Inflatable Toupee
The vitriol toward President Trump from liberals/progressives continues unabated since his inauguration. I expected some drop off as people realized we're in this for at least four years, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Now I'm wondering if we'll see some kind of backlash as conservatives get fed up with the harsh, and in some cases vile attacks on him. If that happens - and it may not - it will only serve to further divide our country. Regardless of the merit of his positions the polarization is not good for our country.
The above was written before church. It's now a little after 8 p.m., the Super Bowl is over (drat!), and I'm into coffee and cookies. My brain is a bit weary from the FB commentary on the SB ads I run every year so you'll only get a brief addendum.
Before he began his sermon this morning Brett went what he called "off script" to comment on the political events of the last week-plus, specifically the noise about the executive order re. immigrants from those seven nations.
He said some interesting and worthwhile things, including, "read the EO for yourself." (You read it here first.) It doesn't say what the screamers say it says.
His larger point: Christians are called to love our neighbor and act out that love.
The govt.'s job is to protect its citizens from neighbors who have malicious intent.
We shouldn't confuse those two assignments, including expecting the govt. to love our neighbor.
Hmmmm.
I certainly agree with the former, that Christians are called to love our neighbors, even the pesky guy next door with the yappy dog. And govt. is clearly tasked with protecting its citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. But does govt. have no burden, de jure or de facto, to do good to others outside its borders?
The French have an expression, noblesse oblige. It means the obligation of the noble, of the privileged, to act with kindness and compassion toward those who are in distress. Oddly, that expression dates back to a time before the French Revolution, a brutal time when the oppressed rose up against the wealthy ruling class.
Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.
Does the govt., the collective body of citizens acting through its representatives, have an obligation to act when, where, and how it can to bring relief to people in other countries who suffer?
From poverty, from persecution, from natural disasters?
Did we have no obligation to the millions in Nazi death camps?
Or the Hatians devastated by an earthquake?
Or the millions dying of dysentery in Africa because they lack access to clean water?
Discuss.
3 comments:
On a personal note, I do feel that we have a responsibility to help. However, I don't know if conscripting men against their will to liberate death camps constitutes a "good." Compelling someone into a good cause seems to strip the morality away. Likewise, forcing someone to pay taxes for a good cause also seems to me to rob our society of the opportunity to be freely benevolent.
My head says that doing wrong to make a right is still wrong. My heart says doing the right thing is still right.
Mike, I understand your ambivalence. Is it different now that we have an all volunteer military? They're not conscripted as they were in WWII, so if a parallel situation happened today it would be not unlike an employer who says to an employee in a right-to-work state: "go clean the restrooms" (or any other assignment). I suppose the difference is that the employee can quit whereas the military person has, in effect, signed a contract, but they did so freely.
When we had a shared national idea as to the "common good," it was likely far easier. Now, even aid to a hurricane impacted area is politicized by race, economics, class, etc. It may seem like the government "must" help but the Red Cross or Samaritan's purse responds to many such large scale disasters.
Most soldiers I know have signed up to defend the United States. Most have been placed into combat with a bait and switch where they are fighting in what are civil or regional wars.
America provides food, financial aid, technological benefits, medical advancements, military protection, etc. Some of it is from our government, some from our volunteers, some at subsidized costs and some at profit.
The direct US govt aid has mixed motives. Some love for neighbor, some as a political carrot and stick, some to further our own political, military or economic interests or even the interest of international businesses.
On what basis do we decide to help or not? Why help in Bosnia but not Syria? Why let North Korea starve and oppress their people in work/death camps? Why let in Cubans as refugees but not Guatemalans? Are refugees better off in closer camps and returning after conflicts? Even if it takes many years?
I think the question most Americans are asking isn't should America help but aren't we already doing enough? (And the ones protesting probably don't realize all America is currently doing). And when we pay others to do the help (taxes or donations) we are probably less likely to feel personally responsible to do more individually.
Not my final thoughts but just adding to the discussion.
Post a Comment