iraq
I was thinking about what you wrote, but I respectfully disagree on some of your points. 1) There is nothing wrong with the government helping. A rich nation like ours should offer universal health care to all its citizens. In our economy and wealth it should be the "right" not the "privilege" of every citizen. This goes also for Social Security. The way you make it sound is that we should get rid of such things. Incidentally, all the government programs put into place by FDR are the ones that are helping us out right now with our economic failures. 2) The real culprit for what caused the financial meltdown is deregulation imnposed by those that believe in less government control just as you pointed out. The more credit that was given away the more they were going to make in return. Since there were no regulations no one could step in to tell them to "knock it off" or companies weren't held to certain standards and practices on who they can lend money out to.
3) I disagree with the church's role to assist with welfare. What if the person in need is not of the same religion? Does it mean they have to first convert in order to receive assistance? What if they are Catholic and it's a pre dominantly Protestant city? Or vice versa? What if they are Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu? And what about those that don't practice a religion at all? Our country was build on the idea of separation of church and state as well as freedom of religion. Welfare does not belong into matters of the church. It belongs into the realm of public policy. Historically looking back welfare has come a long way and people are better off today than they were say 150 years ago living on the street receiving no aid or education to better themselves. 4) People have to get over the notion of "socialized" versus "socialism" because they are two different words. "Socialized" is to place under "public" ownership or control. As you can see the dictionary's definition does not say "government" control. Therefore, "socialized medicine" means to place health under "public" control as oppose to say "cooperate control", which is the system we have now. Why should only those that can afford it get it especially when premiums go up so high that eventually no one can afford it, except for the rich. And those that have a pre-existing condition are screwed from the get go. Only the rich can get it. Again, health care like social security should be a right, not a priviledge. In the political science world "socialism" is the highest form of economic systems because everything is fair and equal. Everybody gets what is offered. Rich and poor get the same and there is no cooperate greed involved. In other words, cooperations don't rule the roost.
In conclusion, some of your earlier points are too black and white in my opinion. While I agree with the notion that "cash is king," in the world of economics credit is an important factor to get things done. People don't invest with their own cash or money. People invest with other's people's money or the bank's money to make things work. Otherwise, we have to go back to the barter system of trading cows and chickens, etc.
3) I disagree with the church's role to assist with welfare. What if the person in need is not of the same religion? Does it mean they have to first convert in order to receive assistance? What if they are Catholic and it's a pre dominantly Protestant city? Or vice versa? What if they are Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu? And what about those that don't practice a religion at all? Our country was build on the idea of separation of church and state as well as freedom of religion. Welfare does not belong into matters of the church. It belongs into the realm of public policy. Historically looking back welfare has come a long way and people are better off today than they were say 150 years ago living on the street receiving no aid or education to better themselves. 4) People have to get over the notion of "socialized" versus "socialism" because they are two different words. "Socialized" is to place under "public" ownership or control. As you can see the dictionary's definition does not say "government" control. Therefore, "socialized medicine" means to place health under "public" control as oppose to say "cooperate control", which is the system we have now. Why should only those that can afford it get it especially when premiums go up so high that eventually no one can afford it, except for the rich. And those that have a pre-existing condition are screwed from the get go. Only the rich can get it. Again, health care like social security should be a right, not a priviledge. In the political science world "socialism" is the highest form of economic systems because everything is fair and equal. Everybody gets what is offered. Rich and poor get the same and there is no cooperate greed involved. In other words, cooperations don't rule the roost.
In conclusion, some of your earlier points are too black and white in my opinion. While I agree with the notion that "cash is king," in the world of economics credit is an important factor to get things done. People don't invest with their own cash or money. People invest with other's people's money or the bank's money to make things work. Otherwise, we have to go back to the barter system of trading cows and chickens, etc.
This is very thoughtful reply. However, you should be aware that the Church has been involved in "welfare" since it began 2,000 years ago, long before our country existed. It's our biblical mandate to care for widows and orphans. What Barb is saying is that if the Church had done what was supposed to do, the State might not have had to step in. As for whether non-Christians receive aid, the answer is, "Of course." This happens today, all over the world and in the States. Surely you've heard of Mother Teresa who ministered to the non-Christian population of India. She's a notable example, but there are thousands of others.
