[16703] in APO-L
Re: Summit - Fuel for Discussion (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elliot Echlov)
Fri Apr 25 23:01:48 1997
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 23:00:05 -0500
Reply-To: Elliot Echlov <cfknights@INFOAVE.NET>
From: Elliot Echlov <cfknights@INFOAVE.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Well let's see here...
1. The Summit is chaired by Colin Powell.
2. In addition to the First and Second Families, Presidents Bush, Carter,
and Ford will attend. Nancy Reagan will attend in her husband's place.
3. 30 Governors and 90 Mayors are expected to attend.
4. Oprah Winfrey, Tony Bennett, and John Travolta are among the dignitaries
expected to attend.
5. Powell's vision of the Summit is to "...mobilize corporate America and a
vast
volunteer army to rescue 'at risk' youths with tutoring, mentoring, and
other
citizen service that brings caring adults directly into their lives.
The battle plan is
to get the public, the private, and the nonprofit sectors all marching
in the same
direction at the same time on the same fundamental needs of young people."
These statements, by the way, come from the April 28 issue of Newsweek.
>It is a moral disgrace for them to call self-sacrifice "the American Way."
Wasn't it Thomas who said words to the effect that the tree of liberty must
be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants? Is
that not the ultimate self-sacrafice? What about the thousands who perished
in the World Wars, Korea, and Viet Nam? Was their self-sacrafice morally
disgraceful?
>The duty and guilt they seek to invoke with their "volunteerism"
>campaign is bad enough. But even worse are their growing proposals to
>make service MANDATORY. Clinton has embraced Maryland's requirement that
>high school students must perform community service in order to
>graduate.
Not even Alpha Phi Omega makes service mandatory (if you don't know what I
mean, check the white book). In this context I agree that it is improper to
force someone to serve. However, the idea is to prevent our youth from
insulating themselves against the societal problems they will face as
adults. Besides, with so much of our tax dollars going to social programs,
EVERYONE is doing service in one fashion or another, willingly or not.
>"Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the
>suffering of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon
>it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest
>test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life.
>Then man must wish to see others suffer -- in order that he may be
>virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism."
What a leap! If man does not encounter suffering, then there is no need for
man to relieve it. What person in their right mind wishes for others to
suffer so they can step in and play hero? If suffering is a disease, then
the "highest test of virtue" is whether or not you help take the steps
needed to eradicate it. Those who stand to the side and let it happen are
no better than the one who gives a drowning man a glass of water.
>The nearest approach to is in reality -- the man who lives to
>serve others -- is the slave.
And I'm certain that any religious leader, teacher, lawyer, or doctor who
reads this statement will find it as offensive and ridiculous as I do.
>But the man who enslaves himself
>voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades
>the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love.
And it is not degrading to shun those in need?
>"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to
>give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation
>comes before distribution -- or there will be nothing to distribute.
The need is created. So is the willingness to fulfill the need. So to is
the time in which to do it. As is the ability. Without all these things
being distributed, the need is not met.
>Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has
>not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act
>of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."
Really? How many buildings on your campus are named for benefactors of your
college or university? Do you admire more the person who signs your
diploma, or the person whose name is on the building in which your diploma
was signed?
>"The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is
>independence or dependence."
In other words, the exercise of your right to pursue your own happiness.
Whether it be in service of others or not.
>"Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of
>individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of
>men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest
>freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice,
>renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man's right
>to the pursuit of happiness.
Not entirely. The concept of noblesse oblige (spelling?) held that those
who were of the means to do so should serve the country. In effect, serving
others and sacrificing selfish personal motives.
>"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute
>of my life.... No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or
>how great their need."
Fine. That is your choice. Your right as an American.
Tom, I think I have used far more than $.02.
2
E
