to hate on the big corporation just because it is big or corporate. If it is taking state subsidies, then there is room for contention, but if they are fighting fair in the market, there's no more that we ought to expect of them.
Second, it means looking for ways to make immigrating legally easier. Adjust the number of citizenships granted annually by an order of magnitude or two. Then allow everyone access to good legal systems. To get good legal systems, they need to be limited to protection of rights and enforcement of contracts.

Primarily, the church needs to assume responsibility for advocating these changes, rather than taking the politically palatable position of standing up for a David against a Goliath, when a situation does not need to be painted that way.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 17, 2007 12:16 AM

Nathaniel says "Only Christians are regenerate and capable of honestly and rationally giving to others unselfishly."

When are we going to move beyond these holier-than-thou statements?

Another point, re Nathaniel's post about government regulation of prices: Most of the people who post on this blog believe there is a legitimate role for government in protecting workers and setting minimum wage levels, so I won't go into my tirade against the god of libertarianism and laissez-faire economics. But that wasn't the issue here. The issue is thousands of citizens (yes, including non-Christians) being outraged and demanding that a corporation pay its workers better. If we can't get positive change made through policy, then darn right we can use our power of the purse. Boycotts in my opinion are the most powerful tool against injustice, and I wish they were utillized more often.

Posted by: I and I | December 17, 2007 9:15 AM

How else do you expect Burger King or Wal Mart to do business? Should they offer to pay a higher price than they think they can get away with? Would you? How about you offer to pay an extra dollar for your next burger, even though you don't have to.

The amounts used as examples here are hardly fair. We're not talking about paying an extra dollar per burger. We're talking about an extra penny per three tomatoes. I usually get maybe one or two slices of tomato on my hamburger.

If I was being asked to pay an extra penny per burger (more accurate would be an extra penny per four or five burgers, but I don't know how I'd divide pennies like that), I might very well be willing to consider it, ESPECIALLY if I knew that penny was going to help people who needed it.

Posted by: B-W | December 17, 2007 11:23 AM

Just to let you know that I committed idolatry today by stopping at a church and asking the Almighty to protect our millitary personnel all around the world and to bring the Iraqi war to an end so that all fractions can live in peace in that country. I will continue to do so until the war war comes to a victorious end. I will continue to do this on behalf of friends and family that are dealing with health and other issues. I will continue to do this on behalf of all the canidates - regardles of party affiliation - so that they will be safe.

So - from one idolator...

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 17, 2007 12:02 PM

"We shouldn't seek to change people's behavior first. We should seek to introduce them to Christ first, and then allow regeneration to shape their attitude towards self-interestedness."

Good Lord, that sounds like it came right out of the Robber Barons' Handbook. This is one of the most inane comments I've ever seen on this blog.

I trust that means if a gang comes into your house in the middle of the night and threatens your family, you won't pull out your gun, but rather you'll recite to them the four spiritual laws.

There's no reason why exploited workers should have to wait until their employers "come to Christ." Not when there are thousands of other Christians standing in solidarity for their rights. Of course, since the slaveowners considered themselves on God's side, I guess if other Christians of the day followed your logic we'd still have slavery.

Posted by: I and I | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

Moderatelad, couldn't help but notice your only comments on this post had nothing to do at all with Burger King or exploited workers and you seem to be trying to start up a parallel conversation about praying for troops. Let's respect the author and the other posters and stay on topic.

Posted by: I and I | December 17, 2007 2:41 PM

Posted by: I and I | December 17, 2007 2:41 PM

I have for months now posted on the top article of this site on Mondays that prayers were offered for our service personnel all around the world and prayer for Iraq. Rick and I have had this on-going discussion about prayer and so that is why the additional post. (sorta our sparing with each other and the ability to once in a while LOL at ourselves and others) Not trying to confuse things at all. I limit my posting to only articles that I want to address. I have convictions about this article - not willing to address it. I have other things I need to do so I will let others talk about this one.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 17, 2007 3:47 PM

Nathaniel, I appreciate your responses to my responses. However,...

