Teaching By Symbolism: The Good Samaritan

GoodSamaritanby Anniel3/19/16
But he [a lawyer], willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, and who is my neighbor? Luke 10:29 KJV. • Do you remember the first time you heard the parable of The Good Samaritan? Was your response, like mine, that the poor man was set on by thieves, beaten, stripped, robbed and left for dead? Lots of people passed him by, but no one helped him until one of the Samaritans, hated by the Israelites, came along, had compassion for him, and rescued him. Of course most people immediately resolve to always help those in need, their neighbors. I know that’s what I thought the whole story was about.

Then one day the thought occurred to me that the Good Samaritan was putting himself in real danger. The band of thieves might still be nearby, ready to pounce and rob again. No wonder the other travelers on the road hurried by. But I remember still being convinced we needed to have the courage to do the right thing.

The two following true stories about being a Good Samaritan, or not, later revealed to me how hard that decision is to make.

I worked as a paralegal for several years. Our office was on 4th Avenue in Anchorage. There was a two block east/west stretch of 4th Avenue which Bob Hope had jokingly called the “longest bar in the world.” Unsavory in spades, especially on the south side. Our office was on the east end of that stretch of street, while the court was west of us. Part of my job was to take our pleadings and filings down the five blocks to the court. I always walked on the north side to avoid the two blocks of bars.

Then construction began on a mall and hotel on the north side of the street between our office and the court. I was forced to walk on the seedy south side. I would take our legal papers in my arms, hold them protectively against my chest and walk fast past those two blocks where the bars were. This was the situation one day when I got right in front of the Montana Club, the most notorious of the bars. My arms were holding a large folder of pristine legal papers, my head was down staring at the ground, and I was walking fast, almost running, when someone grabbed me.

I was forced to stop and I looked up to see a very drunk native woman bleeding profusely from her head, as though someone had bonked her with a bottle. She held my arm and begged me to help her. Believe me when I tell you, I had no idea what to do. Blood and snot were dripping on me, the papers represented hard work so I could not let them go nor get them dirty, and what could I possibly do for the woman?

I don’t know how long I stood shocked and frozen there, it couldn’t have been long, but it felt like an eternity. Then a bartender stepped out onto the sidewalk, took the woman’s arm and led her away, as he assured me he would take care of her. I began running in earnest then. I felt like such a moral failure. After all, this woman was my neighbor. I still don’t know today what I could have done.

Some years later, before many people had cell phones, a main thoroughfare was built a few miles from our neighborhood. The road had just opened when a woman who had been working night shift drove down it and saw a screaming and seemingly bloodied woman run out of some willows by the side of the road. The woman in the car pulled over to help. She opened the car’s door to get out when suddenly a man ran up from the willows, dragged her down, ripped off her clothes, then beat and raped her. All the while the decoy woman she had stopped to help laughed and cheered him on.

This made me thoroughly rethink being a Good Samaritan. What if the victim had had children in the car with her, would they have been harmed too? Not that long ago in, was it Montana?, an illegal alien murdered two people on a reservation who had stopped to help him. He said they laughed at him, poor boob that he was.

The answers our duty to our neighbors are complex in ways I still struggle with. As our society is coarsened and more evil is let loose, our responses need to be considered carefully.

There is a big caveat here. Are the parables Jesus used to teach really as simple as they appear? Or are they like peeling an onion, layers upon layers of symbolism that always reveal new meanings to enrich our lives if we study them? Deciphering symbolism is becoming a lost art today, but let’s take a look at how it works.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is found in Luke 10:30-37 KJV. There is a stained glass window at a cathedral in France that tells and clarifies this story and shows the symbolism of each element in the parable as early Christians understood it. It might be easiest if I capitalize each symbolic person or part and then explain after.

And Jesus answering said, a CERTAIN MAN went down from JERUSALEM to JERICHO, and fell among THIEVES, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain PRIEST that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a LEVITE, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain SAMARITAN, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him. And went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on HIS OWN BEAST, and took him to an INN, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence and gave them to the HOST, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

Early Christians used fallen Adam, often referred to as “a certain man”, as a symbol for every man. We are all on the journey of life between Heaven and Hell where we can lose everything. Jerusalem is symbolic of Heaven, the holiest place because the Temple Mount was there. Jericho, on the other hand, considered the lowest place on earth, was by the Dead Sea, where wicked King Herod kept a winter palace. An apt symbol of Hell.

The Thieves, of course, are symbols of anything that might turn fallen man from God. We all, like Adam, stand between good and evil, always in danger on our journey.

The Priest and the Levite were commissioned under the Law of Moses to aid the suffering, but failed in their duties. To touch blood would have made them ritually unclean, but showing their failure in their higher duty, to love their neighbor. This is a rebuke to the failing religious leaders of all times.

Did you know that the Jews tried to taunt Jesus by calling Him a Samaritan? The Good Samaritan is the symbol for Jesus, He who has compassion on us, saves us, and heals our wounds. His Disciples, which hopefully we are, are his “own beasts”, who emulate the Savior by helping carry to safety and care for the poor and wounded.

The Inn is the church, a place of refuge, while the Host is the church or synagogue leader who should be in charge of that refuge until the Lord, the Good Samaritan, comes again, as He says in the parable He will. Notice that two pennies is what the Lord says He will pay those who serve Him. In other parables He offers the same pay, no matter when the worker is hired.

Today we have great need to “go and do likewise.” How to do so in some kind of safety is a problem that requires courage and thought.

There is a wonderful but difficult poem by e.e. cummings called “a man who had fallen among thieves”, that ends by describing the person doing the rescuing of the wounded being “banged by terror, through a million billion trillion stars.” I am posting it in Poetry if you are interested in reading and discussing it. It describes some other aspects of the “thieves” who are there to harm every man. I suspect we’ve all met those thieves, one way or another.


