I remember hearing about a young minister who preached her first sermon. It was well-received, and the people responded with enthusiasm.
The next Sunday she preached the identical sermon. The people seemed puzzled, and the elders huddled. They decided she was young and inexperienced, and they just needed to encourage her.
But when she preached the same sermon again on the third Sunday, the elders took her aside. "We want to help," they assured her. "We know that you're inexperienced and may not have but one sermons; so what can we do to help"
"Oh, I have other sermons," she said. "And as soon as I see evidence that you've heard this one, I'll move on to the next one."
The longer I live the less
I feel truly understood. In fact, the longer I live, the less I sense
that many humans understand each other. It’s hard to disagree with the graphic posted here.
Many folks seem to think they already have all
the truth, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and must be corrected. Too often
their attempts to correction are filled with hostility and words of hate
(although hatred is universally denied). Antagonism usually increases when there
are political implications.
Let me polish my halo a
bit before I say that I think I’m a good listener. It is my intention
to listen to any and all perspectives on a given issue. As a result, I have been known to change—or at least modify—my perspectives regarding some issues.
To be sure, I hold strong
convictions about most subjects. On the other hand (hold on a second while I
adjust my halo), I recognize the difference between “conviction” and “truth.”
I’ve said and written many times, “I believe in absolute truth, but I don’t believe
any human or human community is capable of perceiving truth absolutely.” I
don’t see much evidence that many others are aware of—or care about—any distinction between “truth” with their perception of it.
Still, I feel
compelled to keep trying to articulate my convictions, maybe as much
for self-understanding as for sharing with others. I’ll keep trying. Maybe I’ll
be either heard or corrected. Either is acceptable.
Labels, parties and philosophies notwithstanding, my political position is
simple: it’s about people—all people—having unencumbered access to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to everything those ideals imply. I believe our government
exists to implement the goals and aims of the Preamble to our Constitution: “…to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity…”
Too often the
details of implementation get hidden in the quagmire of political ideologies
that serve as smoke screens to hide an intention not to reach out to
people. Some of those ideologies indicate a callous lack of caring. Others
assume that recipients of assistance are undeserving. Some are based on a
political philosophy that says government should not be involved in anything
other than infrastructure and national defense (Constitutional Preamble
notwithstanding); and some emerge out of a political and economic perspective
that puts budgets and spending above the needs of people.
Many who oppose public
assistance would defer that task to faith-based and private sector entities.
Theoretically, I agree. Tragically, human needs exceed the resources of
faith-based entities, most of which are declining and struggling to survive.
Many private foundations and individual philanthropists deserve headlines and
kudos; but their combined efforts and resources also are insufficient to make a
general difference; and many of them bypass the human needs that exist
outside the specific focus of their efforts.
I understand that public
assistance programs are abused, and that undeserving people take advantage. But
I have seen convincing evidence that such cases represent a small fraction of
the total, and that most abuse and fraud is done at the administrative, rather
than the distribution level. To withdraw all such assistance in order to stop fraud is a cruel slap in the face to the vast majority of recipients whose
needs are valid.
I would rather insure that
every human need is met, even if in the process a significant number of
undeserving persons receive resources, than to see one person go without needed
medical care, food, clothing, shelter and a fair living income for work
performed. I don’t care who gets it done; but I do care who obstructs its
accomplishment.
My politics places people
above any political or economic ideology, and I simply don’t care which
organization, agency, ideology or party offers the most effective means of meeting human
needs.
I’m working through my eighth decade of life, and my observation consistently has been that those who
popularly are labeled “liberal”—for all their faults and human failings (and
there are many)—are more willing than those who popularly are labeled
“conservatives”—for all their virtues and merits (and there are many)—to meet
human needs by whatever means are available.
I think that’s part of
what it means to “establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” and therefore I
believe that’s part of what the government is created to accomplish.
And that’s the way I see
it through the flawed pane of glass that is my world view.
Jim