"If regeneration does not accomplish a change in human nature than what’s the point in believing in the cross."

In the context of the topic, your statement that only Christians are capable of honestly and rationally giving to others unselfishly is holier-than-thou. Whether regeneration produces change in human nature is a topic for another day--the fact is that many non-Christians are capable of honestly and rationally giving to others. You can research the Reformed doctrine of common grace for some discussion about this.

"I think trying a boycott might be interesting. The Religious Right has been trying it for decades, and to what end? But you go ahead with that and let me know how it turns out…"

The Religious right hasn't overall made a very bbig effort. I know Donald Wildmon has, but few others have and it doesn't seem to catch on. My hunch is that the reason is that political conservatives tend not to see boycotts in the same way liberals do. The more savvy and influential ones tend to see issues like worker rights and even profanity and blasphemy issues (over which there have been attempted boycotts) as economic externalities that shouldn't necessarily have an influence on the exercise of the free market, while the masses of religious conservatives would rather not alter their consumer habits drastically in order to make a boycott effective. The latter are content to boycott products but not corporations--for example, there were widespread boycotts of 'Last Temptation of Christ" but not of the motion picture company that produced it. And I think the leaders have overall discouraged boycotts of companies as opposed to products because of the sometimes uneasy but mutually dependent relationship between Wall Street and the social conservative agenda. We won't see real boycotts from social conservatives until they disengage themslves from the corporate right.

"The most powerful tool against personal injustice is personal sacrifice. That means assuming full responsibility."

Agreed. That's why thousands of Christians and others are discussing sacrificing their enjoyment of Whoppers. They are assuming responsibility for where their dollars go.

"Every business person should drive the hardest bargain they can, and so should every laborer. The prices that result are the best prices we can ask for, and the most meaningful in terms of communicating information about allocation of resources."

Nonsense. You know as well as I do that this only works on a level playing field. Usually employers have the upper hand.

"To ask a business person to voluntarily pay a higher price is to ask them to act irrationally. It just won’t work."

That's why I favor minimum wage laws and consumer boycotts. Thanks for making my point for me. However, if I deprive myself of a BK Whopper just ot help the cause of some poor workers in another state that I don't even know, then folks like you would call my behavior irrational. Perhaps. But many people, Christians or otherwise, are doing so.

I might add that you seem to put free-market economics at least as high on your list of priorities as Christian teaching. If anything is pagan that would be it.

I'll end with a quote from John Galbraith that I think pertinent: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." Think about it.

Posted by: I and I | December 17, 2007 4:55 PM

maybe i missed something. just because yum pays a penny more per pound to the growers, how is it guaranteed that the workers will get the penny? agricultural fieldwork has always been low wage, probably always will be. a lot iof it is because of the corrupt labor contractors who exploit illegals and legals. these thieves stand between the laborers and the growers. this is an old problem that even chavez couldn't resolve. although he did get the short handled hoe banned. so far the lefties seem to want the price of things to go up. i'm sure the poor amoungst will like that.or maybe the progressives want to control both wages and prices. hmmmmm wonder how that would work. and...what federal agency would manage it. better we stick to supply and demand.
rjohnson64 - i don't think gates and perot are eating at bk. and what's wrong with being rich? or being a profitable corporation?

Posted by: jerry | December 17, 2007 6:24 PM

Jerry: "rjohnson64 - i don't think gates and perot are eating at bk. and what's wrong with being rich? or being a profitable corporation?"

Not a thing, apparently, if you are comfortable with slavery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/opinion/29schlosser.html

"During the past decade, the United States Justice Department has prosecuted half a dozen cases of slavery among farm workers in Florida. Migrants have been driven into debt, forced to work for nothing and kept in chained trailers at night."

But then, take a look at the executives that are in control of Burger King. Apparently they have no problem increasing their own take of the economic pie.