‏a man who had fallen among thieves
‏lay by the roadside on his back
‏dressed in fifteenthrate ideas
‏wearing a round jeer for a hat

‏fate per a somewhat more than less
‏emancipated evening
‏had in return for consciousness
‏endowed him with a changeless grin

‏whereon a dozen staunch and leal
‏citizens did graze at pause
‏then fired by hypercivic zeal
‏sought newer pastures or because

‏swaddled with a frozen brook
‏of pinkest vomit out of eyes
‏which noticed nobody he looked
‏as though he did not care to rise

‏one hand did nothing on the vest
‏its wideflung friend clenched weakly dirt
‏while the mute trouserfly confessed
‏a button solemnly inert

‏brushing from whom the stiffened puke
‏i put him all into my arms
‏and staggered banged with terror through
‏a million billion trillion stars

‏e. e. cummings • (2185 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Teaching By Symbolism: The Good Samaritan

  1. Anniel says:

    Brad, Thanks for posting the poem with the article, that does make it easier.

    I have been a fan of cumming’s poetry from the first time I read him. This particular one is difficult if you are not aware of cumming’s style, which I have heard called a “gimmick.” I have never felt that way, because writing without capitalization, or punctuation forces the reader to do the WORK of understanding the deeper meanings.

    Not everyone gets poetry, especially good poetry, but once poets were the people who educated whole civilizations, called the people to consider beauty and truth, and brought about change. I believe we need more poets today to help us keep our own culture.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well, I do think it’s a gimmick. The point of punctuation is communication. But the point of much poetry is pretension. I think E. E. had some of that.

      Regarding The Good Samaritan, that’s what cell phones are for. No woman should get out of her car or home in the dark of night. She should be suspicious of a scam. Men should as well.

      I think one of the layers of the onion is that we pass people by because we think they got what they deserved, so why should I put myself at risk? That was the first thing that came to my mind regarding that woman in Anchorage. If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas. Most real men would move heaven and earth to help an innocent in danger, especially a child or a lady. But involving oneself in the inherent effects of debauchery of the dark underbelly of society I think is different from helping an innocent. Instead of bringing light to the world, you’re just going to get stained.

      The one essential point of The Good Samaritan is that beneficent acts are pointless in a nihilistic universe. There is no inherent reason to do good if there is not good and specially if there is not the prescription that one ought to do good (which was the message from Jesus at the end of the parable).

      The Good Samaritan is ultimately about using a different and higher measuring stick than simply assessing situational risks.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Another important point about the story, and one that was brought up when we discussed it at catechism at Ursuline (we all had to attend and received the books, though only the Catholic students had to participate), is that the Samaritans and Jews were enemies. This makes the Samaritan’s aid to a Jew especially significant. And, of course, seeing him just lying there, he could be reasonably certain it wasn’t a scam. Today it too often is.

      • Anniel says:

        Bear would die if I left home without my cell phone, always reminding me it’s for my own protection. The poor woman who was dragged from her car happened before cell phones were available so cheaply, and remember how patchy their reception was. And, yes, there are people in positions who need help because of their own folly. I have always respected the Salvation Army because they have been willing to go places I would not choose to go to try and reclaim lost souls.

        Ought we to do good? Of course, but it must be more than lip service. We have plenty of that today in our nihilistic society. I like the thought about there being “inherent good” as part of the universe out there. It does demand more of us.

        • M Farrell says:

          Anniel–
          Sometimes being a Good Samaritan can be dangerous without requiring evil– Recently a very dear friend of mine died in a car accident– She veered off a 4 lane and her car ended upside down on the shoulder– She was still alive, coherent, hanging upside down from her seatbelt– A that point, a Good Samaritan stopped, got out of his car, rushed over and tried to get her out of the car/cut her out of the seatbelt because he realized that the car was on a very dangerous (blind) curve on the highway– You can probably guess the rest of the story– A truck came around the curve and hit them both– She was killed instantly on impact and the Good Samaritan was severely injured (6 days in the hospital, broken ribs, and so many pins and rods in his left arm that he will never again have full use of it)– When I visited him at the hospital he was in tears because he nearly had her cut out of the seatbelt– Another minute was all he needed– A minute between earth and heaven that he did not have, that was not granted– The goodness of this gentleman, not to mention his sheer physical courage, went a ways to renew my belief that there is some light in this world– The absolute adoration and pride on the face of his 9 year old son when he talked about his father the “hero” was something I won’t soon forget–His wife seemed to explain it all by saying “my husband truly believes that there is no such thing as a stranger”–

          • Timothy Lane says:

            When Robert Heinlein spoke at his alma mater (the US Naval Academy) in the 1970s, he brought up a similar story. A couple were crossing a railroad on foot, and hers got stuck with a train approaching. Her husband worked to get her free, but didn’t succeed and both were killed. What especially interested him — after all, one would expect the husband to do what he could — is that some drifter passing by also tried to help, and died with them. Heinlein’s conclusion was, “That’s how a man lives. That’s how a man dies.”

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              That’s also a reminder that being The Good Samaritan doesn’t always have a happy ending. And think about how equally important it is to have the world running rampant with Bad Samaritans. Shit happens. But if you drive unsafely by driving beyond the coverage of your headlights (as many do), you’re begging for an accident.

              Good Samaritans can’t save the world, but they can certainly do a lot of good. But imagine how much better the world would be if we didn’t have so many uninformed, lazy, apathetic, or self-indulgent Samaritans.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            That was indeed a Good Samaritan. And as you point out, being a Good Samaritan often involves risk. The well-prepared Samaritan would have had a couple road flares arrayed. Come to think of it, I’ll have to pick a couple up myself.

            But there are such things as strangers. I don’t really abide by the “no strangers” canard. The point of The Good Samaritan is of helping someone despite the fact that he is unknown to us (a stranger).

            This is where Kumbaya Christianity wrecks everything by denying the clear fact that there are strangers. Denying the existence of strangers is not the point. Strangers exist just as friends, family, and acquaintances exist.

