"BECAUSE I HAVE WORKED HARD AND LONG"
(sung to the tune of "Because I Have Been Given Much," lyrics* by Grace Noll Crowell and music by Phillip Landgrave)
A satire by James E. Lewis and the ensuing discussion
"BECAUSE I HAVE WORKED HARD AND LONG"
(sung to the tune of "Because I Have Been Given Much," lyrics*
by Grace Noll Crowell and music by Phillip Landgrave)
A satire by James E. Lewis
and the ensuing discussion
|
|
|
My husband Jim and I are
opinionated. And we often share those opinions with friends, especially on
Facebook. Jim penned these lyrics because they seemed to fit more accurately (in
contrast to the original
lyrics*)
the attitudes he was seeing expressed towards the poor. I thought the lyrics were great in the way satire ought to be, so I posted them on Facebook. We had quite a discussion going, and then I got more involved in answering some of the questions posed by my sister-in-law ... and the response turned into a couple of pages. So instead of posting back to FB, I'm going to copy the discussion and my lengthy reply here. I'm adding the other comments, without most of the names--I'll just assign numbers. |
| (25 Sep 2010) |
| Participant 1: Wow--once again, satire cuts right to the bone! I think King Benjamin would approve of this message. |
| Jim: Yep. That's satire. Got any other tunes you'd like some lyrics for? |
| Participant 2: Thank goodness there are people who have amassed enough personal prosperity, through hard work and careful investment, that they can donate tens, hundreds, thousands and millions to the charitable causes of their choice. Without those who HAVE money, those who have not couldn't be helped. King Benjamin encouraged us to be charitable. The government forcibly takes the fruits of our labors and gives it to whomever and whatever THEY choose -including corrupt foreign gov'ts, abortion clinics, Big Unions, auto bailouts, and more. No thanks. |
|
Karlyn:
Modest donations from many modest people has a much more profound effect on a
society. We will never fulfill all of the real needs of our society by relying
on a few people who have managed to amass large fortunes. And if allowing our government to "take the fruits of our labors" allows them--on our behalf--to fund libraries, police, teachers, AND help out the 1 in 7 Americans who live in poverty in our nation1, then I say, "Yes, please!" Does our government fund things that I would not? Of course, but then Americans are a big group of people with different opinions and beliefs, and it would be naďve of me to expect only my quieros to be fulfilled. |
| Participant 3: Karlyn, I am interested in your comment about modest donations. I agree that modest donations from modest people have profound effects on society, and in part because they will always have a profound effect on the giver, as well as the receiver. I am curious, however, as to whether the comparison you makes implies that those modest donations will eventually fulfill all of the real needs of our society more effectively (or more completely) than donations by the more fortunate with greater fortunes, or perhaps by institutions or charitable organizations. I am also wondering whether that was a personal observation, or whether you have read studies or books that draw that conclusion, and have statistics or specific examples to illustrate. If so, would you be willing to share that? Thank you. |
|
Participant 2:
You know I am not talking about funding police, fire, schools etc when I reject
the idea that Big Government can take over 50% of my earnings in various taxes,
fees, assessments, etc. But even those areas are grossly overfunded - pensions @
90% of salary, educational mandates and requirements that make no sense, ie NCLB
- ALL students will be Proficient or Above by 2014. And of course modest
donations are as necessary as the humongous ones from those who can afford them. But in America, the right to private property and individual liberty is paramount. Otherwise we are back to having an elite ruling class - exactly what we have so gloriously avoided...til recently. |
| (So this is the point at which I came up with my BIG response.) |
|
Karlyn:
First of all, I reject the
libertarian notion that, “the right to private property and individual liberty
is paramount.” This usually leads directly into “we have to have free-market
economies”--which have clearly been shown to be toxic to the fabric of
societies. (Which is not surprising since free-market economies always boil down
to a ‘me, me, me’ scenario, never ‘us, us, us.’) It seems that many Church members, believing that the Founding Fathers were inspired, use them as stepping stones to conclusions that would make the FFs cringe. These members turn capitalism into [cue musical flourish] God’s True Economy--which is only possible when you ignore Church history, most of the D&C, important parts of the BOM, and pretty much all of Deuteronomy. (One of our sons recently told a co-worker: "The fact that this country's form of society and economy were necessary to allow for the restoration of the Gospel doesn't make them right or divinely appointed--just like the fact that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was necessary [but] didn't make it right or divinely appointed.") Whether or not capitalism is the best of the poor choices we have at the moment, we have to at least acknowledge how much it is NOT like the United Order. And while we are not asked to fully live that law at present and our current government is not administered by the same principles, it’s ridiculous to claim that if we can’t effectuate the whole program properly, we shouldn’t attempt to incorporate any of its doctrines into the way our government manages the economy. You know from our long discussion last time I was there that it had never occurred to me to pay attention to what percentage of our money went to paying taxes. I’ve never paid attention to how much I pay in Church offerings either. I don’t say that to brag, just that my focus on money has always been tempered by my belief that God will provide the “food and raiment” and with that I should be content. (1 Tim. 6: 8) I’m not promised a nice house, a functional car, or any of the other things we consider ‘necessities.’ I like this quote from Richard E. Johnson: “A major point from the widow’s mite seems to be that the moral judgement over the use of money is based not on how much we give, but on how much we keep for ourselves.” It appears that God’s promise to care for my very basic needs is always connected to me doing all that I can to take care of others. Of course, as a way to provide for the needs of the poor, the Church’s system of fasting two meals and contributing the money saved is marvelous. We believe that the modest amounts of money raised in this way not only benefit those who receive but sanctify those who give. On a wider-scale, special days of fasting have provided great sums as many participate. For instance, in 1985, two special days were set aside nationwide to fast and contribute towards alleviating the famine in Africa. More than $120 million dollars were raised from the first fast day, $6.4M coming from members of our church.2 However, if fast offerings were the answer to all of a society’s needs, we would not have the record of the many times the saints were asked to give--outright--their monies, their lands, and their possessions to the Church. And specifically the example of those entering into the United Order who gave away everything they owned (including the freedom to manage those possessions) and received back only what they actually needed. (And I think today we would consider the standard of living of these participants as austere, even before they pared down to “the necessities.”) The surplus went to the society, to be administered as those in charge saw fit. I simply do not believe it is somehow evil for the government to function in this same manner as a redistributor between those who have surplus and those who have dearth. The meal provided through my fast offering will taste the same as the meal provided through my taxes. The attitude of the giver only affects the giver. If I want to look at taxes as the government forcibly taking away my money, I’m free to do that. But that doesn’t make it illegal or immoral ... it just makes me an unhappy camper, because I’m focused on how much of “my” money and stuff I get--or don’t get--to keep for myself. As far as society’s needs being alleviated through modest donations to charitable organizations and institutions or even those with ‘greater fortunes’: having seen firsthand the administrative and promotional efforts that accompany fundraising, I have to say that such organizations have a very poor effort-to-yield ratio. Unlike tax collection, donations require marketing, and that usually requires a persuasive cause. Poverty just isn’t that marketable. In addition, they generally are not capable of addressing more than a single need (e.g., American Cancer Society=cancer research, Red Cross=disaster relief, Habitat for Humanity=housing). I can’t address how much effort goes into securing each private donation made by wealthy contributors, but my experience leads me to believe that very few of these gifts are made without some sort of quid pro quo. Again, such donations usually address a single, small-target need. And in the meantime, we still have 1 in 7 Americans living in poverty3 while the rich get richer. So I’m back around to modest amounts of money from many people having a more profound effect in meeting a community’s needs. But I believe that that effect will be more than financial as individuals ask, “What can we accomplish together?” rather than “What’s in it for me?” It’s just as possible for community members to view their taxes as helping out their neighbors as their free-will offerings would. Our friend, 'Sister X'4 from BYU, said that when she was a young undergraduate there, she pictured her grandmother’s tithing--certainly a widow’s mite--as part of what was allowing her reduced “member” tuition. There’s really no reason why I can’t also picture MY taxes as part of the funds providing food for the needy in my community ... or the needy anywhere. If I’m not capable of doing that with the small amount of money the government wants to take from me, then I am too focused on “MY OWN stuff” instead of trusting in God’s promises and serving others. |
|
1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17poverty.html?_r=1 2 http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/112385b.htm 3 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17poverty.html?_r=1 4 I'm calling her 'Sister X' because I do not have permission to use her name. |
|
*
"Because I Have Been Given Much"
lyrics
© 1964
Because I have been given much, I too must give; |
|
|
 BACK TO
LIBRARY |
Because I
Have Worked Hard and Long
© 2010