"Three private equity firms — Bain Capital, the Texas Pacific Group and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners — control most of Burger King’s stock. Last year, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd C. Blankfein, earned the largest annual bonus in Wall Street history, and this year he stands to receive an even larger one. Goldman Sachs has served its investors well lately, avoiding the subprime mortgage meltdown and, according to Business Week, doubling the value of its Burger King investment within three years."

There was a time that this kind of behavior would cause even the most staunch pro-business conservative to question the morals of a corporation. Those days are gone.

"Two cousins locked in trailer with 22 other farm workers
Jose Antonio Martinez and Francisco Martinez got sick of working 10 hours to make $15 after being promised $150 per day. Almost all their money in early 1999 went to their labor contractors for rent, food and their $750 smuggling fees. After picking tomatoes all day, they weren't allowed to leave the roach-infested trailer they shared with 22 other workers west of Immokalee. "You were locked up... you couldn't stick your head out," Francisco said. The floor had holes through which they saw snakes, and their mattresses were on the floor. The cousins escaped and eventually reported the contractors to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), which contacted the U.S. Department of Justice. Abel Cuello Jr., Bacilio Cuello and German Covarrubias pleaded guilty to smuggling workers and involuntary servitude. On Sept. 20, 1999, Abel Cuello was sentenced to 33 months and ordered to pay $29,000 in restitution. Bacilio Cuello was sentenced to two years, and Covarrubias was given four years probation. Both of the Cuellos have since been released."

But we should not just pick on the Florida tomato growers. Others in the Florida food industry have resorted to slavery, in the opinion of the US Justice Department, in an effort to keep their food prices lower.

http://www.ciw-online.org/images/Palatka%20NYTimes%20story.pdf

-----------
June 11, 2005
U.S. Pursues a Possible Case of Forced Labor at a Florida
Farm
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
EAST PALATKA, Fla., June 10 (AP) - A farm labor contractor and his assistants are being
accused by the federal government of looking for homeless men, mostly blacks. If the men
were addicted to crack or other drugs, even better.
The homeless men, apparently lured with promises of work, room and board, were taken to a
camp in this part of northeast Florida where potatoes and cabbage are grown.
At the end of each day, the workers were offered crack, alcohol and cigarettes on "credit,"
and the expenses were deducted from their wages, authorities say. But soon the debts grew
larger than their wages, and the workers were told they would have to pay them off.
According to the federal Department of Labor, that was how dozens of workers were held
captive at the camp owned and operated by the labor contractor, Ronald R. Evans.
"Evans and his enforcers allegedly employ force or threat of force to keep the workers in a
condition of involuntary servitude," according to a Labor Department document distributed to
federal and local agents who raided the camp this month.
The case is unusual because the accusations of indentured servitude involve American
citizens. These types of cases generally involve illegal immigrants who are coerced to work
with the threat that they will be turned over to the authorities.
Mr. Evans, 47, did not return phone calls, and one of his lawyers, Robert Fields, said it was
too early to comment on the accusations. "He has cooperated," Mr. Fields said.
Mr. Evans has not been charged with any crimes involving indentured servitude. Instead, he
was charged last week with making false statements to a Labor Department investigator and
allowing unauthorized drivers to transport farmworkers. Three other associates were arrested
on similar charges.
"Certainly we will look at many, many avenues and potential charges," said Steve Cole, a
spokesman for the United States attorney's office in Tampa.
Mr. Evans was released on $50,000 bond and ordered to have no contact with the camp, a
parcel of land off a dirt road enclosed by a fence topped with barbed wire. A sign warns
trespassers they will be prosecuted.
U.S. Pursues a Possible Case of Forced Labor at a Florida Farm - New York Ti... Page 1 of 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/national/11labor.html?pagewanted=print 6/12/2005
A worker who would not give his name said the accusations of indentured servitude or drug
use at the camp were false. During the raid, agents found a small amount of what is believed
to be crack.
But several farmworkers from the camp have been cooperating with federal agents in their
investigation of indentured servitude.
Mr. Evans has a history of labor violations. He has been investigated five times by the Labor
Department and once by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation
since 1988, according to records obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request.
In 1988, Mr. Evans was fined $1,350 for transporting workers in vehicles without proper
insurance and failing to register another employee as a farm labor contractor.
In 1992, the Labor Department ordered Mr. Evans to pay $4,060 for failing to ensure safe
housing, failing to pay wages when due and failing to keep employer records at a camp in
North Carolina.
Federal authorities were first notified about the most recent case by the Coalition of
Immokalee Workers, a farmworkers' advocacy group in southwest Florida. The coalition was
contacted by workers at the camp, said Laura Germino, a leader of the group, which has
aided authorities in the prosecution of five previous cases of farmworker slavery in Florida in
recent years.
-------------

