The question on CNN was “What would Jesus cut?” Was it a good question to apply to the budget crisis or was the question just crass?
The TV was on in the background. There was a panel of three young pundits. I was not originally all that interested in CNNs typically superficial treatment of important topics such as the state of our collective values. I didn’t bother to catch the names or the default positions of the cast: Conservative, Liberal, etc…
My interest peaked, however, when I heard the young woman in the middle upper box on the screen vote that the question was crass because the government doing all those Christian (my word) things for them takes away the peoples’ motivation to help each other.
I honestly don’t know about the woman who offered this opinion, but most people who proffer this point of view typically love having it both ways. They will argue six ways to Sunday that the forefathers intended this country to be a Christian nation and that anyone who disagrees is un-American. But that’s only when the government tries to even the playing field for all religious beliefs. It’s a great “us” versus “them” sort of thing to argue hysterically over. However, when the government, which is the people of the United States, tries to express itself as a collective Good Samaritan, then suddenly, all that Christian talk disappears. Religion again becomes a matter of individual practice and conscience. Accordingly they say, Jesus should not have anything to do with the budget of this “Christian” nation. He might see it as an organized extension of His command to feed the hungry and heal the sick and that means taxes. That would not do. We may be a Christian nation, but that’s a little too Christian. Nobody wants to be a Christian if it means we all have to chip in a bit more to help our neighbors.
Only the spoiled and deluded believe they can have it both ways. Either we’re a Christian nation, Sermon on the Mount included, or we’re not. We need to separate out when an argument is about religion and when it’s about greed.
When philosophy and ideology supercede pragmatic things like hunger and death, this is when they do us in. Does this CNN political spokesmodel believe that if we remove social programs and safety nets from the government that suddenly everybody is going to get religion and race off to love their less fortunate neighbors with food, shelter and medical care? That is a very optimistic view of human nature that borders on magical thinking.
These programs were not created in a vacuum. FDR did not just wake up one morning, get a mischievous look in his eye, and say, “Let’s screw with the rich. Let’s take over the work of the Christians so we can tax people more. We can call it the New Deal!” When the New Deal was developed there were needs that were of a scope that individuals and small organizations could not or would not meet them. There still are.
I’m all for individuals doing everything they can. I am for a vigorous campaign by our leaders to advocate the power and the moral satisfaction found in volunteerism. It would be exciting to see the government urging an individually self-imposed budget of time and money to help those who can’t help themselves. Imagine a national volunteer campaign evolving into something like the civilian war effort of WWII.
If volunteers could do away with government social programs, all the better. But for the sake of the hungry and the sick, volunteers need to step up and show that they can handle the burden before we allow people to starve or die if they can’t. And, in the meantime, let’s not let the idea of volunteerism serve as excuse for greed.
Darrell Hill
