An article in the Washington Post On Faith section in response to their question:
What's your response to this question from a Post national poll of low-wage workers? "What role does God or your faith play in helping you get through tough financial times?"
The new poll on poverty has a certain brazen quality about it, or is it rubbing salt in the wound accidentally? The poorest people in any society are the most vulnerable to economic anxiety. They are the least able to afford downturns and have almost no power to improve their lot through political leverage. The poll revealed that the poor are aware of their teetering situation. Did anyone expect that they would discover anything other than pessimism?
To the degree that the poor still believe in the American dream, a Marxist would say that they have been duped. There are more opiates of the masses than just religion. However, there are no unbesmirched Marxists left, it seems, so the social wheel must turn in a new direction. Having abandoned the welfare state in its most liberal and generous aspects, America ignores the poor as never before -- the idealism of the "respectable poor," the compassion shown to victims of the Great Depression, and the social crusades of the sixties are gone. Is there a new idea that can bridge the immense gap between rich and poor in income, education, health, and opportunities?
Religion certainly isn't that new idea. Asking the poor if they turn to God in hard times -- and discovering that the vast majority do -- revives the specter of Barack Obama's "clinging" episode. It also validates, if validation was needed, that clinging to religion is a very real phenomenon, one that has its own dignity and worth. Few people in any income bracket fail to pray in a dire crisis or to hope that a higher power sees their plight. There may be no atheists in the foxholes, as the wartime slogan went, but there are few on a sinking ship, either. The pessimism revealed in the poll is simple realism as seen from the lowest deck.
Forty years after Michael Harrington's groundbreaking book, "Poverty in America," which launched the War on Poverty with high ideals that never materialized, our knowledge about poverty is enormous, but our will to attack the problem is slim. One reason is obvious. As many economists point out, the poor subsidize America's enviable lifestyle. Every underpaid hotel maid, McDonald's cook, migrant farm worker, and school janitor living below the poverty line is contributing money to the rest of us. Without the poor there would be no American dream, and yet they are the least likely to benefit from it. If I am being asked what sustains me in economic hard times, my answer isn't conventional religious piety but a new vision of possibilities. Such a vision must be spiritual at its core. Begin with the notion that all souls are equal, and that each person can evolve in consciousness. Give the poorest people -- and everyone else -- the tools to expand their own awareness, and heartless questions about how it feels to be poor won't be necessary anymore.
Get a sneak peak of our new venture at www.intent.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
True 'dat, cousin!
So are we asking about public or private policy here?
With respect to public policy the questions are:
1) What are the known and likely effects of the policy?
2) What are the costs, (dollars and social)?
3) What risks are associated with this policy, (social, legal, political)?
4) Who will oppose this policy, and can I counter their arguments successfully?
5) Will I be running into vested interests and how powerful are they?
6) Is it worth spending my political capital, (political capital being the favours owed to me for past support, and the good will of the electorate?)
Private policy asks the same questions but with different weights associated with them. Bill Gates does not need to be as concerned about 4), 5), and 6), but he cannot entirely ignore them either, especially if his program is directed to a country such as Zimbabwe. If it is you or I, (and we are not billionaire philanthropists), it becomes much more of:
1) Does this policy or charity do what I want with the time and money I give it?
2) Does it do it efficiently?
3) What affect does my spending my time and money on this have on me, my family, and my circle of friends.
The larger scale considerations for the most part fall off the radar, unless the organization I am involved with is failing to deal with them well. But then that will affect those things I am concerned with.
So then, I must ask:
1) What am I willing to do, and with whom, to improve the plight of the poor?
2) What price am I willing to pay and for how long?
3) Am I prepared to see some level of abuse of my charity, (as there always will be a few who will abuse it?)
I am sure there are other considerations I have not stated, these are just my perceptions, and the one's I ask myself when trying to decide what to do, whether it be contributing to a charity or giving a buck to someone on the street. (Although in the latter case, the state I am in and the effect of my first impressions will colour that response far more than the rational considerations. Always remember, we are instinctive and emotional in our responses much more than we are rational.)
"If I am being asked what sustains me in economic hard times"
Have you ever known hard economic times? Last time I checked, you were a multimillionaire, and have been for quite a while.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.