You see, Jerry, it's really about much more than just 1 cent per pound of tomatoes. It's about a corporate culture that uses slavery, drugs, alcohol, and fear to keep their workers in line. It is widespread, as the continuing prosecutions keep reminding us.

And it is reinforced every time we go to the fast food line and purchase a product grown under these conditions.

Capitalism has no morality, Jerry. It only has a bottom line. Every day we are shown, again and again, this truth. Whether it be the behavior of Enron or the fruit and produce growers in Florida, or anything in between, we have ample witness that capitalism can be every bit as dehumanizing and evil as communism.

The question should not be how do we explain it, but rather how do we change it. In a country that claims in its founding documents that we believe that the Creator endowed humans with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we tolerate an economic system that promotes the disregard of those rights?

Posted by: RJohnson64 | December 17, 2007 10:12 PM

I and I -- And let's not forget about the pervasiveness of sin (as a Calvinist, I can't). When I hear people talk about focusing upon maintaining a certain "system," I immediately get suspicious. There's nothing wrong with capitalism per se, but when you put evil and "blind" people into it you have the kind of situations we're talking about.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 18, 2007 10:34 AM

Capitalism does the best job of keeping those balances in check, but is powerless to prevent all exploitation, just as government is powerless to prevent all exploitation.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And in fact, in ancient Israel, commerce was heavily regulated, not so much what to sell but how to operate in the process. (Let's not forget that the Prophets speak clearly, forcefully and often about economic exploitation -- they wouldn't have needed to if it weren't happening.)

That is why, in my view, we should focus on regenerating the spirit. Without Christ, we have only self-interest. That might sound haughty, but it is Biblical, and to argue otherwise is to question the very nature of grace.

Based on other statements you have made on this blog, you just contradicted yourself. You consistently argue -- rightly, in my view -- for the banning of abortion yet don't think the government should be involved in addressing another form of exploitation? Is that about whose ox is being gored?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 18, 2007 12:16 PM

"The virtue of a free market system is not that it solves problems, but that it doesn't accidentally create them."

Hmmm. The free market doesn't accidentally create problems...the free market doesn't create problems...no problems. Well, uh, you've got me speechless here. Some assertions are just so out in the hinterlands of rational discourse that I don't know how to respond. You must be a true believer.

"Capitalism does the best job of keeping those balances in check, but is powerless to prevent all exploitation, just as government is powerless to prevent all exploitation."

No system can ever prevent all exploitation, but a well-regulated capitalism is what provides checks and balances. I didn't say necessarily heavily-regulated, but well-regulated. A democracy, in which there is freedom of expression and power is given to the citizenry to elect those who would regulate, prevents government from becoming too powerful. But wihtout government regulation, industry would become too powerful, as we have seen time and time again. This is the stuff of high school civics and I'm surprised that it's being called into question here.

"That is why, in my view, we should focus on regenerating the spirit. Without Christ, we have only self-interest. That might sound haughty, but it is Biblical, and to argue otherwise is to question the very nature of grace."

