So most conservative Christians I know do not advocate separation of church and state. They believe the Founding Fathers established the US on Christian ideals, and intended freedom of religion, rather than from it, etc etc.
By and large, this is a demographic I consider myself a part of. But lately ive been pondering: If church and state shouldnt be separate, and if America really was founded by Christian ideals and is "one nation under God", why are so many politically conservative Christians so against welfare programs, obamacare and other "socialist" policies?
The church seems to push for Biblical stances to political issues on abortion and homosexuality; why not treatment of the poor?
My question to politically and theologically conservative Christians are these (and I know there are SO many here at mtgs!):
-Do you advocate separation of church and state? If not, what does that mean to you? How does it look?
-Do you support various welfare programs, obamacare, higher taxes for the rich and other policies that are traditionally favored by democrats? Why or why not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
I'm under the impression that Jesus preached that a person should commit good deeds by choice, not by decree of the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Separation of Church and State can be argued from a few different viewpoints.
1. Was the US founded on Christian ideals?
- "City on a hill"
+ Deist founding fathers who specifically separated Church and state.
- Most/all founding fathers were Christian. (80-90% iirc)
+ Current interpretation is flawed.
The historical background really doesn't matter. The current interpretation of what "separation of Church and State" means is the key issue.
You stated: "They believe the Founding Fathers established the US on Christian ideals, and intended freedom of religion, rather than from it, etc etc."
The key here is that Christian ideals are perfect. Christian ideals led to this country being great. Great leaders have been, are and will be Christians.
The splitting point is Christian leaders versus a Christian system. As stated, Christian leaders are fine. Christian ideals are fine. Christianity within the impersonal government system is not.
The Separation of Church and State keeps religion out of the State. Further, it limits the government from restricting your right to worship as you please.
Would you take offense if it said, "One Nation Under Vishnu"?
What about "All bibles must be burned and Christian practices halted at once."?
These are the things that the Separation of Church and State were designed to protect. Applying it backwards is where the problems happen.
II. Welfare, etc.:
This is tied strictly to Conservatism. Instead of having the government pay for welfare, a conservative would instead have the church and public donations support the poor.
In general, these topics are listed under big government.
III. My Own Opinion:
1. Welfare, etc.
Quickly, about the welfare/obamacare/higher taxes topics, I see these as political and economic realities. Taxes go up. Taxes go down. The process repeats itself. Welfare is an enterprise which is too widespread of a problem for private citizens to deal with. Obamacare is a result of "splitting the baby." If McCain had won, then the democrats would have gone crazy about whatever he would have passed.
I see these all as just political realities. I'd like to have them be more efficient, but the system is too complex for anyone to make policy which works 100%. (For example take Reagan. Reaganomics caused enormous debt. Take FDR, his public works projects did not come close to ending the Great Depression.) For every policy made, market forces will adapt to it or against it.
--
2. Separation of Church and State:
I see this as general hypocrisy of the entire Republican side. Conservatism should always attempt to limit governmental power.
How is making the Government dictate people's lives being Conservative? I see social policies, thinly veiled as defending Christian ideals, as completely opposite of what they should be arguing for.
Take the recent birth-control requirement which was stricken from some legislation. The legislation was going to require medical insurance to cover birth control for women.
This was harshly opposed. One of the main arguments was religiously based. I don't understand it. Why should someone's religious views shape what kind of treatment I receive from my medical provider? Why should a Catholic institution be able to restrict a Episcopalian (or anyone who support b/c...) woman's ability to get birth control from her insurance provider?
The government's policy here was clearly shaped by religious ideas. Those ideas interfered with private citizens. That is not conservatism. That is as much governmental interference as Obamacare.
IV. Conclusion of Personal Opinion:
Separation of Church and State is a political tool used by the Republicans. There is nothing more to that. It is just another means to an end.
By and large, this is a demographic I consider myself a part of. But lately ive been pondering: If church and state shouldnt be separate, and if America really was founded by Christian ideals and is "one nation under God", why are so many politically conservative Christians so against welfare programs, obamacare and other "socialist" policies?
Actually, the Puritans strongly believed in individualism, personal economic responsibility, industriousness, and the value of labor. Socialism was certainly not part of the mindset.
