“When we say “do unto others” we are talking about compassion. Jesus embodied compassion: to the poor, to the hungry, to the outcast, and especially to those in need of healing.

Compassion is the very opposite of the “what’s in it for me, not in my backyard, I’ve got mine who cares about yours” mentality that too often takes hold in political discourse. ”

I say “Amen” to that. The health care issue is ultimately about compassion for others and national pride in a country that takes care of its citizens.

Is Ms. Dolan on solid ground invoking President Obama and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in a discussion regarding the Christian dimension of compassion? Before announcing his intention to run for President, Obama gave less than one percent of his affluent earnings to charity. Is this really someone who can lead by example in so-called social justice matters? Kennedy, who could have been a natural champion of the unborn, turned his back on them and therefore snubbed participation in the greatest human rights cause of our time.

First of all, Ted Kennedy knew nothing about compassion when he let Mary Jo Kopechne die. Imagine how she felt as the water was coming in the car and she saw Ted swim away. The compassion he developed later in life was never convincing to me.

I’m just wondering how much of the high taxes that I currently pay is compassionate enough? Much of that money already goes to social programs so I’m wondering how much more I should pay to get the title “compassionate”?

Perhaps there should be a checkbox on our tax forms that is for “Extra Healthcare Funding”. I wonder how compassionate the most liberal of citizens would be?

Karen Armstrong points out in, A History of God, that every major religion of today had already discovered by 200BCE that compassion was a key component of spirituality. As a psychological activity compassion breaks the barriers of the ego. The latin meaning of the word “religion” is to “link back”. Psychologically speaking we are linking back to levels of consciousness(awareness) that transcend the ego. The function of all spiritualities is to help us become less ego-centered(selfish). An act, born of compassion exemplifies in action the scripture of all faiths.
As an aside, I believe Barak Obama is a very compassionate human being.

Call it the curse of wealth but somehow for most people having it takes compassion out of them. The cure is to give regular charity but the problem is most of the ‘patients’ do not consider losing compassion as a problem. I dealt with two aspects of this issue in past blogs from a purely philosophical point of view.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/islam/2008/12/the-trial-of-wealth/#comments

Here is a part of the quote from the Qur’an I used in the first blog.
(267) O you who have attained to faith! Spend on others out of the good things which you may have acquired, and out of that which We bring forth for you from the earth; and choose not for your spending the bad things which you yourselves would not accept without averting your eyes in disdain. And know that God is selfsufficient, ever to be praised.
(268) Satan threatens you with the prospect of poverty and bids you to be niggardly, whereas God promises you His forgiveness and bounty; and God is infinite, all-knowing,

The second blog got some more reaction. Some people found it offensive to consider that poor people could be more generous.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/islam/2009/03/are-poor-people-more-generous/

There was a recent book titled ‘Richistan’ written about the superwealthy in America. One of the comments of the author was how most of the superwealthy really resent the public charity of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (who are among a small minority of superwealthy that are very generous). One of the superwealthy said to the author that it is easy for Bill and Warren to give they have billions but I have only 500 Million and I can’t give it away like them. It is the poverty of spirit of those without compassion that limits their own potential for humanity.

Khalid, I respect charity very much. Helping people in need, out of your own pocket, is compassion. As such, “government compassion” is an oxymoron. Government doesn’t have anything in its own pocket that they haven’t taken from someone else’s. And when we talk about how certain politicians support providing something to someone — health insurance to those who don’t have it in this case — it is not compassionate, and it is absolutely immoral.

How generous are we when we give away things that we’ve only taken from someone else first? No matter the ends, taking something from one person or one group is not moral. It even says so in my religious book, the Bible, and I’m sure it says so in yours.

One of the five pillars of Islam is charity, and I applaud that, as long as it is voluntary. But giving away something that you’ve first taken from someone else is not charity, is not compassionate, and is not moral.

In the case of Senator Kennedy, empathy would have been a better word. It is true that Jesus embodied compassion but where, in scripture, does Jesus advocate social justice programs like the program President Obama talks about that, apparently, exists only in Obama’s mind?

