|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Won't somebody think of the children?
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I live in a university town in Appalachia. We are an oasis of prosperity in a desert of poverty. We act to relieve the need we see. Do you think we shouldn't?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I live in a university town in Appalachia. We are an oasis of prosperity in a desert of poverty. We act to relieve the need we see. Do you think we shouldn't?
Moo
Of course not! The Micah's backpack program indeed sounds wonderful, and similar to the program I was running last week. I'm just referring again back to the question of the OP, which was about government-funded assistance. Of course we should care and do all we can as individuals and as churches and non-profit charitable organizations. But the question was about the complaints of (some) conservatives specific to government-funded programs. Often these small-government conservatives will use the charitable actions of churches, individuals, and non-profits as a reason why the government doesn't need/shouldn't get involved in caring for the poor and their children. My point was even though individuals, churches and non-profits can and are doing wonderful work in their own communities, there are always gaps they either can't or won't fill-- the people they don't see because of their geographic isolation, or the people they don't help because they (or their parents) are deemed "unworthy". That is one (among several) reasons I believe it is important to have a government safety net that provides some level of assistance-- even to the "unworthy"-- not instead of, but along side of, the efforts of churches, non-profits and individuals.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
So you do not hold with those people who say that if only the Church would step up and feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc. then no government assistance would be necessary.
(Nonsense, IMO -- the government is often the only entity than can respond to big crises like Hurricaine Katrina.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't think anybody here is arguing that we should dump the idea of government aid in favor of private charity only--or vice versa. Where we differ is probably in the direction we naturally incline to. Which is what you want, really--if we were all activists/lobbiers or all do-it-yourselfers, where would the children be? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think anybody here is arguing that we should dump the idea of government aid in favor of private charity only--or vice versa.
Possibly not here-- but that's the argument the OP is referring to-- one often made by the GOP-- that caring for the poor is not the government's job, but the Church's. Some have even argued that it's harmful to the Church when the government "does the Church's job." Nonsense of course, as Brenda has pointed out-- but a quite common argument, and therefore part of the overall discussion the OP is addressing.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Where we differ is probably in the direction we naturally incline to. Which is what you want, really--if we were all activists/lobbiers or all do-it-yourselfers, where would the children be?
Agree!
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
it is not clear to what extent it failed owing to the government messing about with the grant either. Which is a problem with will they won't they funding.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
My brother-in-law is the pastor of a church in Texas. I remember during Katrina that all the Texas churches, of all denominations, organized a rota to feed refugees from next-door Louisiana. The Methodists had a week, the Episcopalians had a week, the Lutherans had a week, and so on. Very nice, and there is nothing like a church in the South for cooking up loads of yummy food.
But it was clearly beyond their power to do much more. No denomination had helicopters, or bulldozers, or troops, or search dogs. For that you need the Army Corps of Engineers, or the National Guard. You need the federal government.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My brother-in-law is the pastor of a church in Texas. I remember during Katrina that all the Texas churches, of all denominations, organized a rota to feed refugees from next-door Louisiana. The Methodists had a week, the Episcopalians had a week, the Lutherans had a week, and so on. Very nice, and there is nothing like a church in the South for cooking up loads of yummy food.
But it was clearly beyond their power to do much more. No denomination had helicopters, or bulldozers, or troops, or search dogs. For that you need the Army Corps of Engineers, or the National Guard. You need the federal government.
Exactly. I really thought Katrina was going to put an end to this ridiculous small government/ private charity argument because the results of that sort of logic were on full, horrific display for all to see. And yet the myth continues.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Thank you, that's what I meant when I said that local initiatives like the one Moo described, awesome as they are, are not a universal solution. Backpacks can't completely or permanently make up for what is lacking in urban and rural food deserts. They can't make up for stagnant wages and skyrocketing prices and crappy public transit.
Some more pondering let me to: Christians are supposed to feel a duty to the less fortunate, and we see that in action all the time. And there are some people who feel that as citizens, they have a duty to the less fortunate. They act as individuals (some are Christians, some are not), but they also act politically to enlist (coerce, to some) all citizens in this cause through government.
I guess what's puzzling to me is the people who feel a duty to the poor only as Christians, but not as citizens. Is that a consequence of the idea of different duties to different kingdoms / rulers? Is it just, "I've done my bit already"? Is it "Big gummint sux"? Is it just simply every one for themselves in the "real world"?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Personally I'm all for a "social market economy" of the Scandinavian and to a lesser degree German kind. And if I have doubts about it, then more about the "market economy" side of things... That said, I find it simplistic to accuse those who lean towards the "cut-throat market economy + charity" side of things of cold-heartedness or incoherence. Optimisation of the common good is not identical with making the life of everybody better, because the latter is generally unachievable. One has to make choices what pros outweigh what cons, and while I tend towards one set of such choices I don't think that other choices are obviously unreasonable or inhumane. There are serious issues with benefit abuse, de-incentivising people, governments taking control too much, etc. I think in the end the common good is better served with more "social security nets", but I do recognise that those opposing have some decent points that should make us cautious.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And the image of say, the Baptists or the CofE with a fleet of black helicopters is just horrifying.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I guess what's puzzling to me is the people who feel a duty to the poor only as Christians, but not as citizens. Is that a consequence of the idea of different duties to different kingdoms / rulers? Is it just, "I've done my bit already"? Is it "Big gummint sux"? Is it just simply every one for themselves in the "real world"?
The tl:dr version is people aren't functionally rational.
If you feel there is any duty to the poor, it is more than obvious that private efforts are massively inadequate. With private and public combined efforts failing to meet needs, how is removing any source of aid going to work?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
What does tl:dr mean please? It's not an abbreviation that I've met before.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Personally I'm all for a "social market economy" of the Scandinavian and to a lesser degree German kind. And if I have doubts about it, then more about the "market economy" side of things... That said, I find it simplistic to accuse those who lean towards the "cut-throat market economy + charity" side of things of cold-heartedness or incoherence. Optimisation of the common good is not identical with making the life of everybody better, because the latter is generally unachievable. One has to make choices what pros outweigh what cons, and while I tend towards one set of such choices I don't think that other choices are obviously unreasonable or inhumane. There are serious issues with benefit abuse, de-incentivising people, governments taking control too much, etc. I think in the end the common good is better served with more "social security nets", but I do recognise that those opposing have some decent points that should make us cautious.
That is a reasonable moderate approach I think. Too often we oscillate between the two on either side of this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