The problem with socialized medicine is produces a burden upon the economy we simply cannot afford. We're spending too much money. We've been doing so for a long time, and instead of any form of fiscal responsibility, the past four years has done nothing but increase the magnitude of it. We're headed straight for economic collapse, and the Obama camp's only idea is to tax more and spend more, exactly the thing that has only accelerated us towards the cliff's edge.
-Do you support various welfare programs, obamacare, higher taxes for the rich and other policies that are traditionally favored by democrats? Why or why not?
Yes I fully believe in seperation of church and state and the reason is rather simple. Who's faith would be the dominant one that people followed? Should it be Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddist, etc etc? Simply to many faiths to try and say one should be able to dominate government, not to mention how terribly the idea of the church being the dominant power worked for humanity during the Dark Ages and I would rather not repeat that mistake.
As far as wellfare I do support it but I believe it needs a serious revamp. I should not see people on wellfare wearing suits that are more expensive than the car I drive. Right now the system is so full of holes people that don't deserve wellfare are getting it and it gives a bad name to people who really do. I feel that the requirements to get it should be very strickly enforced, to the point that home visits as well as audits of all sources of your income should be required if you are going to take wellfare. If you don't meet them than you don't get it. I also believe part of wellfare should includes programs to help people get a degree or training for a job that would allow them to get off of wellfare, that way we are "teaching them to fish" instead of simply "giving them a fish."
It should be an all or nothing ideal. When we start picking and choosing who can make it and who cant, we open ourselves up for something much worse then a failed economy.
Face it, some people need help to get out of some bad situations. I agree, the 'system' needs to be revamped, but until then we cant just let those in bad situations free fall.
Actually, the Puritans strongly believed in individualism, personal economic responsibility, industriousness, and the value of labor. Socialism was certainly not part of the mindset.
Exactly. Which is why American Catholics trend much more liberal than Protestants (the archetypical "Christian conservatives") on economic issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think it's more trying to have broad based appeal. Social conservative and economic conservative aren't always the same people. Social conservatives are the ones that are big on the morality and economic conservatives are the ones that want to choose how their money gets spent. Then, there are some like the catholic church higher ups that are kind of both. They want to privatize all the welfare things so they can withold aid from anyone they don't like and blackmail people into their brand of morality.
I'm for separation of church and state, as long as that means "The state does not dictate what the church does and the church does not dictate what the state does." Not, "No religion in any thing remotely related to the state EVER."
As for welfare, I believe that I should give to the poor of my own volition (donating to my church, feeding the homeless, helping single mothers ect.) not when it is dictated by the government.
To use an anecdote, once Davy Crockett (who was a senator from Tennessee for a time) was campaigning for the senate seat, and was talking to an old farmer. The farmer flat out told him he was not going to be voting for Crockett, and Davy asked why.
"You voted for the state to pay to rebuild a widows barn that burned down."
Davy replied "But wasn't it a good thing to rebuild the barn? The widow is your neighbor, she doesn't live 10 miles from here. Shouldn't you aid the widow?"
"Of course I should." Replied the farmer, "In fact, I went to the barn raising myself, and I let the widow and her children stay in my house until it was fixed."
"Then why in tarnation are you against me voting to rebuild the barn?"
"Because when you TELL me to care for the widow, you stop making it a good deed or an act of compassion, and are FORCING me to be a good citizen. I should be able to choose to not be a good citizen, even if that's the wrong choice."
That's pretty paraphrased, heres a link to site with the actual story from Davy himself.
Does anyone here actually believe that if the government didn't have social programs that the kindness of others would fill in the gaps and take care of all those that need taken care of?
You may want to read your Bible some more then - he encouraged individual action he never condemned the law also acting.
You're not getting the contradiction here? The Bible promotes individual action, and compulsory action by the state overrides choice. I'm not saying that the Bible implies condemnation of charity via law, but if what you're saying is true (and no, I haven't read the Bible), then it doesn't surprise me at all that believers in individual choice and individual faith aren't supporters of collectivist laws.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
So we shouldn't have laws enforcing benefits for the poor because that robs from choices good citizens could make, but we should have laws preventing actions faiths disagree with like gay marriage and abortion?
Does anyone here actually believe that if the government didn't have social programs that the kindness of others would fill in the gaps and take care of all those that need taken care of?