We can also have compassion for those who - presumably following God’s will for them - desire to retain their money for God’s purposes rather than buy health insurance. Being forced to buy a helmet to drive a motorcycle or buckle up to drive a car are minor expensives for doing elective activities. But, those who would force people to buy health insurance just because they are living and are citizens of the United States surely are not completely compassionate.

Jesus, letting the spirit of God control his life, was able heal the sick in supernatural ways. Through creative effort, modern medicine can do much of the same. In our desire to be compassionate, we should ensure creative efforts to develop new drugs and devices are not dampened by redistribution of medical insurance coverage schemes. Innovation in medicine provides postponement of death and relief of pain. Without the achievements of modern medicine, it is doubtful we would be blogging about compassion being the key to health care reform.

First, re-reading my own post, I think I oversold the notion of compassion as a uniquely relational emotion. But still agree with my overall point, I’m happy to say!

Two strands of comment need some response: First, I’m not invoking either Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama as paragons of compassion in their private lives. That would be a hard case to make for Kennedy, less so for Obama, but it’s not my point at all. I’m talking about their approach to policy, which I do believe is compassionate.

Second, and it’s related: I don’t buy the argument that only individuals, not the government, can be compassionate, or the idea that government programs are spending someone else’s money. This is, I think, the classic divide between liberals and libertarian-leaning conservatives. I believe that, since our government is by, of, and for the people it is, quite simply, US. It is OUR money that WE spend. Well-run government programs are a much more efficient way to do good on a large scale for some societal issues than individual charity. Doesn’t mean there isn’t room for both, but I don’t see how charitable giving is going to solve our health care crisis. Individual compassion just won’t get us out of this particular mess. And other countries that have a more centralized health care system are way out ahead of us in quality of care and are gaining on us in terms of research, so I don’t find the concern that reform would undermine the advances of modern medicine very convincing either.

Finally (for now!) thanks to Khalid Shah for jumping in and reminding us of what he has written on this (with excellent links) and to Edward Smith for the reference to Karen Armstrong’s work. I’ve read some of her books but not that particular one, and I’ve had the privilege to hear her speak, and I think she’s a wonderful resource.

Hugh,
Thank you for mentioning Zakah, the obligatory part of charity for Muslims. In early history Zakah was collected by the government. It is only in later times, with despotic rulers, that muslims started to do it privately. But we are again moving towards government administration of Zakah. There is a lot of good reasons given in our traditions for preferably making Zakah a government administered function. It doesn’t mean we cannot privately do Sadaqa or general charity on an individual basis. The second Caliph Umar was the first one to setup a state welfare system for orphans and widows and the infirm receiving a regular stipend from the state treasury.

Just because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean it’s not true. If other countries with socialized (or “centralized” as you worded it) health care systems are “way ahead of us in quality of care,” then why do so many patients, med students, and doctors come here? Please give examples of other countries you’d travel to for better health care. By that I don’t mean just better health insurance, but rather more ready access to better doctors.

And how can you say that government programs are not spending someone else’s money? Pamela, you said that it’s OUR money that WE spend. So you have money that you earn from your job at the Post Dispatch, and I have money that I earn from my job. Together, that is “our” money? I want to go get a beer, but I don’t have any cash in my pocket. Is it okay for me to reach into yours? Whatever’s there is “our” money after all.

Of course, that is silly talk. If I reach into your pocket and take money, we call it theft. When government, which is “US”, reaches into your pocket and takes money, you call it compassion. I still call it theft.

If something is wrong for an individual to do, but it’s okay if enough individuals get together and agree to do, I call that mob rule.

You said, “Well-run government programs are a much more efficient way to do good on a large scale for some societal issues than individual charity.” Can you give examples of what you think are well-run government programs that are more efficient than anything in the private sector? How do you define “good on a large scale?” What are some “societal issues” that you think government has any right trying to address? And what societal issues has government actually solved in the past, without creating other ones?

You said, “Individual compassion just won’t get us out of this particular mess.” Perhaps not, but can you acknowledge the government’s role in creating this mess in the first place? How does more government fix problems created by government?