Basic HTML Version
Jesus said should be given. False
pride is a problem to be over–
come.)
Most people are fami liar with
the term " Good Samaritan. " But
few remember what the Samari–
tan did to receive commendation
from Jesus. While traveling along
a road, the Samaritan showed
himself to be a good neighbor to
one who had become pbysically
disabled and was lying by tbe
roadside (Luke 10:25-37). Two
"religious" individuals carne along
first. They should have known
better, but kept their distance, not
wanting to become involved–
though one did take the opportu–
nity to look (verse 32). They both
"passed by on the other side"
(verses 31-32).
Ask any of the millions of chron–
ically ill or impaired: How many
people have you encountered today
who have "passed by on the other
side," tbough they may have taken
enough time to look? How many
have erected a barrier-kept their
distance? The Samaritan, when he
saw the disabled man, got involved.
He "went to bim" (verse 34) and
did what he could to be helpful.
Jesus said to any who would be His
true followers "Go, and do thou
likewise" (verse 37).
Charity? No, that's not what
most disabled people are looking
for. Help when it's really needed,
yes. But mainly just a fair chance.
An opportunity for each to do his
best in society, industry, education,
recreation, business- any phase of
life.
Lumping Them All Together
According to sorne analysts, the
progress being made over severa]
years to grant more mobility, free–
do.m of access and opportunities to
the disabled has now slowed down
or even been reversed. The main
reason is that money is tight.
Funds a re not available. What
with budget cuts, inflation, high
interest rates and the many causes
scrambling for a piece of the eco–
nomic pie, what has been called
fhe · silent minority is pushed to
the back of the line.
The so-called silent minority got
its name in the past because there
was no real . organization on behalf
of the handicapped. Various orga-
18
nizers complained that it is hard to
put together marches and 'sit-ios
when it 's impossible or at least dif–
ficult for the demonstrators to trav–
el and take part in a physically
exhausting exercise. And blind
people and people in wheelchairs do
not threaten to riot, burn buildings
and loot stores if they do not get
their way.
Nevertheless, of late the silent
minority has become more vocal.
The resulting increase in public
awareness has led to the term
"~urprising
minority" or "unex–
pected minority." But putting the
overall label of a minority on a
group of diversified individuals
has dangers of its own. It is a
mistake to put all disabled people
into one category. There is as
much or more that is different
between a deaf person and a per–
son with no legs as there is simi–
lar. Each impaired person should
be judged on his own, not as a
member of a single minority.
Though sorne few handicapped
are difficult to employ, not
responsible, unable to carry on
normal personal relationships, de–
pendent on charity and whatever
else disabled people are supposed
to be, the vast majority of handi–
capped are none of these. The
assumption that there is a single
handicapped minority harms the
very ones it is supposed to bene–
fit.
Complex Problems
Promoting discussion of the prob–
lems of the disabled, making the
public aware, utilizing legal chao–
neis may help bring about sorne
changes- it is to be hoped . But
frankly, this is not God's society
and we should not expect today's
world to ever be reshaped and fash–
ioned by the efforts of human
beings into a utopía, fair and just
for all.
There is even widespread dis–
agreement as to exactly what is fair
and workable. For example, is
requiring a public transport system
in a large city to have wheelchair
lifts in all its buses a reasonable
demand? Besides the considerable
expense to install and maintain
such facilities, accurately schedul–
ing arrivals and departures for all
other riders becomes a real head-
ache because of irregular occasions
when it takes four or five minutes
to use the wheelchair lift. The
whole system suffers for a small
group whose needs could be met in
other ways.
Is it reasonable to expect that
most doors, most stairs and most
restrooms in most buildings be
accessible to all disabled? Actual–
ly, it is not possible for
al/
dis–
abled. lt's not just a question of
wheelchairs: there are tbe stretch–
er- and bed-ridden . Don't they
also have the right to go or at
least be taken anywhere they
wish? Where should the lines be
drawn? Who is to decide which
doors, which stairs, which bui ld–
ings, which restrooms?
Sometimes an accommodation
made. for one infirmity creates a
problem for another. It seemed like
a good idea to lower curbs at inter–
sections so certain handicapped
people could easily cross the street.
Then it was discovered
~ hai,
because there was no curb, sorne
blind people did not realize where
the sidewalk ended and walked out
into the traffic.
Having equal opportunity for
employment is an admirable objec–
tive. And no doubt there are many
disabled people who work as hard
or harder than their normal coun–
terparts. And they should be given
every chance. Others however , do
not--cannot-compete in the labor
market. To what extent, then ,
should an employer be · asked to
subsidize a willing, valiantly trying,
but, alas,
u~productive
worker just
to help the disabled person feel a
sense of worth?
And what about schools? There
was a story televised about a per–
son studying for a degree at a
university. What was unusual was
that this person was helpless from
the neck down (it appeared as
though both arms and legs were
missing). He had to be carried
from one class to another.
Obviously, he deserves an
A
for
effort and spunk. But sorne won–
dered if schools should be
required to accept students with
such severely limited physical
abi lities and even shortened life
expectancy, when other applicants
of equal mental capacity, but
(Continued on page 26)
The PLAIN TRUTH