            A more eloquent response would have been “I recognize the innate humanity in another, even if I don’t know him.” Okay. Great. That’s a great ethic. But to obliterate the category of “stranger” and to say “there is no such thing” is to go down the road where there is a lack of discernment. It’s where you have fools such as John Kasich saying that everyone deserves to walk across the border because they are “made in the image of the Lord.” As Ann Coulter quips, this “would require America to admit everyone in the world — provided they can pass the rigorous background check of being human.”

            • M Farrell says:

              “A more eloquent response would have been “I recognize the innate humanity in another, even if I don’t know him.” Okay. Great. That’s a great ethic. But to obliterate the category of “stranger” and to say “there is no such thing” is to go down the road where there is a lack of discernment. ”

              Hi Brad– I agree with your sentiment, but from what I observed of this family, they were not the kumbaya types at all– They were at a hospital after 4 enormously stressful, exhausting days (eloquence is a lot to ask for at that point) and she was speaking to me, a complete stranger– I took
              her meaning to be your more eloquent phrasing of “the recognition of the inherent humanity in another person who is in reality a stranger”– The proof being that her husband “walked his talk” in an instance when there was no time for flares– I don’t think this is even in the same ballpark as the current assortment of political fools that spout all kinds of pseudo religious hokum for the benefit of cameras but would probably need smelling salts and adult diapers if ever put in a situation of actual risk–

              Perhaps we need to guard against becoming so cynical that we can no longer recognize the difference between the real article and political posers– It is unfortunate that true goodness and actual courage has become the startling exception to the rule and that our default reaction is that it must somehow be false or shallow– I know that this family was a jolt to my usually jaded view of life and the modern world in general.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                That’s good to hear, M. I’m sure you’re right.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                One way to tell difference between genuine charity and posturing is by the amount of publicity. Those who are posturing make sure that there’s plenty; genuine charity may receive public notice, but that isn’t the point.

              • Lucia says:

                I don’t know anyone who would pass by a car wreck with somebody still inside and no emergency vehicles present. This man acted like any decent person should act. I think he put himself in their shoes. That person needed help, and he was available and able to try. Wouldn’t any of us do that?

          • Anniel says:

            How beautiful it is to be so brave and loving. Thank you for the story.

            • M Farrell says:

              “I don’t know anyone who would pass by a car wreck with somebody still inside and no emergency vehicles present. This man acted like any decent person should act. I think he put himself in their shoes. That person needed help, and he was available and able to try. Wouldn’t any of us do that?”

              Lucia–
              More than any thing in this world I wish I could agree with you– It was a busy highway– He was the only one that stopped for quite some time — Even after the second impact– It was the truck driver from the second part of the accident that phoned it in for help– I wasn’t there but it did not sound like people were stopping to help– (although there were a few gawkers)

              • Lucia says:

                My husband had to remind me that I live out in the hills where people depend on the kindness of their neighbors and most of the country is not like that anymore. Please pardon my “Aunt Bea” moment.

              • M Farrell says:

                Lucia–
                I love Aunt Bea–

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    I have read occasionally about various crimes that take advantage of the good impulses of people — often the sort of civility and trust that are essential for civilization. My view is that such villains are at the very bottom, even below other criminals. In effect, they add a betrayal of society and civilization to their other crimes.

    On one occasion, Elizabeth and I were coming back from a Christmas-New Year’s party in Bloomington, IN (we didn’t go this year because Elizabeth doesn’t think she can get in anymore). At a rest area, a man asked for money for breakfast — I don’t remember the details, but he didn’t have any available. I would have been willing to help a bit if I knew for sure his problem was real, but I didn’t. Fortunately, we had with us some donettes that we had brought to the party and which hadn’t all been eaten, so I let him have some of those. (He was very grateful.)

    • Anniel says:

      There is the story of Kitty Genovese, as I remember that was her name, and the people who stood doing nothing while she was murdered. No one could understand why no one helped her. That was horrifying then, now it’s just another story because we’re afraid to help. If you do help you might wind up in jail in some cases. Sad, but sometimes there are no easy answers. Glad you had the donettes.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I still remember reading about that case in The Stars and Stripes (we were still in Greece), and I was horrified (as were the rest of my family). Perry Mason did a show that was clearly a response to it. But more recent studies indicate that the situation wasn’t as bad as the news reports made it (though still not good). In particularly, one might note that it was very dark, and people didn’t know just what was happening, particularly when Genovese initially got away from the murderer.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Over the last several months, I have had a fair amount of trouble with my car. The diagnostics scan would only give a general indication of the problem such as PO 171 which meant there was a problem in the ignition system. (And this wasn’t the only number which came up.)

    Unfortunately, there are a good number of potential problems which can arise in the ignition system so it took me changing something like 6 or 7 different filters, sensors, etc before it looks like I may have finally solved the problem.

    During that period my car would sometimes stop cold on me. This would most often happen when turning into a parking lot or stopping at a red light or stop sign.

    This is not a comfortable thing to happen, but both my wife and I were very pleasantly surprised at the number of people who stopped and asked if we needed help. These people ranged from poor Latinos to seemly well off citizens.

    Others who have moved to Texas have told me how friendly and helpful Texans are as compared to people where they come from. I believe it.

    While helping someone with a stalled car may not be the same as helping someone who has been beaten bloody, I do find it heartwarming. I have not quite given up on the human race, some of Hillary’s and Trump’s supporters notwithstanding.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Elizabeth has had a number of car problems, and often has gotten valuable help at key moments. It helped when she was in her church parking lot, but it’s also happened elsewhere. The worst problem I had was when my accelerator pump went dead while I was in the middle of a crowded street. As soon as I could I hunted down a phone (which took a while) to call AAA.

    • Anniel says:

      KFZ, Getting cars fixed today is a pain. Remember when you could open the hood and know what the parts were? You could even see the ground under the car, and maybe even make the repairs yourself. I sometimes think I should have been born in earlier time. But some of the old fashioned skills may be needed again.

      I still have not entirely given up on our fellowmen either. In spite of car jackings.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        You could even see the ground under the car . . .

        Now THAT’s poetry. 😀 A wonderful observation, Annie.

