|
|
| Charity is Not The Government's Duty |
Posted: 03/04/2007
Charity is Not The Government's Duty
A statement that appeared in a recent piece from a liberal columnist, underscores and epitomizes the theme of much of what he has written in past columns.
He stated...
"When I took my first class in political science in 1969, I was taught that the truest test of any government is how it cares for its poorest citizens. On this exam question and this budget, this administration receives a failing grade."
If he took his first course in political science in 1969, he was likely graduating from college at a time when George McGovern was the political darling on campus. A time when radical socialism was being embraced by young adults through a variety of ancillary causes and ideologies.
Since the government has no resources of its own, where does it get the resources for fulfilling the idealistic babysitting referenced in the quotation above? By taking from others, of course. This is what the 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat referred to as "legalized plunder." The same thing in principle that would be considered theft if it was perpetrated by one private party against another. Naturally such pilfering is excused, and even applauded, under the moniker of "compassion."
I believe that it is the job of public charities, religious organizations and benevolent persons to help those in need. Man's duty to his fellow man is a question of conscience, not a duty owed to the state. Public "charity" which is obligatory destroys private charity which by necessity is voluntary.
If the government takes money from some to distribute to others, it is no longer charity; it becomes coercion, because it's not volitional. Greater travesty is caused by such confiscatory governmental policies than is ameliorated by the application of thse same policies. The difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is often not always a function of principle (such as the need to help the poor), but often a fundamental disagreement in methods (using the state as a charity of first resort).
A government that offers give-away programs to its poorest citizens would seem unconcerned about the various reasons for poverty, rather than focusing on how people can avoid the spiraling generational cycle of perpetual indigence and dependence on tax-funded welfare programs.
Blank-check give-away programs seem based on the premise that poverty can merely be eradicated by throwing money and benefits at the problem. We must ask if there are underlying patterns that lead to dire financial straits, which can be averted by changes in behaviors. It has been suggested that much poverty can be eliminated by doing four basic things:
1) Finish high school
2) Get married before having children
3) Have no more children than can be adaquately supported
4) Work full time
Secularists are constantly bemoaning lack of "separation of church and state," as it applies to public policy. But the doctrine of obligatory redistribution of wealth that the liberal columnist views as social justice, turns out to be a classic greatest example of rendering unto Caesar what is not Caesar's; thus, in effect, deifies the state. That, in a nutshell, is the religious dogma of "progressives." Their measure of morality is not personal conduct, but deference and sponsorship of the "correct" social positions.
An attitude of entitlement has a huge blindspot; it tolerates the perpetual condemnation of greed while condoning and encouraging the masses to covet those individuals who are better off financially. A utopia of discontentment seems to be the design. The result is a movement toward "equally" that pulls the top down, bringing a morbid sense of satisfaction to the materially challenged, yet never really solves any problems at their root cause.
But even if we apply the writer's desired standard to the issue of government assisting the poor, we must ask which countries do a better job than the U.S.? What about Russia, China and communist nations? Or perhaps we will cite the socialist states of old Europe, many of which have high rates of unemployment resulting from their collectivist philosophies.
Our poor in America are well off relative to the poverty in other nations.
Government policies should create a tide to lift all sea-worthy boats, not kill the gooses laying the golden eggs to provide a beggar's banquet for a day.
Robert E. Meyer
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Read and post feedback
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
1533 Views
Printer Friendly Version |
E-mail this article to a friend |
Return to home
|
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/12/07 08:01:53 PM |
Age 19, VA |
So the Government creates currency, controls inflation, invests and directs the flow of money, fosters an environment for business to grow, and you have the audacity to call taxation 'stealing?!?' People are not the sole creators of wealth, no one is a completely 'self-made man,' and wealth is not unlimited. All of this is why a government is justified in taxing those that take advantage of the economy of a government. If economies are truly independent of government, then we have lords and estates. We tried that once: It's called feudalism.
The very point of economy is to allow a certain quality of life for the denizens of a nation; hijacking the economy of the US to serve only the rich is deplorable. Welfare and government job creation and other social programs are all part of how that quality of life is guaranteed and maintained.
Of course there has to be a balance, taxation cant reach a point of limiting business so much that the economy actually becomes too weak to help the nation. That would be the difference between a liberal economy and a socialist one--here in the western world, private and public enterprise depend on each other. eliminating either one has been shown to have negative results.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/08/07 10:15:24 PM |
Age 46, OH |
I agree with the general idea of the columnist. Questions come when a situation like mine is considered. The Lord took my husband home suddenly and unexpectedly a little over a year ago. We tried to get more insurance than we had, but we could not. We were not fully aware of any underlying health problems. Here I am, a widow with two children to support and I haven't worked in 12 years since I cared full-time for our children. The Lord blessed my husband with a job that paid well, so the government insurance program (Social Security) provides survivor benefits for myself and the children. I don't know where we would be without that money (of which 10% is given to the Lord's work as instructed in the Bible). Charity as suggested by the columnist, would put a person in my situation where? Was I supposed to be working full-time according the columnist's article instead of caring for my children? Clarification is much appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/11/07 08:11:50 PM | | Age 47, WI |
You have my sympathies on the passing of your husband.
You make the same point my father makes when I criticize Social Security. SS provides not only retirement benefits, but also survivor benefits. However, do some research on the Galveston project. Certain employees in counties surrounding Galveston Texas were permitted to contribute to a private program and opt out of SS. In retirement, these people get 5-10 as much as SS would have paid for similar contributions. The plan also had a large life insurance component to provide for situations like yours, where you could have a lum sum as opposed to a monthly stipent.
You make no mention of how your church helped in this situation. That is one of my points: government charity causes people to neglect their Christian duty.
Click here to reply to this post
Not a Biblical Position
| Posted On: 03/07/07 12:08:42 PM |
Age 53, NC |
I would like to say that this opinion is a biblically based perspective. No where does the Bible teach that the only way to deal with poverty is through private charities.
Secondly the idea that government programs are not charities because they are not voluntary. This is absurd. There are some who might resent these programs, for them maybe it is not voluntary, but for many who support these policies, it is indeed charity.
Finally I want to say that it is a myth popular but untrue that if we did not have government programs, people would rise up and do the right thing. Baloney!! You only have to look to history to see that this is untrue. I think it is incredibly selfish and shortsighted to take this tact. Conservative should not mean without sense or ignorant of history.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Not a Biblical Position
| Posted On: 03/11/07 08:17:57 PM | | Age 47, WI |
I don't believe charity is exclusively the domain of private charity, but the duty of the church and individual believers. How do you this the problems were cared for before the advent of great society programs. You say that people would never do these things if it were voluntary. Is that then not a failure of the church to carry its mandated respondsibilty?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Not a Biblical Position
| Posted On: 03/07/07 04:41:06 PM | | Age 45, AR |
One is forced to wonder about the extent of awareness of the enormous abuses of the welfare programs. Star Parker, who was a recipient at one time, gives a first-hand account of the lure and trap of welfare and how much better off she is now, responsibly taking care of herself. Most people can and (if hungry enough) will find work if forced to; to think otherwise is the real baloney! Our nation truly is "The Land of Opportunity," and it is a shame so many are lulled into laziness instead of encouraged into full potential. Also, any thinking person realizes that with bureaucracy comes waste and theft--the headlines are the only research/knowledge of history source needed to back up that statement. With worst-case-only government programs, we could also eliminate "welfare-bought" congressional seats. Please do some serious historical research, and you will see that mankind fares better when providing for self. "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." -2 Thessalonians 3:10
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/07/07 10:50:34 AM |
Age 43, VA |
Where does the mandate to "limit" the number of children come from? Is this Biblical? I'd like to have the Scriptures referenced to support this point. Was "be fruitful and multiply" of the OT changed somewhere in the NT and I am not aware of it? Thank you for helping me to understand this point.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/11/07 08:24:49 PM | | Age 47, WI |
Where does my piece say someone must have a limited number of children? I suggested that people have no more children then they can economically provide for. That is an issue of stewardship. In biblical times large families were means to wealth because an agrarian society was labor intensive. Jacob had 12 sons but had flocks and agriculture to support them.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/07/07 10:23:58 AM |
Age 59, ON |
The issue is one of scalability. The conservative ideal of neighbors and church assisting those in need works in a small town, where everyone is known, but the model breaks down as population and city sizes increase. There are something like 9,000,000 children without health insurance in the U.S. The mortality rate for uninsured children is more than twice as great as for children with health insurance (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521095).
Does any child deserve to die because they don't have health insurance? The Christian response is clearly to care for the children (and the adults too, of course). The only effective way to do this is through public health insurance; the other ways aren't working.
The author says "the socialist states of old Europe ... have high rates of unemployment resulting from their collectivist philosophies." In fact, Austria, Denmark, Ireland (the hottest economy in Europe), Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland all have lower unemployment rates than the U.S. Also, most of these countries rate higher on the quality of life scale than the United States. Canada has a very comparable economy to the U.S., and it provides health insurance for all citizens.
I'm sick and tired of self-described Christians who try to hijack Christianity to server their own political ends. I'm sick and tired of writers who criticize other countries without visiting those countries, and speaking to the people, and examining how other countries solve problems. The Christian mandate is to love and care for our neighbors, and in today's world, given the size of our problems, sometimes the solution involves the government acting on behalf of the people.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/07/07 09:39:55 AM |
Age 35, GA |
Mr. Meyer makes several good points about charity not being the government's duty. The primary responsibility of caring for the poor did at one time rest on the shoulders of the family and the church. The church was an extension of the family, and as a reflection of the decay of the American family, we see the decay of the American church.
While I do agree with the suppositions that people should work and that people should marry before having children, I take issue with the other two solutions Mr. Meyer lists as those commonly thought to be the solution to poverty. First, the idea that people should have only as many children as can be reasonably supported is not a Biblical idea. We must realize that this culture does not value children. Worse than that, we have simplified the idea of having children to that of financial success--children are a luxury, as it were, that we can have only if we can afford them.