This is fine as long as you don't say we should ONLY focus on regenerating the spirit. Of course we should fight injustice. Those who say we should not, and should only focus on evangelism, are being hypocrites if they vote in elections. But I think this "regeneration" topic has been a red herring to justify inaction in the face of injustice. It was certainly used that way by Jerry Falwell and other Southern Christian leaders during the early sixties. I don't know why people persist on bringing it up in this thread, apart from this explanation.

Posted by: I and I | December 18, 2007 1:22 PM

'...modern conservatism, at its core, is and always has been about promoting class warfare, the powerful using their power to oppress the powerless and...'

Class warfare has been for the most part a Dem thing. The Kennedy thing is 'They have and you don't - I'm going to make them give you some of what they worked hard for'. The Kennedy Liberals of the world have always wanted to make sure that there was enough 'endentured servants' in the community so work at their next open house or fund raiser. Why is it that the matrons in Edina MN are so concerned about people on welfare in Mple. Because if the people in Mpls had jobs - they would loose their source of cheap labor. Conservatives for the most part in my state would like people to have a job - and there are jobs for the majority of them. But having a job - one can make life better for yourself and not have to make do on the scraps from Teddy's Table.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 18, 2007 2:45 PM

You're correct - class warfare is wrong. But I believe that it is wrong for someone who can work to be allowed to sit on their backsides.

You digress -- we're talking about migrant workers in Florida, who are doing anything but. Stick with the actual topic, for once, and stop adding your useless ideological agenda to a situation that doesn't apply.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 18, 2007 3:56 PM

This thread took a turn long before I made my comments.

Actually, it hadn't -- if you noticed, it had shifted into a debate over corporate greed, which I consider a form of "class warfare," and it was germane to the discussion And no, it is not simply something cooked up by Democrats -- they only threw light on something that had existed from the get-go.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 18, 2007 4:39 PM

Posted by: ds0490 | December 18, 2007 6:40 PM

I believe that it is applicable. I do not eat fast food because of a number of reasons. One - the way some people do not get paid a wage that is more fare. But if you have more pickers than you need to get the crop in - you will have a difficult time getting the wages up. I also am not sure where their meet comes from, that is another reason I do not eat Fast Food.

Some on this site seem to enjoy broad-brushing conservatives as the scurge of the earth and the cause of all that ills us. I am just pointing out the liberals can be as insensitive and manipulative as anyone else. Liberals in Edina have done more to make life bad for the poor in North Mpls over the years than they will ever be credited for. There are conservatives in Edina too - I know that. But an endentured servant is an endentured servant.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 18, 2007 7:33 PM

Liberals in Edina have done more to make life bad for the poor in North Mpls over the years than they will ever be credited for.

If I ever get there I'll make that judgment, because I simply don't trust yours.

This isn't a left/right issue because, at present, there is no legislation set to address the question of compensation for tomato pickers. If there was, rest assured that Sojo would have an opinion about it.

Oh, yes, it is! Had this been going on in the 1980s we would have seen even the White House weighing in on it, siding with Burger King. In fact, just last year some folks on the right were complaining about the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) also taking a similar stand against Taco Bell.

I personally have no dog in this fight -- I don't eat tomatoes.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 18, 2007 11:03 PM

"If I ever get there I'll make that judgment, because I simply don't trust yours."

In this instance, he is correct. The old left, which resides now near the lakes on the cities west side, has practiced a hive mentality that I have not seen in any urban area, working to enact policies that have been very detrimental to the city's poor.

The result has been the most bifurcated urban populace in the nation. Since race and prejudice are important issues to you, you would do well to read up on Minnesota's sad history in this regard.

"In fact, just last year some folks on the right were complaining about the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) also taking a similar stand against Taco Bell."

Which folks on the right?

Posted by: kevin s. | December 19, 2007 10:42 AM

"Specifically, "evangelicals" in that denomination -- I once was part of it, so I still pay attention to what goes on there."

Yes, it's that old "focus on saving souls and ignore social justice responsiblities" logic. God forbid a denomination should show some concern about workers. Sort of reminds me of the Disney boycotts. There was a boycott going on by progressives in the 90's against Disney to protest their sweatshop labor. My nephew mentioned something about his church participating in the Disney boycott and I got excited, until he clarified that it was over gay issues and he hadn't heard a thing about sweatshops.