  4. GHG says:

    The Truth as taught by Jesus in that parable is timeless, as applicable today as it was when Jesus taught it. I think the key is to prepare yourself so that when a situation arises that may be scary or even dangerous, you have the courage of your convictions. Preparedness through prayer and studying His Word. That’s what is required to follow Jesus, else we’re weak in our own strength and will not always do what Jesus would have us do.

    Lest I sound pompous, I confess that I don’t regularly prepare myself to be Jesus’ disciple and although I would like to believe I would help and care for my neighbor in their hour of need, I’m probably not prepared to face a scary or dangerous situation with faith and courage.

    But I believe that is what Jesus has told us to do.

    • Anniel says:

      Mr. Lesser: The spirit is willing, but, often, the flesh is weak. It is a problem that we fight all through our lives. As I thought of the symbolism behind the parable it made it more alive to me than simply the injunction to follow the Lord’s example as a Good Samaritan. It literally helped me see the reality of Him as a person who died on our behalf, who prepared Himself to become our healer and Savior. We’re supposed to be helping in that task, hard as it may be. It’s our job until He comes again.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We arguably make a dozen calculations, many of which we are unaware of, when confronted with a Good Samaritan scenario. If someone is older than 50, for example, that’s an indication that it isn’t likely a scam. If it’s a woman rather than a man. A child rather than an adult. And even Jesse Jackson has admitted, whether the person is black or white.

    The story of The Good Samaritan is most usually brought up in order to stoke warm-fuzzies. Oh, isn’t it nice that someone stopped to help Mr. Kung (and indeed it is nice). Oh isn’t it nice that someone returned that lost wallet. Oh, isn’t it nice that someone helped a person in distress and didn’t get robbed as a reward for his do-gooderism.

    The reality of The Good Samaritan, at least in today’s world, is that he or she is taking a very big risk. To not help someone because they are of a hated tribe (Jews) is certainly part of the message of the original parable. And tribal hatred, all other things being equal, is a very poor way to conduct oneself. But if Jews were typically laying traps for Samaritans on the highway, would Jesus have spun the exact same parable?

    One ultimately performs a duty because of one’s personal code of conduct. It’s why you return the lost wallet. It’s the right thing to do. But putting your face in a buzzsaw is not the right thing to do. There are harsh realities involved. If being “The Good Samaritan” is all about the personal uplifting and self-congratulatory vibes of being a do-gooder, I’m not sure that’s what the parable was about. It was about overcoming prejudice. It was about helping a neighbor or stranger. But I don’t think it was about being stupid.

    The drive to be a “do-gooder” can set oneself up for all kinds of harm, making the situation far worse than it would have been. We have a duty also to our family to remain alive. We must be discerning. And most of all, we must realize that being The Good Samaritan is not for the faint-hearted. One reason that so much “charity” work is useless, if not counterproductive, is that people have not been schooled in the fact that it is a huge task to look evil in the eye and not be overcome by it. “Life at the Bottom,” as Theodore Dalrymple calls it, does not consist of angels who simply had the misfortunate of losing their job or having their house burn down. The reason so many people need a Good Samaritan is because they have made a practice of committing evil as a way of life.

    That is certainly why Annie’s brief brush with the drunk, bleeding woman outside of sin alley was complicated. It certainly was not amenable to simplistic “do-gooder” impulses. For Annie to effect any good change in that woman’s life would have required something more than a quick-fix. It would mean much more than healing her superficial cuts. It would require dealing with the evil that had become a regular part of her life.

    Our country runs rampant with naive “do-gooders” who have no conception of evil and who just assume everyone’s behavior is a product of material want. These people waste huge amounts of money and reign destruction upon those who need help if only because they make it easy for people to stay in their sins.

    The Good Samaritan was not the only parable that Jesus taught. It would make no more sense to use this as a one-size-fits-all guide to conduct as the “turn the other cheek” ethic. Sometimes you do. Sometimes you don’t. It takes wisdom, experience, discernment, and a willingness to do good (not just to be a do-gooder) in the first place to advance on this road to wisdom.

    Surely this is one reason Jesus spoke in parables that were often layered with meaning, if not downright obscure. He could, of course, have just written “Jewish lives matter.” But he didn’t because he wasn’t a dumb-ass.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Jesus told the parable in response to a question about who is one’s neighbor (in order to follow his admonition to “love they neighbor as thyself”). The anti-tribalism would thus be a very important aspect of the story. So would the basic point of how the Good Samaritan actually helped the robbery victim.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Thanks for the context of that, Timothy. Certainly the anti-tribal message is just an important today with Cultural Marxism doing its best to divide people along those lines.

  6. GHG says:

    Actions speak louder than words. Jesus points out the hypocrisy of the Priest and Levite whose actions speak louder than their words. That is as much of the lesson as the actions of the Samaritan and it applies to us all.

    Yes, I have a responsibility to my loved ones to not naively put myself in danger, but I should be more prepared than I am to be able to discern if God is leading me to get involved in a situation that may be dangerous. It is too easy to discern it would be a bad choice to get involved when in fact it isn’t led by the Holy Spirit through faith but rather by self preservation or expediency. There does have to be a discernment, but it needs to be led by One wiser than Mr. Lesser and the only way Mr. Lesser can be thusly led is by having THAT line of communication open.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Making the discernment between these three is particularly difficult today:

      1) The prompting of the Almighty

      2) The expediency of self-interest (masked in a thousand ways by rationalizations)

      3) The prompting of feel-good Kumbaya whereby the *feeling* of being a do-gooder swamps discernment regarding whether or not one is actually helping another.

      • GHG says:

        Making the discernment between these three is particularly difficult today

        Yes, and a point I should have made is the reason it is so difficult today is that our secularized culture has conditioned us to tune out that small inner voice, or maybe a better way to say it is the cacophony of today drowns it out. Modern life for us is a continuous bombardment of sensual information so it takes more discipline than most of us have to tune out the noise and commune with the only One that can lead us past our good (and bad) human intentions to truly discern what to do in any situation. It’s not any more impossible for us to do what Jesus commands than it was for those sitting at his knee listening to the parable, it just takes more time and effort than most of us are willing to give.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I think that’s a great point, Mr. Lesser, about modern culture drowning out the little voice. That little voice doesn’t stand a chance. Thankfully he has been replaced with various Prefabbed voices (“Black lives matter,” “a woman’s right to choose,” “eat the rich”) which assist people in the discernment process.

          Who needs to think when you can just slap on a bumper sticker slogan? And as I note about Cultural Marxism, it’s not just that they’ve taught people wrong things. They’ve corrupted their very thinking process in such a way that the good things can’t get in.

          “Goodness” has been turned into a completely materialist game devoid of substantive moral content. People are bad because of various things external to them. It’s not their fault. And as we’ve all been taught, poverty, not evil choices, is the cause of people doing bad things. It’s an economic thing. We’re mere economic cogs. We have no moral aspect separate from economics (or outside of considerations of race, class, sex).

          The Good Samaritan is inherently a conservative. He takes responsibility for the situation, ignores the race of the person at hand, and actually does something constructive. The libtard Progressive instead blames “society” for the fact that there is some Jew on the side of the road in peril. (Of course, in the case of being Jewish, he would more likely be ignored or portrayed as the villain.) And if he does “help him,” it might be to tell him what a victim he is, to stoke his grievance, perhaps even to get him to join a group called “Jewish lives matter.”

          Instead of actually helping the victim, the libtard Progressive will more likely look for “root causes” of people being so materially destitute that they have no choice but to attack people on the side of the road. The Good Samaritan would thus be turned into a Community Organizer. Their “root cause” will never point to real causes because, as Thomas Sowell notes: “People who refuse to face the reality of hard choices are forever coming up with some clever ‘third way.'”

          So, first off, indeed, Jesus was not a Marxist. He was not a “social justice” warrior. He was not a libtard who Kumbayed for the sake of the warm-fuzzies. Helping your fellow man because it is the right thing to do was at least one of his messages. And we are left to discern and wrestle with what is the meaning of “help” . . . distinguishing between what is mere vapid self-indulgence based upon vulgarly fashionable “third way” theories and help that actually helps.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            My own liberal version of the parable had the Samaritan go off to the nearest town to get someone in authority to take care of the victim. Of course, by the time they got back, he was dead — but hey, at least he tried and thus showed that he Cared. Of course, that was a few years ago.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              LOL. That’s even better than my analogy.

            • pst4usa says:

              Timothy, there is a joke version along those same lines. The good Samaritan in this joke is a conservative and the victim that is drowning is Hillary, so he sends for the authorities, and as above they do not make it in time to save her. Then the conservative Samaritan ponders if he put enough postage on the letter to the Coast Guard.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                The version I’ve seen of that is being a photographer and seeing Hillary about to drown. You can take the photo of your life, or save her. The question is: What sort of film would be best?

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    While one can certainly see a message about charity in this parable, I believe the parable is about something much larger.

    To my mind, the key point is the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?”

    It should be remembered that the vast majority of people in those days probably didn’t venture more than 20 or so miles from where they were born. They grew up among a group of very familiar people i.e. their tribe, which was their immediate family and relatives of one degree or other. So while the injunction to love they neighbor as thyself is a step up from pure egotism, it also has a certain degree of self preserving logic to it in that “neighbors”, in tribal societies, are your family and the tribe is your protection. This is especially the case with rabbinical Judean Jews who were and are very tribal people.

    Although it is not clearly stated in the parable, the inference is that the beset upon traveler was a Judean Jew, because he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. And after he was left to die by the thieves, two of his own people went so far as to cross to the other side of the road to avoid helping him. Only a despised Samaritan stopped to render help. Now it must be understood that Samaritans were Jews who split from the Judeans after the Babylonian Captivity. I will not go into the reasons for this split, but the Judeans’ hate for the Samaritans was probably the type which “apostates” always earn in the eyes of those who see themselves as orthodox.

    Clearly Jesus used the priest and Levite, in contrast to the Samaritan, to show that a person’s actions were more important than one’s tribe or calling. The two Judean Jews, who were from the priestly tribe (and thus by birth and tribal obligation presumably should have been more sensitive to the plight of other Judean Jews) were horrible neighbors when compared to the Samaritan.

    So what is Jesus saying? I think the big message here is that the idea of tribes and narrow ethic interests are no longer valid. With the coming of Jesus and the new dispensation, everyone is everyone else’s neighbor. Blood and race no longer matter. How important is this to Jesus? I think an indication is given in his injunction, in Matthew, to “Love thy enemy”.

    I believe something else, which is hinted at in the parable’s message is the future course of Christianity, i.e. the spread of the religion to the Gentiles and the world thereby becoming a universal religion.

    Finally, I think Jesus is giving a message to the Judean Jews that their time as the chosen people is over. One can see the traveler as representing Jesus, the priest and Levite as the Judean Jewish people, who reject Jesus and the Good News, and the Samaritan as the Gentiles who accept the Word and spread it throughout the world.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      To be precise, the Samaritans were Israelite worshippers of Yahweh, who failed to follow the proper rituals according to the Judeans (and also chose to worship at Shechem rather than Jerusalem). The main split did come after Cyrus allowed the Jews to return from Babylon to Jerusalem, but there had been plenty of religious (and other) disputes earlier as well between Israel and Judah.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think the big message here is that the idea of tribes and narrow ethic interests are no longer valid. With the coming of Jesus and the new dispensation, everyone is everyone else’s neighbor. . . I think Jesus is giving a message to the Judean Jews that their time as the chosen people is over.

      I think that’s very thoughtfully stated, Mr. Kung. Thoughtfulness being a virtue, I’m going to impose on you for some more: How does this idea that “everyone is your neighbor” not ultimately lead to the lawless Kumbaya Christian approach as espoused by John Kumbaya Kasich who says that everyone deserves to walk across our border because we are all “made in God’s image”?

      Was the parable saying dissolve all distinctions or do you think Jesus was being more measured and specific? Perhaps the Kumbaya Christians are right. But if they are not, what ingredient is missing from their facile way of viewing the world and reading the Bible?

      This isn’t a trick question. I’d really like to hear your opinion on this.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        How does this idea that “everyone is your neighbor” not ultimately lead to the lawless Kumbaya Christian approach as espoused by John Kumbaya Kasich who says that everyone deserves to walk across our border because we are all “made in God’s image”?

        While writing my post, of course, this question came to mind. What are sensible and even scriptural limits? Just about every good idea and injunction can be mocked by taking it to the extreme.

        The poor traveler was lying alone in his own blood after being beaten and robbed. He was found in an abnormal situation, suffering in extremis where if nothing were to be done, he would likely have died. The situation Jesus presents is stark. He did not talk about the beggar sitting next to the road needing a few shekels. He talked about life and death.

        Note, the Samaritan did not take the traveler to his own home, or even say he would come back and pick him up later. He took him to a nearby inn and promised to pay for specific costs which the landlord might incur in the care of the traveler. These were not open-ended.

        Note also that the Samaritan didn’t drop the traveler off at the inn and say to the inn-keeper, “this man is now your responsibility, so you pay for his upkeep from now on.” He didn’t try to force the innkeeper to support the traveler. He didn’t impose his will on anyone. He acted as an individual in no official capacity.

        I believe it is also important that the Samaritan was presented with an immediate binary choice, i.e. leave the traveler to die, or give him aid and comfort in the hope of helping him.

        Most of our choices, even those regarding immigration, are not so limited even if some foolish people such as John Open-borders Kasich may pretend to believe they are.

        The parable talks about individuals, not groups. There is nothing stopping people like John Kasich, as individuals, from going out in the world and helping others. In fact, Christians are told to do that. But there is no such thing as collective salvation in Christianity.

        Government is coercion, and playing or manipulating the government to take money from one person in order to give it to another person may now be legal and even helpful to the person receiving the money. But it is not a Christian act. It is a political act and Christ wasn’t talking about politics. Jesus didn’t instruct the Department of Health and Human Services to love thy neighbor as thyself.

        There is the Church and there are Christians. But there is no “Christian” government. Souls can be saved, political institutions, not so much. There is no salvation through government.

        I am sure if I think some more about this I will be able to make my thoughts clearer and maybe even concise.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          You’re going into the basic point here that charity is not the same thing as government relief. The former is voluntary, the latter is not. Note that SCrooge refused to give to charity in part because of the taxes he paid for relief for the poor (by way of workhouses and such).

          But another point is that Jesus’s message has nothing to do with politics or political policy. He preaches what you as an individual should do, not what society as a whole should do.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          So what you seem to be saying, Mr. Kung, is that the Samaritan treated the injured traveler not as a symbol of a man (“a Jew”), but as a specific case to be dealt with as rationally as possible. Thanks for your thoughtful explanation.

          This is more evidence that “social justice” Christianity is not only false but evil. For the Kumbaya Christian, the race/ethnicity of the injured traveler and the helpful bystander are central (which is inherent to the concept of “social justice” whereby groups, not individuals, are given weight…real justice does not need a modifier).

          In modern terms, given the particulars of the parable, some false prophet such as Obama would be preaching how “Jewish lives matter” and be asking for a wholesale redress of grievances instead of, as the Good Samaritan did, take practical and good steps for taking care of the injured traveler. The injured travel would instead lose his humanity and become a mere pawn, a useful symbol in some darker cause. In fact, that Good Samaritan might quickly find himself in the role of George Zimmerman. The Good Samaritan might be suspected of being the actual assaulter of the Jew.

          So it seems like what you’re saying, if I may interpret a bit, is that in the parable, Jesus was unpacking all the typical human gunk associated with our corrupt and narrow ways. He was instead saying, “See the injured man on the side of the road as an injured man on the side of the road, and dispense with all the gobbledygook that race hustlers such as Obama have put there for strictly political or racist purposes.”

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            In the end, I believe the parable shows that we are responsible for our actions or non-actions in relations to others. No theory, no ethereal discussions, no question of tribalism.

            One is forced to make a personal decision in such cases.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        How does this idea that “everyone is your neighbor” not ultimately lead to the lawless Kumbaya Christian approach as espoused by John Kumbaya Kasich who says that everyone deserves to walk across our border because we are all “made in God’s image”?

        Interestingly, I just came across a “religious leader” of the late 19th/early 20th century, by the name of Walter Rauschenbusch. Born 1861 died 1918.

        When you study him, you will see that the Bible does not lead to the Kumbaya Christian approach. Rather Leftists already have specific goals in mind and then twist the Bible to best fit their ideas.

        This charlatan Rauschenbusch called himself a Christian, but it is clear he did not believe in the divinity of Christ, that Christ died to atone for mankind or that the Bible was God’s holy word.

        His intention was not to save souls, but to bring about collectivism on earth. He thought the point of individual salvation was selfish and people needed to be made aware of the need to bring about “The Kingdom of Heaven” on earth for everyone. He was a Fabian socialist so this should not be surprising.

        People can believe what they wish, but this man is a perfect example of the duplicity of the Left.

        Like many “religious leaders of the last century”, he wore his Christianity like a wolf wears a sheep’s skin. “All the better to lead you astray my dear.”

        I think such types understand the power of Christianity and use it to try to import a sort of divine patina over their leftist doctrine. A dishonest, but clever ploy.

        Of course if one wishes to take a more benign point of view in such cases that is also possible.

        For example, people such as Rauschbusch have a natural religious impulse which needs to be satisfied. After studying scripture they become convinced that the Bible has too many contradictions and cannot be the inerrant word of God. They then go through a crisis of faith. Somehow they then find a way to channel their religious fervor into “social justice” and develop a of theology of humanism using the language of Christianity, which they are familiar with. In this way, they have given meaning to their lives and filled the void that was left after their loss of faith in Christianity.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          His intention was not to save souls, but to bring about collectivism on earth. He thought the point of individual salvation was selfish and people needed to be made aware of the need to bring about “The Kingdom of Heaven” on earth for everyone. He was a Fabian socialist so this should not be surprising.

