From what I know of my correspondent, he is firmly opposed to anything resembling welfare. Like many on the conservative right, he believes in social Darwinism. That is, we all succeed or fail in life as a result of our own efforts or lack thereof. For such people, the words liberalism, socialism, and welfare are standard pejorative labels. When those terms get shop-worn, they resort to a broader brush: communism -- or, as illogical as it is -- fascism.

Today, as an American, I am anguished by the widening chasm in what is ironically called these "United" States. And maybe chasms is more precise: political, social, racial, cultural, and now religious -- not only between different faiths but between secularism and religious faith. And the divisions are often bitter, even close at hand, within families, between neighbors or old friends.

It will take a far wiser man than I to sort all the reasons, but I think some of the divisions were deliberately created as political strategy. It is nothing new. The Latin Divide et Impera -- divide and rule -- still exists. I have written before about the emotional wedge issues of homosexuality, abortion, race and religion, and gun ownership -- and how fear and hate mongering is calculated to herd people out of, or into, voting groups toward a political majority.

But maybe something else predisposes us to divide ourselves. George Lakoff is a professor of cognitive science at the University of California Berkley, and author of several books, including "Moral Politics." At the risk of my over-simplifying, Lakoff says that we individual human beings operate from two broadly competing psychological perspectives.

One, Lakoff calls the "strong father" mentality. Typically, those individuals grow up in authoritative homes or adapt to such environments. The authority, the strong father or father figure, sets the rules and assigns the tasks. Failure or success is to the individual's credit or discredit, and punishment follows failure. And that example, the sons or daughters carry forward with their own families in their treatment of their own children and into their broader social and political views and relationships. They tend toward polarized thinking, authority figures, and centralized power. Commonly, females are subsidiary. Religion tends to be judgmental and exclusionary. In a useful if too broad a word, conservatives.

Lakoff labels the other the "nurturing parent" mentality. These mature in a more permissive, more democratic atmosphere. A team of parents and typically the siblings share responsibility. Females are co-equal. Children are encouraged to discuss issues and possibilities, but left to make their own decisions in most matters -- to try their wings, learn from mistakes and successes. Rather than punishment for failure, parents understand failure itself to be punishment and promote empathy in the family team. The children of nurturing parents follow suit in their own families and in their larger social and political environments. Such people tend to be more accepting of divergent views and opinions, more questioning of authority, and less militaristic; their religion, inclusive. In a useful but too broad a word, liberals. But those categories need not be absolutes.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew took into account both conservative and liberal values. Whether or not we understand the "talents" exclusively as money (I don't) -- the message is that we are all responsible for what has been given into our care -- not only gold or silver, but for using our god-given skills and moral sensibilities as well.

The final word in Matthew 25 is that we are first to have empathy -- the mental entering into the feeling and spirit of our fellow beings. We are to share what has been first given us without our having earned it -- as well as what we have earned -- as individuals and as a society. To lift up all those truly in need.

Merry Christmas to all.