Is It A Sin If...

[Jake Huether]

I bought my wife a diamond engagement rign. The last thing on my mind was who was digging them out.

Although in retrospect had I known, I might have looked elsewhere for diamonds that came from a "good" company.

How are we to know if the diamond is a "conflict" diamond?


Anyway. Yeah. It is pretty hard to pin the sin on the consumer. We take a part in being responsible, sure. But it is these companies who are putting us in the possition.

I wouldn't think that in normal circumstances buying a diamond is a sin. It objectivly isn't, and so we can't judge whether one has sinned or not.

Forcing hard labor on maltreated "slave" workers is objectively a sin.

Buying a diamond is not.

[CreepyCrawler]

I think before you can blame consumers for their choices, they need to be aware. Maybe an awareness campaign would be the best thing that people who know what's going on could do because unless people actually know what you're talking about, they'll just think you're some raving hippie lunatic. (I do agree with most of what you're saying, though, crusader).

******************************

I thought this article would be appropriate. It's an editorial from the NY Times. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but it gives an interesting perspective on child labor/sweatshops, etc.



Op-Ed Columnist: Put Your Money Where Their Mouths Are

April 3, 2004
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


BISKÉ, Chad - With Democrats on the warpath over trade,
there's pressure for tougher international labor standards
that would try to put Abakr Adoud out of work.

Abakr lives with his family in the desert near this oasis
in eastern Chad. He has never been to school and roams the
desert all day with his brothers, searching for sticks that
can be made into doors for mud huts. He is 10 years old.

It's appalling that Abakr, like tens of millions of other
children abroad, is working instead of attending school.
But prohibiting child labor wouldn't do him any good, for
there's no school in the area for him to attend. If child
labor hawks manage to keep Abakr from working, without
giving him a school to attend, he and his family will
simply be poorer than ever.

And that's the problem when Americans get on their high
horses about child labor, without understanding the cruel
third world economics that cause it. The push by Democrats
like John Kerry for international labor standards is well
intentioned, but it is also oblivious to third world
realities.

Look, I feel like Scrooge when I speak out against bans on
sweatshops or on child labor. In the West, it's hard to
find anyone outside a university economics department who
agrees with me. But the basic Western attitude -
particularly among Democrats and warm-and-fuzzy
humanitarians - sometimes ends up making things worse.
Consider the results of two major American efforts to ban
imports produced by child labor:

In 1993, when Congress proposed the U.S. Child Labor
Deterrence Act, which would have blocked imports made by
children (if it had passed), garment factories in
Bangladesh fired 50,000 children. Many ended up in worse
jobs, like prostitution.

Then there was the hue and cry beginning in 1996 against
soccer balls stitched by children in their homes (mostly
after school) in Sialkot, Pakistan. As a result, the balls
are now stitched by adults, often in factories under
international monitoring.

But many women are worse off. Conservative Pakistanis
believe that women shouldn't work outside the home, so
stitching soccer balls is now off limits for many of them.
Moreover, bad publicity about Pakistan led China to grab
market share with machine-stitched balls: over the next two
years, Pakistan's share of the U.S. soccer ball market
dropped to 45 percent from 65 percent.

So poor Pakistani families who depended on earnings from
women or children who stitched soccer balls are now further
impoverished.

I'm not arguing that child labor is a good thing. It isn't.
But as Jagdish Bhagwati, the eminent trade economist, notes
in his new book, "In Defense of Globalization," thundering
against child labor doesn't address the poverty that causes
it.

In the village of Toukoultoukouli in Chad, I visited the 17
girls and 31 boys in the two-room school. Many children,
especially girls, never attend school, which ends after the
fourth grade.

So a 12-year-old boy working in Toukoultoukouli has gotten
all the education he can. Instead of keeping him from
working, Westerners should channel their indignation into
getting all children into school for at least those four
years - and there is one way that could perhaps be
achieved.

It's bribery. The U.N. World Food Program runs a model
foreign aid effort called the school feeding program. It
offers free meals to children in poor schools (and an extra
bribe of grain for girl students to take home to their
families). Almost everywhere, providing food raises school
attendance, particularly for girls. "If there were meals
here, parents would send their kids," said Muhammad Adam, a
teacher in Toukoultoukouli.

School feeding costs just 19 cents per day per child.

So here's my challenge to university students: Instead of
spending your energy boycotting Nike or pressing for
barriers against child labor, why not sponsor school meals
in places like Toukoultoukouli?

I spoke with officials at the World Food Program, and
they'd be thrilled to have private groups or individuals
help sponsor school feedings. (See
www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds for details.) Children in
Africa will be much better off with a hot meal and an
education than with your self-righteous indignation.

[Paladin D]

D'oh! Voted for [b]"no"[/b] by accident, got confused.

[Lil Red]

good thing that i don't like diamonds, but like sapphires. and they're mined in my state, so there!

