Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Do Fundy Christians Love the Rich and Hate the Poor? (324 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The welfare state SUPPLEMENTS private charity. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe B, Only Needs a Beat, native, Philco

    If the primary responsibility to care for the poor lies with the state, then you and I have no obligation to them other than contributing our tax dollars.  It becomes all to easy to let someone else get his/her hands dirty actually working with the poor and trying to help them get back on their feet.  

    There is an element of truth in the conservative claim that government largesse encourages people to avoid their own responsibilities.  How does private giving and volunteer work in Denmark and Sweden (or all of Western Europe) compare with the United States?

    Jesus and his earliest followers certainly practiced a form of socialism, but no government was there as an intermediary.  The redistribution of wealth was voluntary.  Then again, those followers also expected that the world would come to an end in their lifetimes, so they assumed that there was little point in hoarding worldly goods.  The fact that the world didn't end was one of the main reasons the Church began to institutionalize (sheer survival) and slowly but surely lost sight of Jesus' original message.

    I'm an advocate of the welfare state solely because I realized long ago that private charity alone was not sufficient to cope with large-scale shocks to the economy that leave massive numbers of people impoverished through no fault of their own and that some degree of involuntary redistribution of wealth was necessary to set things right.

    Hard-core libertarians and hard-core socialists both fail in their arguments when they present public versus private charity as an either/or question.  It's both/and.

    •  Well written but there is also (4+ / 0-)

      the argument that poor people are poor because of our economic system (being born into a certain position) rather than individual faults, while rich people are rich for the same reasons, and that charity introduces assymetrical power relations between the giver and the taker while the state is neutral and does not stigmatize the poor.  

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:40:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In an ideal world, a constitutional world, a world (2+ / 0-)

      of sane people, shouldn't private charity supplement government care for the sick, needy, a mentally ill?  This reliance on private charity is the problem.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:04:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  People in, say Denmark, don't think of it this (0+ / 0-)

      way.  They consider that a part of their taxes go to good causes that have just about eradicated all poverty in their country. Sure, they aren't working the front lines in soup kitchens, but that countrywide monetary contribution makes a big difference.

      •  While I don't want to demean anyone... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        INMINYMA, Miggles

        ...who genuinely volunteers at a soup kitchen or equivalent out of a desire to help, the nature of such a charitable action is widely open to exploitation of those who merely seek a public display of piety. Take for example Paul Ryan back during the campaign washing already clean dishes.

        Jesus had a really big problem with public displays of piety.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site