I am more confused than ever. I read and hear daily about the core values of our founding fathers. Mixed in with this is the strong undercurrent of their "Christian" values. Much of this verbiage comes from the right (be it the Christian or Republican) side, from those of us who are affluent and do not have to worry about putting three meals on the table each day.
The founding fathers, most of whom were Christian, saw Jesus as a role model, someone they could worship and emulate. As best they could, they sought to lead their lives in a manner that followed his example. I got to thinking: Who was Jesus? What were his beliefs? What did He do? We know He was poor. He had no house or property or possessions. What little food He received He gave to others. He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and cared for the needy. His only wealth was God. He lived his life by the golden rule, "Treat others the way you would be treated."
A public figure (I do not remember who) said that we are not angels. We do not, or perhaps cannot, act the way Jesus did. But we recognize the goodness and service of His existence and turn to our government to provide these things. It makes no difference if the government is small or large, Republican or Democrat; it is the duty, in any civilized and developed country, for the people to feed the hungry, give shelter to the poor, and provide medical service to the sick.
And here it becomes even more puzzling. For months now, I have heard and read cries of outrage about how, through our recent healthcare legislation, we are practicing socialized medicine and have forgotten the core values of our founding fathers.
Recently, I was asked to give a short talk on my ancestor, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Surgeon General of the Continental Army, Secretary of the Treasury, arguably the preeminent physician of his time, the nation's first psychiatrist, and author of the principles now used in the treatment of mental illness. As I researched his life and achievements, I became increasingly aware of the humanity of this man. He set up the first Free Clinic in Philadelphia, where the poor were treated without charge (socialized medicine in the 1700s!). Each evening, he walked home from his work at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia and ministered to his ill patients -- most of them poor -- never charging a penny. For his services to the army during the war, he did not seek compensation. When an article defaming him was published, he sued the author, won, and gave to the poor the princely sum of $5,000. Dr. Benjamin Rush "walked the walk." He took it upon himself to serve others less fortunate when he could easily have capitalized on his fame and professional stature. On his deathbed, his last words to his son, Richard Rush (later to become Secretary of State) were, "Be indulgent to the poor."
Rush saw not only the need but the duty and responsibility of each citizen to help those less fortunate. It was a most natural and "Christian" thing for him to establish his Free Clinic. So when I read each day of those on the far right knocking health care legislation or bemoaning our loss of the core values of our founding fathers, I think back to my great, great, great grandfather, one of the leading lights of these founding fathers. I quote here his response to his political criticism:
The Amor Patriae (love of country) is both a moral and religious duty. It comprehends, not only the love of our neighbors, but of millions of our fellow creatures, not only of the present but of future generations. The SOCIAL spirit is the true SELFISH spirit, and men always promote their own interest most in proportion as they promote that of their neighbors and their country. (The Hamden Letter, October 20, 1773)
In essence, Dr. Rush judged community service, public service, medical service, and caring for one's neighbors and country as patriotism.
That Christ, Krishna, Buddha, or Mohammad did not teach that we were not the son of man but the SON OF GOD or Christ Consciousness while in body and Cosmic Consciousness out of the body.
Believing in his name and not becoming his DEED, forgetting his sacrifice for the great gift of GRACE. But he came to teach each person to eat of the WORD not feed the magnitude. He did not do that either, not that he could not have. He taught each should find their path to Self Realization.
Nothing against holding hands singing Kumbyha, good achievements or helping your fellow man, it is not a requirement. But not harming your fellow man is a requirement. We each bear our own cross and not another's, be that service to others or self realization or both. Surely not selfishness.
But none of these great souls taught us that the it is our responsibility to save mankind. There is nothing to save. Each person must save themselves. Yes, helping others is good, while helping ourselves to others goods, life, prosperity is evil itself.
I think probably they understood that while giving your money to the poor is a virtue, taking money from others to give to the poor is not.
The England of the Founders' time had poor laws to provide those being displaced by agricultural and industrial changes. Jesus' first words about his public ministry were that he had "Come to preach good news to the poor" and to proclaim the Year of the Lord, the Jubilee year when all debts were forgiven and the land was returned to its original owners--who may well have sold it during the 49 years between the Jubilees. In Jesus' day farmers were never allowed (by religious law) to pick up any grain or fruit that fell to the ground. The poor, the orphaned and the widows were allowed to come in and pick it up after the regular harvest was done--just one pass through, a second harvesting was forbidden. Farmers could also not cut the grain in the corners of their fields. What the circular scythes missed was also available to the poor.
Perhaps the Founders did not anticipate having money taken from the rich for the poor, but they knew that one could not keep all that might be thought "his" so that the poor--and the aliens--might take it. Leviticus (Yes, that Leviticus) 19:9 and 10.
My response was mainly in the context of your question, which frames our current view of social welfare as a departure from those of the founders, and I'm not convinced that's really happened. To me, the absence of constitutional language makes it clear that the founders did not see this as a federal job. Possibly that they felt this was a government role at the *state* level -- a survey of state laws and constitutions at the time might support your thesis.
Regarding your other examples, I don't see a lot of constitutional language supporting federal programs for roads (except by stretching the Interstate Commerce clause), public transportation, social security or education, and I'm not aware that any of these were federal initiatives in the Framers' time.
There was no federal department of education until 1867, and its original mission was to collect information for the states to use in their own departments of education. Now they control 10% of our education spending. Clearly the founders of our country valued education, perhaps above all else, yet they did not apparently see this as a federal role.
Yet it is Dr. Rush’s commitment to the public good that really stands out. Not only was he willing to forgo pay for much of his work, he risked the gallows as a Signer of the Declaration of Independence. How many of us today, myself included, are willing to take such a stand?
If we all could incorporate just a fraction of Dr. Rush’s courage into our daily lives, the world would be much improved.
Peace
Chris
The preference for local solutions is deeply ingrained in the American political foundations as is the notion that gvmt has a critical subsidiary role at the margins of care for others. It still is dominant among our center-right electorate. The inability to appreciate these nuances is why the progressives about to get a major smack down next Tuesday. What is needed is a return to localized care for neighbor, not more massive centralized impersonal bureaucracies.
I'm not arguing about which position follows the philosophy of jesus, I'm not even sure that matters considering how "metaphorical" the bible is taken by the more liberal christians. The more obvious point is there are as many flavors to the "truth" of christianity as there are christians.
Fortunately, compassion lives in the human heart and there will always be compassionate people. So the answer I would give to the woman is "No, not the death of compassion as a human quality; but we could well be witnessing the death of compassion as a public and civic ideal."
Unfortunately, the best evidence for this is someone who is arguably one of the most compassionate public figures of recent times-- Barack Obama. To the best of my knowledge, in none of his speeches over the past two years has he appealed to compassion, or to a sense of morality. Instead, he has chosen to argue his policies in terms of pragmatism and utility. This choice has left his critics free to attribute to him false motives and false ideals.
And it has left his supporters uninspired. If compassion is to be regarded as a moral duty, public figures-- political figures, religious figures, intellectuals, activists and others-- must be willing to hoist its banner and proclaim that it is fundamental to human decency and therefore to human civilization. Otherwise, the indecent and uncivilized will enter in to fill the vacuum.
You cannot force one to be compassionate.