|
I think such attitudes spring from how a person was raised, and that they were recipients of good luck (environment, health, opportunity, parenting...) combined with their own hard work which convinces them that 'if they can do it, anybody who works hard can'. It's a sort of lack of experience or having led a protected life so as to never have contact with people who lack the same advantages (listed as good luck above, and including everything from having received a strong work ethic example from parents to the benefit of having a few talents or reasonable degree of intelligence). With these and parents who've developed similar attitudes based on their own life experiences, they just failed to develop a more comprehensive sense of empathy; they can't fully appreciate what it would be like to "walk a mile in someone else's shoes". Yet, in another related sense, it's a kind of "pride". Pride in their own accomplishments and abilities, pride in their hard won independence and success. Pride that can make having to accept assistance (or "charity") all the more difficult.
In the example you've given, it sounds as though your Father really had to stretch and grow and overcome his attitudes and pride; certainly facing a devastating illness with or without overwhelming medical expenses can be an incredibly difficult experience. Such may necessarily involve having to accept "assistance" and include the loss of independence. As difficult as this is, it can be all the moreso if one is used to being able to deal with anything life hands you. Add to that a well developed sense of pride and it's even more difficult. However, if there are any good things be they small or large that can come from such troubles, it probably includes a greater capacity for empathy and the ability to better understand the difficulties some others have had to face, and presumably, a greater appreciation for the existence of such programs as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaide.
Even with such an experience, though, it may well be that a person never developes an empathetic understanding of how such factors as individual circumstances that include the absence of available education or employment opportunities from a young age... Then again, every person grows up and becomes responsible for their own lives; many people fall victim of whatever disadvantages they face as children, seeming to use whatever misfortune they faced as an excuse while failing to take advantage of new, real opportunities to improve themselves and their lot in life (which seems illogical and is easily seen as "laziness" by many).
The question arises as to whether or not such individuals, based on everything that's led up to who they are at a particular moment, regardless of how available new opportunites are, are they 'capable' of taking advantage/applying themselves. It may be that they are, in a sense, 'damaged' goods--unable now to even recognize or participate in activities to move forward which appear obvious and simple to the rest of us. There's something to be said for the notion "each of us always does the best we can", it's just that for some people, they face obstacles invisible to the rest of us--obstacles that may well include self-defeating attitudes or beliefs. Yet even though the development of such attitudes may have resulted from external environmental factors (and their interaction with the resulting physical and mental capacities created as a consequence of the combination of their available genetic qualities with their environment and past history) such as poor parental role models (or a host of other sources), such attitudes may be both counter-productive and unworthy. Laziness and a sense of entitlement are examples of such negative attitudes; and though it's not usually as simple as this, at some point, a person has to become responsible for overcoming their own personal demons.
An enlightened, supportive society would likely seek to make tools, programs and assistance available to all to help in improving themselves. Additionally, most advanced societies justifiable conclude that regardless of circumstance, people should not have to suffer starvation, exposure to the environment (nature/the elements), or do without basic medical care; especially children. Therefore such civilized societies provide a "social safety net" to protect it's citizens from the worst. We do provide some such protection in this country, but it's really pretty limited and many of the benefits either require that you have a long history of work (and consequently have paid taxes), or that you are downright destitute (you've already used up almost all available financial resources). Even then tens of thousands (or more) don't receive any assistance, and though we don't often see them (unless you live in a big city), there are homeless people everywhere. Too many go without and are still ignored.
I would suggest that societies that are composed of a Christian majority should be sure to provide comprehensive assistance for the poor and disadvantaged since that is consistent with their own teachings; likewise I find it strange that the very people who make the strongest claims to such a pious religion are invariably the ones who complain the loudest about such charity. Perhaps it's just that when such assistance is provided via their secular government, they aren't allowed to either proselytize or withhold assistance from non-believers. After all, why should "we" have to support people who don't believe as we believe? That's actually saying "why should we have to support people who hate us and our way of life, people who are sinners and are therefore Satan's minions who seek our very destruction", although they'd deny it. Plainly, they think when Yeshua taught giving to the poor, that meant 'believers' who happened to be poor (and even then they begrudge and bemoan the giving).
These religious people (probably imagining themselves as "philanthropists") often even conflate their donations when they attend their churches (the majority of which goes to the operation of said church) with the overall funds received by charities. Even more, these "Christians", somehow figure that their own 'charitable' giving, including whatever monies they actually part with which are given directly to 'real' charities, amounts to enough to provide adequate assistance to the poor. Perhaps they're sufficiently separate and distant from those in real need--they don't see how many people or how desperate their circumstances are, so it's easy to underestimate the need. Still, to add insult to injury, in their minds, the vast majority of funds given as assistance are being given to people who are "unworthy" and are defrauding the government. They focus on the one to three percent found to be cheating/abusing the system and act as though they represent 99% of recipients. That's an extremely flawed interpretation and couldn't be more wrong because these programs are very cost efficient and help millions of people.
Thanks to the Bush Administration, things have gotten worse on many fronts. Economically, there are many more people living in poverty now than when he <i>took</i> office, and the outlook, if we're honest, is that thanks to his massive increase in the Public Debt and Deficit Spending, the economy will likely collapse within a few years. When that happens, much of the middle class will join the ranks of the poor, and at a time when there will be no funds for the Social Safety Net. Other damage to the system was initiated by Bush when he tore down the Constitutionally intended separation of Church and State by authorizing federal funds for private, religious (spelled Christian) charitable organizations. Simultaneously, he defunded many secular federal programs--even those with stellar records of helping the poor and disadvantaged become successful contributing members of society by having lifted themselves out of poverty (through the development of skills and/or increased education).
It shouldn't surprise us that matters have turned for the worse with respect to social issues of poverty, when we've been facing serious setbacks and new obstacles in every aspect of social, economic, educational, environmental, diplomatic, national security, international relations etc... This suffering is the natural consequence of having literally the <i>worst</i> President in history, enabled by factional politics wherein his party has achieved a dominant majority in all branches of government. Make no mistake, nearly every problem we face was either created by or made significanly worse, by this President and the blame lies exclusively (again, exclusively) with him and his party (Bush and the Republican Party). Remember, Democrats aren't even allowed to participate in the people's Congress!
In any case, the world needs greater understanding, tolerance and empathy for others. We should all see it in the context that "we're all in this together" and so we should do everything we can to ensure that everyone has the best life possible. Working together, we can do much more than we will with many competing factions including a considerable number that oppose each other.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
