This morning two of my colleagues at work and I got into a discussion about the preposterous media frenzy over Swine Flu. I made the mistake (or so it seemed) of mentioning my belief that we all should do something about the poor and malnourished, for they are the carriers and the ones dying from the swine flu. One of my colleagues jumped on me for this, calling me naive and saying that it was "natural selection" for the weak and the old to be killed off by disease or predators. Now I don't want to portray my co-worker as heartless. I simply think he was speaking as a well-to-do person with a good job that has lived a comfortable life.
I retorted to his natural selection argument that "would you tell me to let my daughter die from swine flu, if she contracted it? Would you tell the doctors not to help your parents or grandparents? You only make that argument because the sick, the old, and the dying are disconnected from you." He argued back that natural selection had chosen my daughter to live because I was in a situation where I could obtain medical care for her, whereas natural selection hadn't chosen for malnourished children in Mexico to share the same survival. To this I responded "what is natural about government corruption forcing a welfare state? How can my daughter, who was born into wealth through no fault of her own, deserve to live any more than a child who was born through no fault of its own into poverty and malnourishment in a third world country? It just seems...wrong...to me to just let the poor and old die because they aren't lucky enough to live in the right income bracket in the right country."
This led to an almost 30 minute discussion where I staunchly defended universal health care (and strangely, European socialistic societies) based on the idea that a tiny increase in my taxes would provide a huge benefit to a dozen underpriviledged people, one colleague was sort of in favor socialistic societies in that he believed they were more utopian (though far fetched) than capitalism, and the aforementioned colleague stuck to his guns on free-market capitalism to the bloody end. He argued (as though citing a textbook) "the best system is one in which conflict and competition are the avenues of success." Eventually we all diffused the discussion by segueing into golf talk.
But I got to thinking about it, and really, swine flu, capitalism, all of it...it all seems to be pointing me towards Matthew 19:16-22 (or Matthew 6:20, or Luke 12:33, or Luke 16:9, or Acts 2:45 or Acts 4:34) where the general overlying principle is this: sell your belongings, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. Your earthly possessions are totally, utterly meaningless, and are a obstructions on your path to righteousness.
How can I possibly reconcile that with free-market capitalism? How can I rationalize my own desires to be wealthy with my desires to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept since my youth. What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment