As soon as I see these photos linked to your profile:
I understand the subtext. It is certainly not compassion, common sense, or a desire to see the nation aspire to reach its potential.
It is fundamentalism.
For that reason you have opted to be left out of the conversation just like the NRA did with its ridiculous news conference on Dec. 21.
The above video clip has got a bit of attention on facebook this week. My liberal theist friends have posted it and some have alluded to the fact that Colbert's comments are almost prophetic. My conservative theist friends have been outraged at the audacity of Colbert to poke fun at them and to take the New Testament out of context.
The Christmas season brings out two polls on the questions of how we deal with the poor and sick and less fortunate. Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol is the standard by which we measure a person's commitment to the season. You are either a Tiny Tim/Bob Cratchit or and Ebeneezer Scrooge. Nobody wants to be seen as a Scrooge during this season and so there is a bunch of talk about Christian principles and keeping Christ in the season..... while arguing that our government has no business using tax dollars to look after the general welfare of the American populous. After all, the government cannot tell who is faking it and who really needs the help.
One of my favorite quotes from the Dickens' classic is the result of the dialog between Scrooge and his Nephew Fred. Fred optimistically states why he loves the Christmas season.:
..and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.
Immediately, as Fred exits the office Scrooge is met by two solicitors. Both, in contemporary terms, bleeding heart liberals:
"Scrooge and Marley's, I believe," said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. "Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?"
"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavoring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."
"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
The section in bold came to mind as I engaged in a debate with a facebook friend who did not find the Colbert video funny. This is the end of the discussion:
Him:.....
You love to put groups of people into boxes and summarily dismiss the entire box, and that is just wrong. I know many liberals and many conservatives that give of their time and money to help people. I think if you gave them the chance to do the bulk of what is needed to help people who are underprivileged, they would surprise you. There is no one category of people who need help. Every person has a different reason, a different trial or problem. Some are self inflicted, some are not. Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two.
December 17 at 3:57pm ·
Me: "Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two."
And based upon the Christian Dogma who is the one who is qualified to make that determination?
December 17 at 4:04pm ·
Him: Only somebody who develops a personal relationship with the person in need. True charity involves giving yourself to serve others and listen and learn, not just give money.
The problem as I see it is that as Americans we are spoiled children of privilege and as Scrooge says: "It is not my business." So who's business is it?
My mother is dying of emphysema. She is in the very advanced stages and is in incredibly poor health. She also suffers from Post Polio Syndrome. She struggles to breathe and is in constant pain. One of the conditions she did to herself. In fact she still smokes with the O2 turned all the way up. The other she is a victim of. She dedicated 30 years to raising her children and did the best she could with the tools she had. While we do what we can for her including grocery shopping, taking her meals, and getting her to the doctor; we are of humble means and cannot pay for her care. She was on a medical retirement for 10 years and now is on social security and a meager pension.
While I agree with my friend that charity, true charity requires a personal touch, I also think it is unrealistic and impossible for everyone. I pay into Social Security, I pay income and sales taxes and while it is not my favorite thing to spend my money on; I recognize it is necessary. My Mother has us. Many others have no one and the only care they get is the care Medicare of Medicaid covers. Whether you are homeless by your own choice or because of mental illness; whether you liver is failing from alcoholism or NASH; whether you have lung cancer from smoking or working in asbestos; you deserve the best care you can get and to be comfortable on your way to returning to health or in my mother's case as you prepare to die. If you want to question where the money goes and who deserves it ask yourself who really profits from defrauding the government. The answer lies in the lobbyists and the capitalist who exploit the system to the tune of billions. Not the poor who benefit from the programs and exaggerate their conditions to get a few more dollars to live on.
It's time this "Christian Nation" put its money and compassion where its mouth is.... or acknowledge you are hypocrites and just don't want to do it!
There is not a term that grates on me more than "Family Values" Not because I have anything against the family unit nor do I fail to value the family unit (I do come from one and have created one) but because it is a code word for hate, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and self righteousness.
Indeed "family values" represents the doctrine of conservatism, and in this country the doctrine of Christian conservatism. It comes about under the sheep's clothing of providing public policy that supports and protects the family unit. It is against pornography, nudity, immodesty, vulgarity, evolution, global warming, and a myriad of other conservatives causes.
The "Family Values" caucus is responsible for absurd practices like covering legally distributed magazines in the local grocery stores because someone might become aroused by cleavage. Frankly, I think this brings more attention to the periodical and increases the likelihood that little Johnny with become titillated by the airbrushed bombshell on the cover. I find it concerning that we allow any group determine what is potentially offensive to others and the exert their brand of control on that stimulus. I personally think that if you cover the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition or the Women's Fitness magazines because it sexualizes women; we should also cover Modern Bride...after all you know what they are about to do?
In addition to censorship they are also the ones who have lobbied against advertisements of The Gardasil Vaccine, open discussion in public school health classes of the use of condoms as a way to prevent disease and pregnancy to our teens even with our permission. They are first to push capitalism even as it leads to the demise of the family unit through increased work hours and reduced benefits for the parents charged with providing for the family and ultimately a meager retirement for the elderly. They are also the first to push out family members who have been born gay and are foolish enough to acknowledge it and to warn us against social justice.
On its face the "Family Values" unit appears to represent the "Values of Christ" but under the banter of family values celebrities Like Rush, Glen Beck, Dr. Laura, and Sean Hannity, the values of Jesus look more like this....
Unfortunately the family is not really well served by rigid doctrine. It allows no room for mistake, growth or progress. While engaged in pulpit pounding demanding that Americans engage in personal responsibility they fail to acknowledge that everyone is dealt a hand that is somewhat random and not everything is in your control. When those who are poor, liberal, or non-Christian make mistakes, or are dealt with an overwhelming hand, the family values caucus is the first to eviscerate the sinner. However when a man like Rush admits he is addicted to drugs, or like Kevin Garn admits he had an illegal sexual encounter...they are first to circle the wagons. They cannot even give the opposing side credit when they say something that makes sense. Ultimately this is not family values it is Tribal values and is not meant to benefit humanity but to defend the ways of tribe no matter how dysfunctional...
This video was brought to my attention by Leah Elliot of The Whore of All the Earth. It discuss how we are wired as humans in our decisions about what is moral:
I think it is interesting How Jonathon Haidt identifies the the characteristics that form the conservative and liberal moral identities. The two of the five assigned to liberals is Harm(protection) and Fairness. The two assigned to conservatives is Respect for Authority and In group Loyalty. The conservatives "family values", it would seem are about the tribe and keeping control. The liberal values are about valuing humanity and I think are a better fit for my family.
You love to put groups of people into boxes and summarily dismiss the entire box, and that is just wrong. I know many liberals and many conservatives that give of their time and money to help people. I think if you gave them the chance to do the bulk of what is needed to help people who are underprivileged, they would surprise you. There is no one category of people who need help. Every person has a different reason, a different trial or problem. Some are self inflicted, some are not. Some people are truly helpless, others are simply irresponsible. The government doesn't distinguish between the two.