Thanks for your kind reply and I agree with your example of Mother Teresa. I don't have anything against the church helping as it is a noble pursuit. However, the church in the past has abused its powers, take for example the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and how they turned a death ear to what the Nazis were doing during WWII. Therefore, I don't believe that the church should be the only solution to help those in need of welfare. Furthermore, not everyone is comfortable for asking help from the church in fear that they need to "convert" or that attempts of conversion are being made. Also as someone like myself who is a progressive and has an open mind there are a lot of issues that the church won't take into real consideration e.g. issues on abortion, issues on gay rights, etc. I have a problem with that and I don't believe that the Church has all the answers. America was built on the separation of church and state and that is what made this country so great for many decades. Other nations have looked up to America on this particular issue and currently there is a regression because the church is more involved in politics than it was in decades. That is my humbled opinion.
The Church, as you say, has failed miserably in the past. It should never have given itself over to worldly power. It's failing now. (BTW, for another view of the Church during WWII, check out Dietrich Bonhoeffer. It's not that the Church in Germany turned a deaf ear. It's that they were taken over and had no power to do much. But some gave their lives.) And I understand your concern about the Church's stance on abortion and gay rights--although, in my opinion, both gays and babies have rights. But no one is advocating a merging of church and state. And I'm not too crazy about the way the Christian right has done politics, either. The Church, however, in spite of its faults and flaws, does actually do lots of good things for the poor. Jesus is an amazing Lord. If we just follow Him, good things happen.
I agree with you as I am a Christian myself. I also know a little bit about the church during the Nazi period. I'm originally from Germany and have done some research in that field -- even spoken to descendants of key officials during the Nazi period... The current crop of evangelicals in America leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I do not agree with their stance and what they have done politically to this country. So until they take a step back and see for themselves the hypocracy of what they preach I will not support purely church based welfare ideas for the United States of America. But that's just my humbled opinion.
Well, there will never be purely church-based welfare in the States. Again, what Barb was saying is that the Church should have done and should do a better job of caring for the poor. We have spent too much money on ourselves. However, clintsilver, this is not something we should do politically. It's just something we should do, because that's what we're told to do in Scripture.
Thanks for this thoughtful, polite dialogue. I hope we can continue to interact as we both follow Jesus, the Savior and Creator of the world.
Thanks for this thoughtful, polite dialogue. I hope we can continue to interact as we both follow Jesus, the Savior and Creator of the world.
Thank you for this polite debate. I appreciate your perspective and know of others who believe similarly. It doesn't change how I see things, though.
The rich and the poor have their basic needs taken care of. It's the working poor, those who make min wage or just slightly above that that suffer. They can get neither public assistance nor can they afford healthcare or even a meal at Wendy's, for a treat! However, there are no easy answers. I was simply intending to share my perspective on priorities and responsiblities. I am among these working poor with a BA and almost done with my MA ... and still cannot find suitable employment. Go figure. But is that the Government's responsibility? or mine? I say it is mine!
i like your list, B
I'd like to state that #2 should go first. 
It is universal greed that makes a lot of the rest take place. Because there is universal greed and because people want to take advantage of the situations it becomes hard to have the government feed/cloth/house or support the citizens. We all take advantage or know someone that takes advantage of the situation from politicians to your neighbors. And those that are eager to do so make it impossible to do the right thing and it leads to hatred.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, S! and I agree ... I wrote this on the fly, and they came out in no particular order, but yes, it is greed that makes the world go around ... and around and around and around ... dizzying itself!
Good points. I've read about the causes for our financial meltdown, but I have to admit I don't understand much of it. I do agree, however, that part of the reason is greed and unwise use of credit.
Well ... I have a tendency to over simplify things, but ... it's the way I see things!
your first point is dead on. i'm tired of people bitching about what they're owed. you're given the freedom to choose any profession you want and to live in relative safety. in contrast to the first commenter (is that a word), our govt. does not and should not provide health care or social security. thats what private enterprise is for. go to work and save money yourself for retirement. pay for your own healthcare. what people dont understand is that its not my job to pay for your stuff. which is what happens when the 'government provides.'
Exactly! I'm responsible for my own needs and the needs of my family ... and no one else's, although it is always a good thing to be willing to help those in need. I have no problem with those down on their luck, or whose jobs are underpaid. I've been there, myself. However, there is a who segment of society that has made a career of skirting the system or exploiting it, and we all pay!!!
WOW!!!
I wish I had said that!!!
Thank you! Rare praise around here! Fortunately, I don't blog to get stroked! lol
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Catering to Christianity - yeah i was one for 15 of my 18 years and i don't get them.
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
