[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Darwinism/Compassion]]

From: Lucy Masters (masters@cox-internet.com)
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 18:37:36 EST

  • Next message: Lucy Masters: "[Fwd: RE: Darwinism/Compassion]"

    Jan: In reference to your posting at the end...

    The homeless are an interesting lot. I "work" with them in two ways.
     First, I help run a food pantry that feeds many of these people in our
    town. I can assure you that feeding them does **NOT** get them to work
    or get them into family homes. Nor have I seen any evidence whatsoever
    that feeding them in any way increases their likelihood of becoming more
    responsible. Second, my husband and I both run a private practice in
    clinical psychology. Often throughout the year the police will bring
    "street people" to us for evaluation. As unpopular as it is to say in
    America today, it is very definitely my opinion, based upon discussions
    **with the homeless people** that they prefer to NOT be in shelters or
    family homes. You may not like that, you may even dispute that, but my
    suggestion is if you really have a problem with homelessness, you might
    want to dedicate your next two-week vacation to actually living on the
    streets with these people. Ask them...don't ask me. Ask them while you
    are getting to know them if they want shelters and family homes. You
    may be surprised by the answer.


    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Darwinism/Compassion]
    Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:13:04 -0500
    From: Jan de Koning <jan@dekoning.ca>
    To: asa@calvin.edu

    At 09:18 AM 21/02/02 -0600, Lucy Masters wrote:
    >Lucy responds:
    >I agree that we are to "take care of the poor." Where I disagree is in
    >the action. We are **NOT** taking care of the poor when we increase their
    >ranks. To me, "taking care of the poor" would involve liberating them
    >from their dependence, teaching them (as the Chinese say) to fish - not
    >giving them fish. Yes - Jesus did give them fish rather than teaching
    >them to fish, but he didn't exactly become a welfare agency either. These
    >were more like sporadic episodes.
    >So again, I must say that working toward a world in which humans are
    >healthy and living within the boundaries of their raw materials is a good
    >thing. It is certainly the way "nature" would have it, and I believe God
    >created all the systems in nature.

    I don't think that you know what to do about the people living on the
    streets of big cities. I see them regularly. When I was living in an
    inner city in Europe I saw a lot of things that were very wrong, but I did
    not see so many people living on the streets in far below zero (Celsius)
    level. Our governments are concerned about The Economy but don't seem to
    care about these people. Also, we in N.America are using far more than our
    share of the available raw materials, by our power to buy things. I do
    not know how to change these things, as long as we elect governments who
    only care about The Economy.
    In other words we don't live within the boundaries of OUR raw materials,
    but use a good bit of the materials of other countries.

    Jan de Koning

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 18:45:36 EST