Pat, Jerry and the Rabbi

I guess it’s my turn to weigh in about Katrina and Rota and the rest of all that stuff. This morning I listened to a theologian speak to the issue of the Religious Right and the disasters resulting from Katrina. One of the lead-in comments had to do with how Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are quiet. They don’t seem to be saying anything about the disaster. This fine theologian went on to say that his assumption must be that although Pat and Jerry would likely be spewing about how the wicked city of New Orleans was destroyed by an act of God they must be holding back because there are a lot of Bible thumping folks in nearby areas that were also beat up by the storm. The theologian went on to say that they must be asking themselves the same question that Lot asked of God, “Would You destroy the righteous with the unrighteous?” The second part of the “sermon” was to suggest that these two prominent right wingers should be asking themselves more about what can be done to help those in need and serve Mankind. Building or rebuilding levees and providing food would be better than blasting the poor for their own ineptitude.

First, everyone is allowed his or her own opinion. And while there are some things that I will agree with in the “theologian’s” statements, I have a few tiny bones to pick. And, for the record, no, I am not offering any excuses or support for Pat and Jerry. They have done an excellent job of oral/foot juxtapositioning for themselves. I do not need to help.

Jesus said that we would have the poor with us always. In the past 20 centuries I see absolutely no reason to think otherwise. You cannot legislate away the poor just like you cannot legislate morals. People are people and they will do – or not do – as they wish. Of those that are poor it has been said that they fall into three categories: those who are in need of help because they have fallen on hard times; those who cannot do for themselves no matter how hard they try (we used to put these people in asylums, and then hospitals); and those who simply will not do for themselves because they are looking for the easy way out and care nothing for hard work. We can offer help to all three but the type of help must be different to reach each. While the right seems to be focusing on the last two and saying that they cannot be helped because they don’t want help or can’t use it if they get it, the left seems equally focused on the first group and assuming that it must constitute 98% of all the poor.

There are no reasons why solutions cannot be created that provide assistance to each group with the lump that is called “the poor.” The problem with that is that it requires an extensive amount of effort to sort through the list and make assignments. Some of the folks who might want to be in one group should actually be in another group and some who are avoiding one group are trying to seek help surreptitiously (did I just say someone lied?). And to do so may look like this sorting is “discrimination.” Well, look up the word in the dictionary. That’s exactly what it is. And it’s not a bad word. It means to look at something carefully and sort between options. I discriminate every time I buy a tube of toothpaste or a car. If, on the other hand, I only but Chevy’s because Fords are stupid cars – that’s prejudice. There is a big difference. We, as a society need to get over the use of the word discriminate and use the word prejudice.

We need to discriminate in the types of assistance given to people. Not just in the people but in their needs. Some need housing, others need work, while still others need just a comforting “you can do it” and a shoulder to cry on. If the basis for our discrimination rests with outward appearances, race, gender, or religion, then that’s prejudice and it’s wrong. There is a price to pay for this thinking – it takes work. We have to actually listen, and sort through miseries, and offer assistance as may meet the need.

So, what’s this got to do with the theologian and the Pat and Jerry shows? Plenty! None have offered to go through the effort of rightful discrimination. Each sought to make take a large lump, fashion a bowl, and put everyone in it who doesn’t think like them. Somehow I feel like this is our own little American extremism.

I met a man at the airport once who said that he didn’t care if you were on the right or on the left as long as you stuck to your guns and supported your beliefs. But he hated the folks in the middle because they couldn’t be true to any cause. My slightly inebriated friend wasn’t ready for my long winded discussion. It is the folks in the middle who stick to their guns that keep this country afloat and oriented. They too need to discriminate rightly and not scream at either side (so please don’t take this as screaming).

Abraham wandered through the neighboring lands and attempted peace with all he met – sometimes to his detriment. Jesus told us to love one another as He loved us – not as the world loves. Moses sat in judgment over the people to mend problems – not divide the nation. Mohamed spoke of the equality of all people – there should be no classes. Gandhi and Martin Luther King spoke these thoughts and changed nations. Where are we as a people when we cannot “hate the sin and love the sinner?” The trouble is in today’s world of sound bites we tend to only hear the first and last part of any conversation and loose that which is in the middle.

Me? I’m more thinking that the reason Pat and Jerry haven’t spoken out against the “Sodom of the South” is because they realize that there are needs to be met which is more important than ideologies. And the “theologian” just hasn’t heard about it because that sort of thing isn’t sexy enough for the news media. It “doesn’t sell.” But the important point was missed by all three. It isn’t what you say – it’s what you do. Ask any three year old.