An Impractical Idealist

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

-- 1 Corinthians 12:14-20

Many in our society believe that resources - up to and including food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare - are finite and therefore should only be allotted to those who deserve them. Specifically, it is the giver who gets to determine you are worthy, and if you are not, (s)he will not waste these valuable resources trying to help you. The only "right" people have is the right to provide for themselves. The problem is "you can't fix lazy or stupid, and they're the ones who cost money."

Conversely, I believe that NO ONE deserves to starve, sleep on the streets, freeze to death, or be treated like a piece of garbage. And by NO ONE, I mean NO ONE. Regardless of their criminal record, substance abuse, or lack of employment. Call me naive, but I guess I underestimated how radical of an idea this is. And I caught a lot of grief for it tonight.

Because apparently, when it comes to working towards a tangible solution for the homeless, recognizing the inherent worth in all human beings, regardless of their choices or circumstances, is too impractical. Moreover, it's a viewpoint indicative of someone who is "co-dependent in their relationships." That I cannot POSSIBLY be part of the solution with beliefs that are not rooted in realism.

In the course of this conversation, I was labeled a co-dependent, bleeding heart wannabe saint seeking to save the world and win a Nobel Peace Prize. While the person went on to laud himself for having a much more practical approach to the problem at hand - without, mind you, specifying what that approach actually is. 

I'm not sure I understand why was it necessary to tear down someone else whose opinions may differ, but whose intentions are the same. To paraphrase St. Paul, what purpose does it serve for the eye to tell the ear she's less important, or less effective? What does it matter what drives us, so long as we are using whatever gifts we can bring to the table for the greater good?

With Thanksgiving around the corner, can you imagine going to a feast and every single guest bringing turkey?

Of course, there's yours truly who shows up empty handed but writes a song about why we should all be thankful. Talk about impractical...

And I will stop there for now, because it seems the OTHER "TC" (tired and crabby) is creeping up on me. I'm sure things will look a bit less daunting after a night of sleep...