In a perfect world it would, though I don't know that it would happen in reality. Either way, I don't appreciate charity being mandated.
So we shouldn't have laws enforcing benefits for the poor because that robs from choices good citizens could make, but we should have laws preventing actions faiths disagree with like gay marriage and abortion?
There is a difference between condoning something and condemning it, and quite a large space in between. The state shouldn't make laws regarding marriage if its a religious institution, which in my view it is. Civil unions and partnerships are not religious, so the state can mandate what ever it wants in regard to that. Abortion in my view is straight up against the laws of God, and by extension should be against the laws of man. Slaughter of anyone, unborn or not, is wrong. A woman has a right to govern her own body, but not the body of the child she carries. If you don't want kids, either get "fixed" or practice safe sex, or abstain. Don't kill off the children. (Unless its directly endangering the life of the mother by carrying the child, IE a Fallopian pregnancy . That falls under triage, where you save those that can be saved at the expense of those that cannot.)
We know charity would happen without government intervention. It's more an issue of making sure it's there for the undesirables that might face systematic discrimination. If you abolish government mandated welfare, if someone's unpopular enough, they could be cut out of the system entirely for any reason society deems acceptable. That's why we're a republic, not a true democracy. Seriously, can you imagine what kind of problems it would cause if we made major national decisions entirely based on popular vote?
The state shouldn't make laws regarding marriage if its a religious institution, which in my view it is. Civil unions and partnerships are not religious, so the state can mandate what ever it wants in regard to that.
So the church has a copyright or something on the word marriage? Does the church have any justification for having a monopoly over a word?
Does anyone here actually believe that if the government didn't have social programs that the kindness of others would fill in the gaps and take care of all those that need taken care of?
Actually the programs were run thru churches before the government decided the churches shouldnt have the programs. I doubt the government would allow programs to succeed with out government intrusion. The government want to be in control over who gets what and how much. Thats just the way it is today.
So the church has a copyright or something on the word marriage? Does the church have any justification for having a monopoly over a word?
Marriage is a church thing. The governments version of marriage is a legal union. Over time the have been meshed into something hard to distinguish between.
Actually the programs were run thru churches before the government decided the churches shouldnt have the programs. I doubt the government would allow programs to succeed with out government intrusion. The government want to be in control over who gets what and how much. Thats just the way it is today.
So are you claiming that church run charities prior to government involvement were nearly as adequate for dealing with the poor and disabled?
So are you claiming that church run charities prior to government involvement were nearly as adequate for dealing with the poor and disabled?
Churches kept families fed and well. Of course it was a different time. The reason the government stepped in was because of how the churches picked who got what help. In most cases the helped their own first and with what was left over they helped others. The government felt those who needed the help the most should get the help first.
Over time the government programs have gotten skewed and need an over haul. If you figure we are still running a program set up over 60 years ago with adjustments on the fly, thru different agendas, they are doing a damn good job. Yes they need an over haul and a program more up to date, but yes they have done a decent job helping those who need it.
And your claiming the government is doing a good job? I would say the church did a better job.
I dont know how you can compare how it was done back when the churches had control over the hand outs and how it is now. The population increase alone makes the comparasion unfair. Not to mention the church would turn away someone who had not been to church in a while, or belonged to a different religion. When you can pick WHO you help, of course its going to seem you do a better job helping them. In reality they only chose to help a small percentage of people THEY felt needed help.
People died in mass during recessions and depressions before the government stepped in. And good luck being disabled back then.
Its not the churches fault the medicines were not there to save everyone and the advancements for the disabled were far from refined enough to help everyone that needed it. It was cost prohibitive to help every disabled person. Cant compare 1920s America to 2012 America, times are different.
Its not the churches fault the medicines were not there to save everyone and the advancements for the disabled were far from refined enough to help everyone that needed it. It was cost prohibitive to help every disabled person. Cant compare 1920s America to 2012 America, times are different.
Who was talking about sickness? People died because they starved or were put out on the streets. There was not near the level of help back then as there is now. People can still donate to help charities but there are plenty of people who would not help the poor and the infirm if not for the government forcing them to.
Also, I am not blaming churches, I am merely pointing out that they were inadequate as would any welfare system based on the charity of others be.
The church and private funding seem to be doing a great job in Africa.
Why should the church be in charge of a wellfare system? It is no different from a government dispensing help. With each, you pay a larger entity who goes out and helps.
The welfare system in the US costs about $530-200 billion dollars. Its hard to find exact amounts, but it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
How on earth, would small private organizations be able to have a system that extends across the country and adequately helps people? It does not make sense. The government is designed for big projects like this.
Also, what is your personal experience? Have you ever lived on welfare? Have you ever had to go to your church and ask for money in order to buy food for the week?
You're not getting the contradiction here? The Bible promotes individual action, and compulsory action by the state overrides choice. I'm not saying that the Bible implies condemnation of charity via law, but if what you're saying is true (and no, I haven't read the Bible), then it doesn't surprise me at all that believers in individual choice and individual faith aren't supporters of collectivist laws.
They're not mutually exclusive you do realize, right?
People on welfare today still fall upon hard times beyond what they can handle themselves and ask their church for further assistance, etc.
Hell, on the personal charity level almost every bit of individual charity I do is to people already on some sort of assistance program between my work education and the like.
It's also important for things like baseline charity to have no bias to them - which some churches DO have biases to them. (i.e. can you imagine someone looking Arab getting assistance from most Baptists churches in Arizona for example? Which of course is again against the teachings of Jesus, but anyhow part of my own anti-Protestant bias is showing...)
They're not mutually exclusive you do realize, right?
People on welfare today still fall upon hard times beyond what they can handle themselves and ask their church for further assistance, etc.
Hell, on the personal charity level almost every bit of individual charity I do is to people already on some sort of assistance program between my work education and the like.
It's also important for things like baseline charity to have no bias to them - which some churches DO have biases to them. (i.e. can you imagine someone looking Arab getting assistance from most Baptists churches in Arizona for example? Which of course is again against the teachings of Jesus, but anyhow part of my own anti-Protestant bias is showing...)
Actually, I go to a baptist church in Arizona. We have a family from Egypt that the church provides monthly assistance to. So no, I can't imagine it happens, I KNOW it happens.
By and large, this is a demographic I consider myself a part of. But lately ive been pondering: If church and state shouldnt be separate, and if America really was founded by Christian ideals and is "one nation under God", why are so many politically conservative Christians so against welfare programs, obamacare and other "socialist" policies?
The church seems to push for Biblical stances to political issues on abortion and homosexuality; why not treatment of the poor?
My question to politically and theologically conservative Christians are these (and I know there are SO many here at mtgs!):
-Do you advocate separation of church and state? If not, what does that mean to you? How does it look?
-Do you support various welfare programs, obamacare, higher taxes for the rich and other policies that are traditionally favored by democrats? Why or why not?
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Separation of Church and State can be argued from a few different viewpoints.
1. Was the US founded on Christian ideals?
- "City on a hill"
+ Deist founding fathers who specifically separated Church and state.
- Most/all founding fathers were Christian. (80-90% iirc)
+ Current interpretation is flawed.
The historical background really doesn't matter. The current interpretation of what "separation of Church and State" means is the key issue.
You stated: "They believe the Founding Fathers established the US on Christian ideals, and intended freedom of religion, rather than from it, etc etc."
The key here is that Christian ideals are perfect. Christian ideals led to this country being great. Great leaders have been, are and will be Christians.
The splitting point is Christian leaders versus a Christian system. As stated, Christian leaders are fine. Christian ideals are fine. Christianity within the impersonal government system is not.
The Separation of Church and State keeps religion out of the State. Further, it limits the government from restricting your right to worship as you please.
Would you take offense if it said, "One Nation Under Vishnu"?
What about "All bibles must be burned and Christian practices halted at once."?
These are the things that the Separation of Church and State were designed to protect. Applying it backwards is where the problems happen.
II. Welfare, etc.:
This is tied strictly to Conservatism. Instead of having the government pay for welfare, a conservative would instead have the church and public donations support the poor.
In general, these topics are listed under big government.
III. My Own Opinion:
1. Welfare, etc.
Quickly, about the welfare/obamacare/higher taxes topics, I see these as political and economic realities. Taxes go up. Taxes go down. The process repeats itself. Welfare is an enterprise which is too widespread of a problem for private citizens to deal with. Obamacare is a result of "splitting the baby." If McCain had won, then the democrats would have gone crazy about whatever he would have passed.
I see these all as just political realities. I'd like to have them be more efficient, but the system is too complex for anyone to make policy which works 100%. (For example take Reagan. Reaganomics caused enormous debt. Take FDR, his public works projects did not come close to ending the Great Depression.) For every policy made, market forces will adapt to it or against it.
--
2. Separation of Church and State:
I see this as general hypocrisy of the entire Republican side. Conservatism should always attempt to limit governmental power.
How is making the Government dictate people's lives being Conservative? I see social policies, thinly veiled as defending Christian ideals, as completely opposite of what they should be arguing for.
Take the recent birth-control requirement which was stricken from some legislation. The legislation was going to require medical insurance to cover birth control for women.
This was harshly opposed. One of the main arguments was religiously based. I don't understand it. Why should someone's religious views shape what kind of treatment I receive from my medical provider? Why should a Catholic institution be able to restrict a Episcopalian (or anyone who support b/c...) woman's ability to get birth control from her insurance provider?
The government's policy here was clearly shaped by religious ideas. Those ideas interfered with private citizens. That is not conservatism. That is as much governmental interference as Obamacare.
IV. Conclusion of Personal Opinion:
Separation of Church and State is a political tool used by the Republicans. There is nothing more to that. It is just another means to an end.
Actually, the Puritans strongly believed in individualism, personal economic responsibility, industriousness, and the value of labor. Socialism was certainly not part of the mindset.
The problem with socialized medicine is produces a burden upon the economy we simply cannot afford. We're spending too much money. We've been doing so for a long time, and instead of any form of fiscal responsibility, the past four years has done nothing but increase the magnitude of it. We're headed straight for economic collapse, and the Obama camp's only idea is to tax more and spend more, exactly the thing that has only accelerated us towards the cliff's edge.
No, because a failed economy benefits no one.
As far as wellfare I do support it but I believe it needs a serious revamp. I should not see people on wellfare wearing suits that are more expensive than the car I drive. Right now the system is so full of holes people that don't deserve wellfare are getting it and it gives a bad name to people who really do. I feel that the requirements to get it should be very strickly enforced, to the point that home visits as well as audits of all sources of your income should be required if you are going to take wellfare. If you don't meet them than you don't get it. I also believe part of wellfare should includes programs to help people get a degree or training for a job that would allow them to get off of wellfare, that way we are "teaching them to fish" instead of simply "giving them a fish."
It should be an all or nothing ideal. When we start picking and choosing who can make it and who cant, we open ourselves up for something much worse then a failed economy.
Face it, some people need help to get out of some bad situations. I agree, the 'system' needs to be revamped, but until then we cant just let those in bad situations free fall.
You may want to read your Bible some more then - he encouraged individual action he never condemned the law also acting.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Exactly. Which is why American Catholics trend much more liberal than Protestants (the archetypical "Christian conservatives") on economic issues.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As for welfare, I believe that I should give to the poor of my own volition (donating to my church, feeding the homeless, helping single mothers ect.) not when it is dictated by the government.
To use an anecdote, once Davy Crockett (who was a senator from Tennessee for a time) was campaigning for the senate seat, and was talking to an old farmer. The farmer flat out told him he was not going to be voting for Crockett, and Davy asked why.
"You voted for the state to pay to rebuild a widows barn that burned down."
Davy replied "But wasn't it a good thing to rebuild the barn? The widow is your neighbor, she doesn't live 10 miles from here. Shouldn't you aid the widow?"
"Of course I should." Replied the farmer, "In fact, I went to the barn raising myself, and I let the widow and her children stay in my house until it was fixed."
"Then why in tarnation are you against me voting to rebuild the barn?"
"Because when you TELL me to care for the widow, you stop making it a good deed or an act of compassion, and are FORCING me to be a good citizen. I should be able to choose to not be a good citizen, even if that's the wrong choice."
That's pretty paraphrased, heres a link to site with the actual story from Davy himself.
http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm
Soldier Primer
Sig by ol MISAKA lo
My Trades
You're not getting the contradiction here? The Bible promotes individual action, and compulsory action by the state overrides choice. I'm not saying that the Bible implies condemnation of charity via law, but if what you're saying is true (and no, I haven't read the Bible), then it doesn't surprise me at all that believers in individual choice and individual faith aren't supporters of collectivist laws.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
So Pro I have an alpha Volcanic Island
In a perfect world it would, though I don't know that it would happen in reality. Either way, I don't appreciate charity being mandated.
There is a difference between condoning something and condemning it, and quite a large space in between. The state shouldn't make laws regarding marriage if its a religious institution, which in my view it is. Civil unions and partnerships are not religious, so the state can mandate what ever it wants in regard to that. Abortion in my view is straight up against the laws of God, and by extension should be against the laws of man. Slaughter of anyone, unborn or not, is wrong. A woman has a right to govern her own body, but not the body of the child she carries. If you don't want kids, either get "fixed" or practice safe sex, or abstain. Don't kill off the children. (Unless its directly endangering the life of the mother by carrying the child, IE a Fallopian pregnancy . That falls under triage, where you save those that can be saved at the expense of those that cannot.)
Soldier Primer
Sig by ol MISAKA lo
My Trades
So the church has a copyright or something on the word marriage? Does the church have any justification for having a monopoly over a word?
Actually the programs were run thru churches before the government decided the churches shouldnt have the programs. I doubt the government would allow programs to succeed with out government intrusion. The government want to be in control over who gets what and how much. Thats just the way it is today.
Marriage is a church thing. The governments version of marriage is a legal union. Over time the have been meshed into something hard to distinguish between.
So are you claiming that church run charities prior to government involvement were nearly as adequate for dealing with the poor and disabled?
And your claiming the government is doing a good job? I would say the church did a better job.
Edit: And in many ways, STILL does a better job.
Soldier Primer
Sig by ol MISAKA lo
My Trades
People died in mass during recessions and depressions before the government stepped in. And good luck being disabled back then.
Churches kept families fed and well. Of course it was a different time. The reason the government stepped in was because of how the churches picked who got what help. In most cases the helped their own first and with what was left over they helped others. The government felt those who needed the help the most should get the help first.
Over time the government programs have gotten skewed and need an over haul. If you figure we are still running a program set up over 60 years ago with adjustments on the fly, thru different agendas, they are doing a damn good job. Yes they need an over haul and a program more up to date, but yes they have done a decent job helping those who need it.
I dont know how you can compare how it was done back when the churches had control over the hand outs and how it is now. The population increase alone makes the comparasion unfair. Not to mention the church would turn away someone who had not been to church in a while, or belonged to a different religion. When you can pick WHO you help, of course its going to seem you do a better job helping them. In reality they only chose to help a small percentage of people THEY felt needed help.
Its not the churches fault the medicines were not there to save everyone and the advancements for the disabled were far from refined enough to help everyone that needed it. It was cost prohibitive to help every disabled person. Cant compare 1920s America to 2012 America, times are different.
Who was talking about sickness? People died because they starved or were put out on the streets. There was not near the level of help back then as there is now. People can still donate to help charities but there are plenty of people who would not help the poor and the infirm if not for the government forcing them to.
Also, I am not blaming churches, I am merely pointing out that they were inadequate as would any welfare system based on the charity of others be.
Why should the church be in charge of a wellfare system? It is no different from a government dispensing help. With each, you pay a larger entity who goes out and helps.
The welfare system in the US costs about $530-200 billion dollars. Its hard to find exact amounts, but it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
How on earth, would small private organizations be able to have a system that extends across the country and adequately helps people? It does not make sense. The government is designed for big projects like this.
Also, what is your personal experience? Have you ever lived on welfare? Have you ever had to go to your church and ask for money in order to buy food for the week?
They're not mutually exclusive you do realize, right?
People on welfare today still fall upon hard times beyond what they can handle themselves and ask their church for further assistance, etc.
Hell, on the personal charity level almost every bit of individual charity I do is to people already on some sort of assistance program between my work education and the like.
It's also important for things like baseline charity to have no bias to them - which some churches DO have biases to them. (i.e. can you imagine someone looking Arab getting assistance from most Baptists churches in Arizona for example? Which of course is again against the teachings of Jesus, but anyhow part of my own anti-Protestant bias is showing...)
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Actually, I go to a baptist church in Arizona. We have a family from Egypt that the church provides monthly assistance to. So no, I can't imagine it happens, I KNOW it happens.
Soldier Primer
Sig by ol MISAKA lo
My Trades