Evans misses the point of the Good Samaritan story
I am writing in response to Jim Evans’ column in which he instructs us to support the current health care proposal because of the Biblical example given in the story of the Good Samaritan.
I believe he has missed the point of the story. Jesus says that the Samaritan was filled will compassion and charity and helped the poor injured man in the ditch. Since those two virtues are foreign to most modern folk, I will resort to ole’ Webster for definitions.
Compassion is “sorrow for the sufferings of another accompanied by an urge to help.” Charity is “a voluntary giving of money or other help to those in need.”
The key point here is that the man was personally moved with empathy and he used his own resources to help the man. This personal connection is beneficial for the giver, recipient and society.
In contrast, the big government version of this story would look like this:
Two men pass a wounded man in a ditch and do nothing. A hard-working Samaritan comes along and is filled with compassion, but has no time or money to give the man.
Along comes a politician and sees an opportunity. He has already taken most of the Samaritan’s money so he hires (with the Samaritan’s money) someone to gather information about the man in the ditch, another to pick him up, another to build a hut on the edge of town and yet another to deliver bread and water once a week.
Thus he can brag about how much he cares about the poor and win the votes of the gullible, those who are receiving the meager help and those who think that is charity. It is the desire for control and power.
Julia Thomas
Waverly
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement