The inequitable distribution of wealth has resulted in the mild polarization of economic statures of certain sectors of society. In the wake of progress and globalization, there are still corners of the country that continue to depend on the generosity and good nature of other people. On one side of the fence, you have people lining up for food while the other side insensitively basks in lavish lifestyles.
However, some people tend to abuse the “givers” in the name of faith and spiritual salvation to the point of violating some of the tenets that they teach.The Washington Post, in an opinion article printed last November 18, 2007, painted a bleak and disturbing image of the true poverty situation that is occurring across the country. The article itself, focusing more on the issues attending food banking, raised valid concerns on the propriety and the adverse effects that dole-outs may have on the destitute. The conservative approach on poverty by the author underlines the dependence and sense of hopelessness by poor people. There seemed to be no express or implied call for accountability from the article.Rather it was more of an expose on the behavior and reception by people of free food.
It also delved into the topic of hollow charity --- that is, the sort that on gives yet do not understand why. Yet, the conservative approach taken by this article allowed it to create a mere amalgam of facts and observations which seemed directed to stimulate the conscience at the most. In sharp contrast, an article printed on the same day entitled The Pulpit And the Bling-Bling, writer Michelle Singletary presented the shocking lifestyles of some religious leaders.It achieved what it has meant to do; that is, shock its readers and call attention to the unsavory practices of these religious leaders. While their respective ministries foots for the bill, these ministers continue to take pleasure on the multi-million dollar estates which include expensive cars, expansive homes and seriously-lucrative salaries. Indeed, the vocation of teaching and preaching the Good News appears to be a very lucrative business for these God-chosen few who were said to have been paid with remuneration befitting of those blessed with CEO-status.
Analysis: The liberal article that focused on the reprehensible spending of religious ministers was more effective and gave its readers more to think about than the conservative opinion on the ins and outs of food banking. The common feeling that would engulf a person when reading an article such as the second provides a stronger and better presence than the first one. Though the first article presented a thorough situation of the true nature of poverty and its effects on the human psyche, it was already of common knowledge.Hundreds of articles and opinions have already been written on the topic and yet no considerable action was made to remedy the situation.
The culture of dependence continues and it has evolved into a vicious cycle that slowly eats away the very fibers of a morally-sound society. For its part, the second opinion article presented a different and fresher perspective on the exorbitant spending of alleged incorruptible personalities as those of religious icons. The opinion being well-presented and well argued, stripped the veil of sacredness placed upon these persons by their followers and in turn, humanized their actions and intentions.In the eyes of the author as well as upon the pages of The Washington Post, they are no more than a couple of souls still bound by the chains of materialism and consumerism prevalent in modern day society. They are still after all, human beings who are still subject to the temptations men are exposed to.
And this fact was apparently underlined in the article which also posed a question as to under what authority are these religious allowed to own such expensive objects. In addition and in light of this fact, do they still possess the moral ascendancy to guide and govern over their respective flocks?
