This article was written by Bree Buchanan,
Director of the Texas Lawyers Assistance Program of the State Bar of Texas
Not long ago, the Dalai Lama, a featured panelist at a conference sponsored by the conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute, declined to offer an endorsement of capitalism. When asked whether he agreed that the free enterprise system was “the most moral of economic systems” and why he thought the U.S. was the richest nation on earth, he answered, “What do you mean by rich?” The Tibetan Buddhist leader expressed his concern that, while a wealthy nation overall, the United States had a disturbing gap between the rich and the poor.
Indeed. Can a nation be truly prosperous and thriving when so many of its citizens have little to no hope of pulling out of poverty? Focusing the inquiry closer to home, how can a city as economically successful as Austin still have such an obvious divide between those who are comfortable and those who live in poverty? How moral is an economic system where, on any given night in Austin, more than 2,300 live on the streets, in shelters or in other places not meant for human habitation, such as cars?
Historically, questions of morality, including those of how the poor should be treated, have been under the purview of religious institutions and interests. In Buddhism, the practice of giving, “dana,” is foundational to the path of one’s own spiritual development. Similarly, Muslims consider charity one of the highest virtues and an essential means for cleansing oneself spiritually. “Zakat,” one of the essential pillars of Islam, mandates annual giving of 2.5% of to the poor and needy. In Judaism, giving to the poor (“tzedakah”) is viewed as an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of a duty. Christians are taught by Jesus that one of the greatest expressions of love for God is achieved by expressing love for the poor and disadvantaged.
While each of the major religions admonishes its followers to help the poor, our capitalist society effectively contradicts these ethical mandates by deeply discouraging views that even hint at socialism. The praxis of our religious beliefs, regardless of tradition, comes up hard against the wall of our capitalist society. We may be taught on holy days to give alms to the destitute, but our day to day world values personal enrichment to the exclusion of all else.
As a Christian who participates in a Buddhist sangha, I am well-steeped in the right view towards helping the poor and disadvantaged but find the implementation of my beliefs to be continuously contradicted by the world in which I live. On occasion, I have volunteered with Mobile Loaves and Fishes, feeding the homeless who attempt an existence under North Highway 183. Seeing these (mostly) men living in the open in the midst of busy Austin whirling by in their cars seems surreal. The disparity between these have-nots and the haves who move past in oblivion of their plight is a jarring symbol of the inequity referenced by the Dalia Lama.
How do we, in a country that is blessed with so many religions and faiths that espouse altruistic acts, reconcile the poverty in our midst with the wealth of the U.S., “the richest nation on the earth?” How can we consider ours to be a “moral economic system”? The answer seems to elude us on the grand scale but perhaps individual acts of kindness can make a small difference. In a society seemingly obsessed with external measurements of wealth, small moments of grace shown to those less fortunate may be a way to ease the suffering and, in doing, also enrich our own lives.
Gandhi, another leader in both the political and spiritual spheres, is credited with stating that the earth has enough for everyone’s needs, but not for anyone’s greed. We would do well to heed the call of our faith traditions and look to ways we can, daily, “share the wealth.” In doing so, we could satisfactorily answer the question posed by the Dalai Lama, “What do you mean by rich?”