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Lil Red Devil' date='Apr 30 2004, 09:21 AM'] good thing that i don't like diamonds, but like sapphires.  and they're mined in my state, so there!  [/quote]
on stolen Indian land ... I'm so so sorry RD, but the tortured liberal I have shackled up inside is screaming to come out and play

[Lil Red]

yeah, but at least we don't have slaved people mining ours! They get paid a pretty good wage!

[IcePrincessKRS]

Jake, thats exactly what I was thinking!

Red, my sister hates diamonds, too! Her engagement ring is a ruby.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='Lil Red Devil' date='Apr 30 2004, 09:36 AM'] yeah, but at least we don't have slaved people mining ours! They get paid a pretty good wage! [/quote]
define slavery... muahhahaha the liberal beast is out!!!

[Lil Red]

Slavery:

-the state of being under the control of another person
-the practice of owning slaves
-work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
-The most extreme, coercive, abusive, and inhumane form of legalized inequality; people are treated as property.
-A system of enforced servitude in which people are owned by others and in which enslaved status is transferred from parents to children.

[pinstripes]

[quote name='lankyswimmer' date='Apr 29 2004, 11:20 PM'] alright then.....show me an industry that pays its workers absolutely fair and equal wages and benefits.......umm yea that doesnt exist [/quote]
STARBUCKS, BABY! BEST COMPANY TO WORK FOR!!!

[CreepyCrawler]

doesn't starbucks support Planned Parenthood?

[Aloysius]

yo, aloysius here to randomly nitpick on a few things without even touching the issue

#1 something is a sin if you do not know it is wrong, you just aren't culpable for it. in all practical terms when thinking about whether or not you committed a sin, it's not a sin. but technically it would still be something contrary to God that offends Him, so it technically is a sin, you just aren't culpable.

#2 St. Peter is not heaven's gatekeeper. this was invented by the protestants to explain the Keys to the Kingdom passage away. Because it has no scriptural precedent and Keys representing authority do have scriptural precent we can safely assume St. Peter is not a 2000 year old doorman.


alrighty then, i don't feel like weighing in one way or the other on the actual issue, so continue

[IcePrincessKRS]

lol Al, good to see ya. You crack me up!

[crusader1234]

[quote]......it is justified to spend the extra money and suggest vanity than to give the 2 dollars???[/quote]

Suggesting vanity? As far as I am concerned, I would rather 'appear' vain than give money to slave drivers.

As for why I am picking on you, well I'm not, I'm just directly refuting your points. You made them, so I'm directing my rebuttal at you.

[quote]Forcing hard labor on maltreated "slave" workers is objectively a sin.

Buying a diamond is not.[/quote]

Buying a conflict diamond is collaborating directly with evil (this sentence courtesy of Will). And, as I have said before, a simple search on the internet will show you where you can buy non conflict diamonds.

[quote]is it a sin if you buy a diamond ring when many diamonds are mined in areas of the world where workers are treated unfairly? wouldn't you be paying for that to continue?
[/quote]

So back to the original question, there ARE ways to buy diamonds you know arent supporting this industry. However, neglecting to do so and collaborating with evil, or knowing its a conflict diamond and buying it for cheap, is a sin.

Creepycrawler, calling me a hippie lunatic is a compliment so thank you hahaha. However, there are many companies which try to get a message out but this is hard because most companies threaten to pull sponsorship of TV shows etc if commercials/ads are aired.

Be a responsible Christian, go online and find good brands. At the VERY LEAST, make it easy on yourself, and look at the label and if it says "Made In Canada/USA/Mexico (or any other country which you know doesnt have slave labour)" then that is an easy indicator you arent funding anything too bad. At least not slavery.

Aloysius, thanks for the St. Peter thing, I didn't really know. Not that it makes a difference about who lets us in... anyways and as for the first thing, I sort of think not checking into where you are putting your money is like Criminal Neglect. Maybe thats taking it a bit far though lol.

I find it ironic, that some of you like to Rant about how your not electing Kerry because you dont want your tax money supporting a president who supports abortions! Then, you go and say 'How are we supposed to look into everything we buy to see what we are doing?'

AMDG... including shopping

Edited April 30, 2004 by crusader1234

[Crusader_4]

Hey Guys... Conflict diamonds are particularly evil especially for the word in front of them CONFLICT. These are diamonds that are coming from socieites that have civil unrest and such. The sale of these diamonds supports the civil and bloody wars in the area of the sale. It is not simply the money going to rich industrialists...its the money going to armies and rebels and all of these civil wars in Africa. Further to that these are the wars where Children are conscirpited and we have Child soldiers and the raping of villages and pillaging. ITs not simply human conditions these diamonds fund wars that rob children as well as adults of their lives. By buying these diamonds one practically handss the money over to the faction armies to buy weapons used for the massacring of people. So when one buys a diamond and wants it cheap think about how many lives you are wearing on your finger and how many childhoods have been ruined. There are alternatives as Crusader1234 has mentioned before...and they do not have the same immorality associated with them...but of course at a higher monetary value. So which is more important how thick your wallet is or how many children die to put a ring on your finger.

Edited April 30, 2004 by Crusader_4