The purpose for having children is to fulfill God's command to fill and subdue the earth as well as to add to the army of souls that will spread the gospel to all nations, including our own. My husband and I cannot "afford" six children by the world's standard. Yet, God has never failed to provide for our needs. We live on one small income. We homeschool our children. We are instructing them in righteousness and helping them grow in faith. And as a result, they do care about the poor. They do desire to help those in need. They have compassion. How poor are those children who have one or no siblings but whose parents can at least "reasonably afford" them? This is a subjective standard and one that shows our lack of faith and our hatred of children in this society. It is the basis upon which abortion is justified. Have we come to this in the Christian community? I am afraid that we have.
The fourth solution listed by Mr. Meyer was that people should work full time. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he means that the husband and father should work full time. Mothers belong in the home caring for their children. Perhaps that is a sexist statement, but as a mother in the home, making the sacrifices necessary for our one-income family to live in a two-income world, nothing saddens me more than to see my friends sacrificing their children on the altar of greed and want. We are a greedy nation, and we think that more money will buy more happiness. We are wrong. Yes, someone in the family needs to work full time. But that person does not need to be the one raising the next generation of leaders.
In short, if we had our priorities right, our families would be as God intended, our churches would fulfill the needs that they were created to fulfill, and our government would have far less reason to intrude upon the lives of its citizens.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/07/07 12:59:43 PM | | Age 22, OH |
To the 35 yr old lady from Georgia---that is disgusting. When someone chooses not to have children, they aren't sacrificing hypothetical children on the altar of greed and sacrifice. What a bizarre thing to say.
The cold, hard, biting fact is that "be fruitful and multiply" was given to the Israelites. They NEEDED children otherwise they would get obliterated. In the NT, we see no more emphasis on making children, but lots of emphasis on the children we do have.
The other cold, hard fact is that there IS a point at which you have to stop making children. I can't believe these people who get upset when someone promotes the WISE decision of not having more children than you can afford. This does NOT mean we have to bow down to the world's standards of what it means to afford the "luxury" of children. It simply means that use your brain. Do all of these women obsessed with reproduction conceive babies from the moment they are married until they hit menopause? Obviously not, so please stop making such absurd statements about our need to pump out children like mad. How shallow.
Furthermore, The idea that making children is a means of evangelism is disgusting if not de-valuing.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/07/07 08:19:26 AM |
Age 51, FL |
This was a very good article. I do take exception to one point: 3) "Have no more children than can be adaquately supported" Children are a blessing from the LORD, they are His reward - He will make provision for those children He sends to a family - though we may need to redefine our concept of material necessities. God has a plan and design for each child before they are even created. So which children do we cut off and by what method? I am assuming that these children are the result of a marriage. Out of wedlock children are to be avoided by a pure life. But once in a marriage - by promoting limitations on God we are in effect no longer pro-life are we? We set up a mindset within ourselves that looks on a large family as a burden - not the blessings of God. With this thought pattern there never would have been a Joseph or a David! We still have a long way to go........
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/05/07 01:28:55 PM |
Age 31, ON |
Why is it we are told by religious conservatives that it is our Christian duty to get the government to follow biblical commands on moral issues but that we shouldn't do the same for the biblical commands about helping the poor, widows and those from other countries. The commands in the OT to ensure that widows and sojourners (i.e. immigrants) were provided for were given to Israel as a nation, and it is OT Israel that conservative Christians seem to compare America to. So why should those commands not apply to the American government in the same way they applied to the government of Israel?
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/06/07 11:45:00 PM | | Age 44, MN |
The difference is in the American government and the government of the OT nation of Israel. At the time God gave the commandments and the laws to OT Isreal their only leaders were Moses and Aaron. Communities were family clans and it was expected of the families to take care of each other. God gave the commandments and the law to Israel for the individuals to learn and practice. Following the law would guarantee God's blessing on their fledgling nation. So the simple answer to your last question is that the OT commandments and laws should apply to America just as they did to OT Israel. They were meant for individual daily practice and our government officials should live them out just as the rest of us. These commands were not meant for kings, lords, Congress, Senate or the courts to demand them of the masses.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Charity is Not The Government's Duty
| Posted On: 03/07/07 05:59:14 PM | | Age 31, ON |
But many OT laws are directed specifically towards governments and government officials, not merely individuals. And if it is true that OT laws apply to individuals today as they did to individuals in OT Israel, why do Christians charge and pay interest? This is clearly forbidden in the OT, and Jesus himself affirms that believers are not to charge interest on money we loan out but to give freely to all who are in need. Does the command of Jesus still apply here?
Click here to reply to this post
- OT government
| Posted On: 01/09/08 10:15:14 PM | | Age 33, IA |
The government of Moses' time was a theocracy. Ours is not.
By allowing the government to take our taxes to redistribute, we cause our fellow citizens to give up their free will to exercise voluntary charity. Because the government takes so much in taxes, I am not able to give to those in my community as much as I would like. also, government has proven to be a very poor steward of the resources that it acquires from us; individuals and charities can do better; there is more accountability. The government is very poor on accountability.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