          The very definition of “social justice” whereby it is a person’s economic status, not his moral status, that is of the utmost concern.

          Listen, I’m not sure about the divinity of Christ or the unique authority of the Bible. But they are what they are and yet they have indeed been twisted to suit a political purpose. Or, as you wonderfully, wrote, “to import a sort of divine patina over their leftist doctrine.”

          I sometimes wonder if “Christian” isn’t a term best dispensed with and instead we get to the essence of what people really believe. This is so regarding so many concepts corrupted by the left. Let’s not use the word “equality” but instead talk about the specifics in order to avoid air-headed vagueness (if not subtle dishonesty). And, goodness gracious, no one who even halfway believes in the divinity of Christ should go around mouthing the words, “social justice.” You’re just doing the bidding of the left, for if Christ is real, it’s your soul and moral makeup that matter, now how many iPhones you have (or don’t have).

          That we measure our lives now almost exclusively via materialist measures shows you not only how powerful dialectical materialism (Marxism) has become, but how weak and vapid Christianity has become.

          For example, people such as Rauschbusch have a natural religious impulse which needs to be satisfied. After studying scripture they become convinced that the Bible has too many contradictions and cannot be the inerrant word of God. They then go through a crisis of faith. Somehow they then find a way to channel their religious fervor into “social justice” and develop a of theology of humanism using the language of Christianity, which they are familiar with. In this way, they have given meaning to their lives and filled the void that was left after their loss of faith in Christianity.

          You have likely nailed it, Mr. Kung. I think that is by far the best description of the dynamic. And it suits the dishonest nature of “social justice” Christianity and the dishonest nature of Cultural Marxism. Believe in Christ or not, but at least be aware of this. And if you don’t believe, then by all means, join Occupy Wall Street or some other atheistic movement that doesn’t pretend to be something rooted in the Divine.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The classical liberal notion was that equality meant equal opportunity for all. Modern leftists twist this to mean equal results for all (except, though they carefully fail to mention this, the nomenklatura, just like the pigs in Animal Farm).

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I agree that is the in-a-nutshell distinction, Timothy. Not all nuance or essence can be contained in a nutshell, of course. The liberal could no doubt agree with this distinction, for “equal opportunity” has been their calling card for some time. The differing outcomes are seen as the result of unequal opportunity, which was and is the basis for affirmative action, for instance. If “prejudice” can produce unequal opportunity, so can “poverty.”

              A conservative would point out that freedom must be duly balanced against “equal opportunity.” To have truly “equal opportunity” means dispensing with all the vagaries, subtleties, and choices of life and giving everything over to a central totalitarian governing authority which has the power to at least try (it can never succeed) to produce “equal opportunity.”

              And because, of course, there is far more to outcomes than just “equal opportunity,” the left can never achieve its goal. The only way to do so (and they will do, have done it, and are doing it now) is to punish achievers and try to hold everyone back to the lowest common denominator — basically to rig the outcomes.

              Hey, if Trump would speak half of these “politically incorrect” truths, I’d change my opinion about him.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              The classical liberal notion was that equality meant equal opportunity for all.

              Of course, this notion is based on faulty logic.

              How is someone 5’9″ going to have the equal opportunity to play basketball that a 6’9″ man has?

              How is someone going to have an equal opportunity to become an artist when color blind as opposed to having normal vision?

              How can a man have the equal opportunity to have a baby and breast feed it, that a woman has?

              People are different, but the Left only accepts this fact as long as the difference is so pronounced as to be deviancy. Normal differences don’t count.

              The demand for equal outcomes is inherent in the demand for equal opportunity.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                How can a man have the equal opportunity to have a baby and breast feed it, that a woman has?

                To quote Monty Python:

                LORETTA (formerly Stan): I want to have babies.
                 
                REG: You want to have babies?!
                 
                LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
                 
                REG: But… you can’t have babies.
                 
                LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
                 
                REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! — Where’s the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
                 
                LORETTA: [crying]
                 
                JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Brad, your response is exactly what I was thinking. In essence, one is entitled to try to be a basketball player or an artist. But no one else is required to consider you any good — just as they shouldn’t be expected to share a transgendered person’s delusions.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Brad,

                I had never heard that Monty Python bit. It really does capture the inanity of the equality-obsessed Left.

                Don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I think.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Mr. Kung, that’s from “Life of Brian.” And you’ll love the finish of that sketch:

                FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
                 
                REG: What’s the point?
                 
                FRANCIS: What?
                 
                REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
                 
                FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
                 
                REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Monty Python’s Life of Brian is easily my favorite of their work, including its lovely parodies of radical groups. (“Whatever happened to the People’s Popular Front of Judea?” “That’s him over there.” “SPLITTER!”) And Brian’s Latin lesson in how to write “Romans go home” correctly is priceless. Then there’s the stoning, and Pilate’s address of the crowd with the assistance of Biggus Dickus (both have speech impediments they refuse to be aware of). The attempt to kidnap Pilate’s wife is also up there.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Brad,

                That bit is very good.

                We have finally gotten to the point where form beats content. Something like giving gifts in Japan. Spend $20 to wrap a $5 gift.

  8. Anniel says:

    In fact the Samaritans were foreign conquered tribes who had been settled in Israel from nations conquered by the Assyrians and Babylonians. That was one way they pacified the conquered people, put them in a new country far from their home.

    The Samaritans allied themselves with poorer Jews, thought they could follow the local Gods, and even wrote their own scriptures. They had a different spot for their capital, for the temple and apparently had mixed other teachings in their “bible.”

    So the “oh so pure” Jews hated them as “mongrels.” At the beginning of modern Israel there were only about 30 Samaritans living there. There are now hundreds, who consider themselves to be Samaritans and the Israeli Government protects them and their freedom. I wanted to read their Bible but couldn’t find a copy. Jesus often traveled through Samaria and taught the Samaritan woman at the well in a famous story. That’s why the Jews mocked Him as a Samaritan.

