Journal pudge's Journal: Christianity and Charity 12
Many people attack the "Christian right" because they don't support using the government to help people in poverty. They say Christ told us to help the poor, so therefore Christians should support federal welfare and the taxes to support it.
As one liberal critic noted, "There is nothing in the Bible that supports tax cuts for the wealthy along with social service cuts for the poor. That's an inversion of all those scriptural statements on poverty..."
Apart from the sheer hypocrisy many such critics exemplify -- these are normally the same people who decry attempts to legislate religious beliefs -- it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's words, Republicanism, or both.
It is true that Christ called people to help the poor. What is not true is that he implied in any way that this should be done through the government. Indeed, if anything, it is the opposite, as the early churches were the instruments of charity. There are many reasons for this, but one that I'll make note of is the idea that charity is most effective -- on both the spiritual and material levels -- when it is performed more directly.
As to Republicanism, we must first identify the belief that the power to perform charity and welfare are, by the Constitution, reserved to the states, and not to the federal government. This was clearly the belief of the people who wrote, signed, and originally interpreted and defended the Constitution.
Simply put, many of us on the right are not against government welfare entirely, but a. against it being done on the federal level, b. in favor of all charity being done as locally as possible. We are much more open to charity in the state governments than the federal, but prefer it be done privately, directly, locally.
So when you see all this hand-wringing nonsense from the left, saying that the election of Bush represents a "a disparagement of the significance of the social fabric," ignore it, as they clearly don't understand the real point.
However, if you know a Christian who does not perform charity (this would most likely be yourself, since most charity is not performed in public), feel free to chastise him for not living up to the deal.
Also interesting... (Score:3)
It's also amusing that they're seeking to take away a person's right to choose where/who they want their money to go to (or even their right to give it in the first place).
And this is from the "pro-choice" party.
Re:Also interesting... (Score:2)
--trb
Liberals, Charity and the Church (Score:3, Interesting)
I am an example of this. I came back to my faith at a time when I was down and out and the people who helped me most were christians. New Zealand is probably more of a welfare state than the USA, but due to my circumstances at the time, I didn't meet the criteria for emergency assistance from the state.
Yuri
Re:Liberals, Charity and the Church (Score:2)
Good news! I'm glad to hear it. I also had a period of "awww screw it" and did whatever the heck I wanted to do. Fortunately for me, I flunked out of college because I played too many computer games (4-8 hours a day) and drank a lot, which shook things up a bit and made me realize where I was not going (that is to say, nowhere usefull). My instrument to getting a bit more on track was hanging out with a lot of the great guys and men in my church's Men's minestry.
jason
Re:Liberals, Charity and the Church (Score:2)
A question about religious v. state charity... (Score:2)
Do the feds (+states?) give out 2x, 10x, 100x or 1/10th, 1/100th as much money as religious charities to the poor?
To my pragmatic mind, some sense of magnitude of current activity would be useful in weighing what sort of policy would be best for the poor.
And I haven't seen any real data on this subject (but have run across varying unsupported assumptions on both sides.)
--LP
Re:A question about religious v. state charity... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have the expertise/time to tease the numbers out of the state and federal budgets. However, I'm sure it is more. 10-20x, were I to guess.
Questions to ask: Which form of giving is more effective? (Greater % actually gets to valid receipient) Which form has less chance of fraud? Which form is less degrading/dehumanizing[1] to the receipient? Which form are people more likely to think of as a gift/tide me over vs. an "entitlement"? How much more would
Re:A question about religious v. state charity... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of almost $615 million, $234 million went to welfare et. al. Another $135 million went to Health and Sanitation - which seems kind of dodgy to me, as Health is a part of the Health, Welfare, and Mental Health department, and Sanitation is a part of Public Works. (Unless... HHSA also includes Environmental Health - water well inspection, underground tank permits, restaurant permits; so maybe that is be
Re:A question about religious v. state charity... (Score:2)
Forced Charity (Score:2, Insightful)
Forcibly taking money from someone who rightfully earned it is always wrong, even if you plan to give it to the poor.
What's More Compassionate? (Score:2)
What is more compassionate: Giving more money to welfare recipients, or jump starting the economy through tax cuts to create jobs to get more people off of welfare?
Which does more for that person's dignity: Getting a free handout from the Federal Government, or the satisfaction of an honestly earned paycheck?
Which respects the humanity of a person more: Telling that person that they can't succeed in life unless you help them (through increased w
Charity is a dish best served warm. (Score:2)
Interesting, no?