Posted by: i AND i | December 19, 2007 12:18 PM

"But because I had attended too many of these for various organizations fundraisers only to see people like me get a qratuitous applause and other 'non-whites' doing the same work get thunderous response for the same work. Why the difference?"

There are more important things to measure your deeds by than how much applause you get. It's a strange reason to decline a plaque.

Posted by: I and I | December 19, 2007 12:44 PM

In education - I get dismissed because I am white and male by several groups. My kids are learning that there are just somethings in school that are not worth trying to participate in because they will never be considered because they are 'white'. (I have taught them that - the schools did)

There is reason for this. What we popularly call "conservatism" is basically, and perhaps more accurately, an "establishment" view which is often assumed to be correct and, thus, not to be questioned. And since you are white, those of us who aren't understand that you already are far closer to said "establishment" that wants to maintain that authority than we'll ever be, which is why, say, African-Americans deeply distrust white conservatives, whom they see as still wanting to run the show exclusive of everyone else. Thing is, many white conservatives truly do not understand just how offensive, insensitive and (in some cases) downright racist they can be in verbalizing their thought processes. (White "liberals," on the other hand, are well aware of this and adjust themselves accordingly.)

I like to celebrate it all - looking at the charactor and ability of the person rather than the gender of color.

That's not reality because in the past folks have been shut out because of those things, and insightful people recognize that. Recently my church called a Latino couple to work with high school and college students; the pastor highlighted their ethnicity/culture because he saw it as an addition to its commitment to diversity. (I remember seeing a Hispanic man at a men's weekend at church; my first thought was, "Great -- we could use some Hispanic flavor around here.")

But because of how you just 'dismiss' what others say as compaired to your view point of the issue(s) - I believe I will limit my response to your postings.

That's your issue, not mine, because those of us on the "left" understand that you aren't anywhere as in touch with the real world as you think you are. There are valid reasons why we reject conservatism and you need to hear them.

So what does this have to do with the original topic? The realization that we do have a class war in this country, which I was the first to bring up but which has already been pooh-poohed by the right for reasons I've already mentioned. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with reality.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 19, 2007 2:30 PM

But of course I am to believe everything you say about those that you want to see out of power. Yes, this is how adults have discussion.

It has nothing to do with whomever I personally want to see out of power; rather, it has to do with those who want to see anyone who disagrees with them out of power and will lie in order to do it. You know, or can at least assume, just what I'm talking about.

What did they say? Who said it? Just some people you happened to know?

I don't recall exactly, but I believe I saw it on ChristianityToday.com. (Not exactly a "liberal" publication.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 19, 2007 2:58 PM

So the difference between me (and moderatelad) and you is that I am a liar?

No, only that you're willing to believe what is or might be false (or, at the very least, misleading) in order to buttress your agenda. Your recent comments about certain people in your own metro area are proof of that.

So CT called for the presbyterian church to stop calling on Taco Bell to change their policies? That seems weird.

CT reported specifically that people in the church complained about the campaign.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 19, 2007 3:24 PM

But then again - they are my friends or family, not my 'white' friends or 'black' friends, just friends. Again - you lump all conservative whites together like they are just cookies cut from the same cutter.

Just ask your black "friends" one of these days how they truthfully feel about race or racism. Then you'll find out just how different you actually are, as they'll probably tell you something similar to what I've done here. Now, there's nothing wrong with being different, but dismissing differences because they may challenge your closed worldview does no one any good. And, as anyone who lives in the Northeast, Southeast or most major cities can tell you, it doesn't matter what specific ancestry you come from.

I question myself all the time when dealing with people so that I don't just 'label' them and then deal with them.

In your world, there apparently are only two types of people -- "conservative" and "liberal." So who's doing the labeling?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 19, 2007 3:52 PM