    There is a book called “The Year of Living Biblically” which is the source for a lot of info on Samaritans, and all kinds of other biblical injunctions. It’s really a very funny book, but if the author, A. J. Jacobs, were my husband I would have left home and maybe never come back.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Back around 35 years ago, I read a Scientific American article on the Samaritans. At that time there were a few hundred left in a couple of groups, one in Nablus and the other I think around Gaza. The Samaritans weren’t simply foreigners, but also included Israelites who hadn’t been hauled off (from whom they got the notion of Yahweh worship as well as the use of Shechem as the site for whatever temple they had).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        What most people don’t know is that Israel, like all “tribes” was an agglomeration of smaller groups which developed over centuries. During this time, the nature of their language and religion developed and changed. During this period, some groups left the tribe and others joined it.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    My husband had to remind me that I live out in the hills where people depend on the kindness of their neighbors and most of the country is not like that anymore. Please pardon my “Aunt Bea” moment.

    Lucia, I’m a big fan of Aunt Bea. But my eyes were opened by “What you see isn’t necessarily what you get” when both Ron Howard and Andy Griffith made a rather down-talking pro-Obama endorsement video during Obama’s first run. I can’t speak for the politics of Frances Bavier, but she certainly plays a nice character, and one opposite to today’s prototype — a prototype perhaps as old as Madame Thénardier in Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserable.” She was a beast of a woman and raised feral children. Hugo describes her minimally as “She was a mother because she was mammiferous,” which I always thought was a hilarious and revealing line. Definitely not Aunt Bea material. More like the mother in “Married with Children.”

    And for all the niceties of the parable of The Good Samaritan, if God is King of the Universe, then I suppose the prompting in the parable stands, although we’re certainly left to interpret it and use our own judgment. Jesus could have simply said “Help anyone who is in trouble, no matter the risk to yourself.” But there are always extenuating circumstances that blur simplistic pronouncements (which is perhaps why he used parables so that he didn’t draw any easily-misused hard-edges for the low-information crowd).

    I, for one, have learned to hate humanity even while loving people. This is the opposite of the Left who claim to have an absolute love for “humanity” as a concept but hate people in practice. I see people getting more and more profane. I’m not above being honest and supposing that if I came across a wreck at the side of the road on a blind and very dangerous curve — and at night — it would run through my head “Should I really put my life on the line for some libertarian pot head who was merely exercising his ‘liberty’?” No, perhaps that doesn’t reflect well on me. But I’ll be honest about that. Given the coarseness of people, I would be choosier in regards to who I help. A child would receive help, without question. An old person as well. But everything in between becomes a blur of iffy choices.

    Still, the parable makes no mention about how deserving the victim is. But I like, for instance, that St. Francis went out of his way to make lepers as comfortable as possible, a disease that was certainly somewhat non-discriminating. But did he go out of his way to help criminals? Certainly he came across them and treated them very civilly, even tongue-lashing a couple of his brothers for *not* giving to a couple criminals what the criminals demanded from them. But his mission was not to normalize criminality but instead to call people to Christ and away from sin.

    So ultimately I have to factor in the situation of who is a good or righteous risk and who is not. I wouldn’t rush into a car to save an Islamic Terrorist whose bomb went off a little early, for instance. I mean, I realize to do so would make the Kumbaya Christians nearly faint from their feelings of self-righteousness to put their lives on the line for someone like that. But not me. God can make perfect choices. We human beings are always faced with blurred ones and imperfect ones. I loved Aunt Bea. I wish there were more of them. The world would be a better place. But Aunt Bea is morphing into Madame Thénardier.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This idea of hating humanity as a group but liking people as individuals has been ascribed to Jonathan Swift. Certainly much of his writing (such as Gulliver’s fourth voyage and “A Modest Proposal”) has a strong misanthropic streak.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’ve never read “Gulliver’s Travels.” Is it just one book or are there some sequels?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          There were four voyages, each of which was originally sold separately. The first is his voyage to Lilliput (and Blefuscu), land of the tiny people. The second is his visit to Brobdingnab, land of giants. The third is his visit to Laputa and other places (including a brief visit to Japan), a land ruled by a floating island. The fourth is his visit to the land of the Houynhms, intelligent horses plagued by the vicious humans, the Yahoos.

          In the first an third books, the natives are parodies of human failings; in the second and fourth books, they represent human ideals. (The King of Brobdingnab famously observed, after listening to Gulliver’s description of human society, noted that humans appear to be “the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the Earth.”)

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I thought I had originated that idea as well as “loving humanity, but hating people.” Just goes to show you that there is really nothing new and that “great minds think alike” or if you will, “fools seldom differ.”

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      You may be happy to know that Frances Bavier did not much like Andy Griffith. I heard Griffith mention that, try as he might, he could not get her to warm to him. I think she showed some good sense.

      One of my aunts met Griffith decades ago and essentially said he was not the nicest guy in the world. I have heard much the same from other sources.

      I think it has been said that in life he was nothing like the good-natured sheriff of Mayberry, but more like the tricky lawyer Matlock and even a good bit like Lonesome Rhodes.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Brad, your response is exactly what I was thinking. In essence, one is entitled to try to be a basketball player or an artist.

    Timothy, you made me think of that one shortish NBA basketball player of a few years back who could still slam-dunk — Spud Webb. Hes listed height is 5 ft. 7 in.

    The lesson from this isn’t that white men can’t jump (generally that is true…and the reverse is true, although it’s “stereotyping” to state the obvious, even if complimentary). The lesson is that we don’t know our limits.

    Simple categories and check-boxes (usually victim boxes) is where the degenerate Left wants to put everyone. “If Harvard isn’t populated by women math professors, then it must be that women are being discriminated against.” There is no room for the likelihood that men are just better at math. The degenerate (or just stupid) set who screams so loudly for “diversity” hate it when they see it.

    So who is unlocking the potential of people? Well, it’s not the ones who teach people that their fate has already been determined. Certainly Spud’s fate was not already determined because of his relatively short stature. He had something to say about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *