When I pointed out that I thought taking money by force from taxpayers so that pols could redistribute to their political favs was tantamount to theft run by a protection racket, Alte disagreed, noting that the RCC (Pope Leo XII) decreed some time ago that the State had a role to play in ameliorating human suffering with other peoples' money:
The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them. But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop....The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. [Bolded text my emphasis]The Roman Catholic Church has historically had difficulty separating Church from Caesar, and this quote above merely provides evidence of that continuing difficulty. I suppose I should be glad for this, however, since it was this difficulty that led directly to the Reformation and the birth of both Protestantism (yay!) and the Enlightenment (boo!). Now to be fair, however, Protestants have had their own difficulties keeping the temporal and ecclesiastical separated, most recently with the rise of "right hand of God" Progressivism that was so in vogue at the turn of the twentieth century and the effects of which we all still suffer under today. Needless to say, I'm far less sanguine than Leo XII about the ability or willingness of the State to go "this far and no further" when it comes to the rights or property of its subjects; seems the natural progression of government is to go "that far" and take it even further if given half a chance. Better I think to declare completely off limits to government the property of other men, other than taxing citizens to provide goods that may only be obtained publicly (like national defense), rather than allow the proverbial camel's nose under the tent (and we end up with immoral monstrosities like welfare and Kelo).
But my issue isn't with 300 year old Romish papal decrees or mainline Protestant misbehavior, but how both human failings fail to properly grasp the black and white and red text of the Bible.
First, we are instructed to help the poor, first in Deuteronomy 15, Leviticus 19, Leviticus 25, Proverbs 14, and Matthew 25. This is without dispute. But who is to receive this help? Marvin Olasky writes:
Liberal use of the Matthew 25 quotation (and many others) raises severe questions of biblical interpretation. The Old Testament emphasizes not alms but opportunities to glean, and not subsidies for sitting but exhortations to be industrious. If we use Matthew 25 to baptize the welfare state, even though its result has been two generations that never learned about the importance of work, what do we do with dozens of verses from Proverbs? Some example: "Lazy hands make a man poor... Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.... The sluggard's craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work.”Clearly, the modern welfare state that hands out cash payments with no litmus testing involved runs contrary to the Biblical prescription regarding to whom alms should be targeted. Indeed, as opposed to the welfare state which seems to have no end to the spiritual injuries it wishes to inflict on those it supposedly "helps", we see in Deuteronomy 14:28-29 that the tithes shall be given to the poor only every third year. Meaning that it is not meant to be a long-term lifestyle, and certainly not across generations. Moreover, the burden of caring for the poor and indigent falls first to the person themselves (1 Thess 6:3-12), then to their family (1 Tim 5:3-16), and only then to other third parties such as the Church or government.
Second, if we liberally play with Matthew 25, are we placing in opposition the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul? The apostle provided to the Thessalonians and us not a suggestion but a rule: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle… We gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’ We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."
Such are the Biblical instructions for how the poor are to be cared for and who is to be doing the caring. But what of my earlier point about the welfare statement being little more than an immoral theft executed by a protection racket? There are two supporting elements for my claim: first, social contract theory, and the second, the Bible itself.
Social contract theory postulates that we men give up a portion of our rights, voluntarily, in exchange for the delivery of certain goods from the collective, such as security, laws, courts, roads, et cetera. These goods are of course paid for with taxes. The key word here is voluntary; if a member disagrees with how these taxes are spent, he can agitate for change. If the disagreement is intractable, he votes with his feet and leaves for other districts with governing practices more to his liking. However, if the citizen is unable to leave, either by condition or by State coercion, or is otherwise prevented from withdrawing his consent (as is the case of the USG taxing the incomes of former US citizens who have emigrated to other countries), then the contract is broken. In this case, such taxation is truly theft, theft carried out at the point of a gun.
Second, the Bible itself, in my interpretation,* states quite clearly that our giving is to be voluntary, from our hearts as evidence of salvation, and not appropriated for the aggrandizement of others. First, I give you Matthew 6:1-6, which instructs Believers to give in anonymity:
1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.Public charity does not count as giving in anonymity, and politicians using the money confiscated from others by force to be charitable in their own name is nigh upon blasphemous.
Second, from James 2:14-24 and Ephesians 2:8-9, we see that faith without works is dead, but works without faith is also fruitless:
James:So we see that, in addition to being immoral (welfare leads to objectively poorer outcomes), welfare is also unBiblical. And in some ways, welfare is an offense to God himself, for it impedes the willingness of the people to carry out His commandments with the correct state of mind and heart.
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good [1] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Ephesians:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
* As I do not subscribe to the Marian religion, I am blessed with the ability to read and interpret Scripture for myself and am not confined to accepting the interpretation of another mere man as Gospel.
26 comments:
Well that is particularly good news for teh RCC that they can simply push off one of their more expensive duties onto the government. If they can't raise the tihes to accomplish this, then they can use the tax power of the state as a proxy to do it.
How convenient.
I am a Catholic (in training), but I absolutely agree 100% with what you've concluded here.
"human failings fail to properly grasp the black and white and red text of the Bible." Yes, apparently it happens to the best of us (though I do think it's worth noting that at least contemporary Popes seek daily reconciliation, and understand themselves to be human sinners - I pray for His Holiness daily, for that reason).
"it impedes the willingness of the people to carry out His commandments with the correct state of mind and heart."
This is a bigger issue, both logistically and spiritually, than most people realize. Stifling the drive most of us have to help those in need - because we "gave" at the office - is a compound theft from all concerned, and is a conspicuous evil that is routinely tiptoed around.
I am now Roman Catholic (as of Easter Vigil), but I agree with your sentiment on the failings of welfare. However, I am confused as to what it is *exactly* that you would have replace it. Nothing more than churches helping the poor, period? Well, that sounds well and good in theory, but pretty much every single person I have ever met in my life who is a Christian (of every denom) does not tithe 10% of his/her income. And I highly doubt that if welfare was gotten rid of and the churches told to deal with the poor that tithing would increase. In fact, I think a lot (most?) people would still rant and rave about giving their money to other people.
But I also think that the government should be bigger than you believe it should be. I think it's too big now, yes, but I don't think it should shrink to the size that I believe you suggest on your blog.
And also, what of those citizens who are not Christians? Plenty of Christians I know would never in a million years give one single penny to a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. even if that man was lying dead in the street. Is it the Christian community's responsibility to help non-Christians as well? Or is each religion to protect its own?
And for that matter, any agency that gives people money at all is often considered welfare; such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability, etc. Are these to be demolished as well? The man who falls off a ladder cleaning his gutter and breaks both of his legs and is therefore not able to work for months, he should rely on his church to pay his bills?
And in the end, saying that welfare is unBiblical should mean nothing to the government anyway, right? Because the government is (should be) separated from religion completely, and therefore does not have to take being Biblical into account. (Or at least, in the Protestants' case, whatever each individual Protestant claims is Biblical or unBiblical to him/her. And then the government is screwed no matter what it does, since each individual person has his/her own method of judging Biblical-ness.)
The church, without realizing it undermines it authority and power when it supports government funded welfare and social justice.
When people had to depend on charity and their community for aid, there were social obliations observed, there were social requirements.
The chuirch(es) were the heart of the community. Now they are merely an hour obligation.
It amazes me that a church with 2000 years of experience about the human condition can be so willfully self destructive.
@ light,
... Christian (of every denom) does not tithe 10% of his/her income.
Why should they? Institutional churches of every denomination have preached this in perpetuity bacause it is their own life blood. But there is nothing majical about 10%. Nor has there ever been a time in history where the temple got all ot its 10% and yet thye managed to take care of charitable needs of the community, send misisonaries to far off lands and build palatial catherdals. By contrast, our government takes 25-50% and still doesn't seem to have enough. Legitimate charity can be covered by a lot less than 10%
But I also think that the government should be bigger than you believe it should be. I think it's too big now, yes
What criteria will you use to determin if the government is the "right size"? Each person will make his own choice and we will get a governemnt that does everything for everyone. Or we can just do what is in the Constitution, which was written to define the powers of the federal government and to which all elected official swear to support and defend.
And also, what of those citizens who are not Christians?
You are not the first person to think of this. In fact Christian charities today are most active in places like India and Africa, where there aren't many Christians. Christian charities think that helping people, even non-Christians, is a good thing. But Budhists think you are interfering with someones Karma if you give them charity. Moslems have their own schema for charitable distributions (steal from the infidels and give to the moslems). There are also Atheist charities, so no ones needs to feel left out.
...Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability, etc. Are these to be demolished as well?
A-Freaking-MEN. Waste, fraud, and abuse. End them.
... he should rely on his church to pay his bills?
Yes. Or his savings, or his private insurance, or his extended family. His need does not give him a claim to your stuff. Thou Shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet.
And in the end, saying that welfare is unBiblical should mean nothing to the government anyway, right?
Right. Except that Christians have used their Christian values to justify the theft of money from their neighbors for charitable purposes and the churches have not fought that intrusion into their job. But this article was about the Pope saying what governments should do.
Excellent post, and excellent comment from Professor Hale. "His need does not give him a claim to your stuff." Davy Crockett made that exact point in Congress, many moons ago. Far too many Christians decry any use of legitimate government power in the form of military might (defending the country, not building an imperium) as God's agency for change, but wholly support illegitimate government power in the form of taxation and welfare and affirmative action as God's servants on earth.
Perhaps I am too cynical of my fellow man, even my fellow Christian, to believe that a system without any type of government assistance of any kind would work. We already have people going into debt to pay medical expenses when accidents happen, that completely taking away all government assistance would just make situations like those worse.
And while I've seen plenty of people abusing the welfare system (I live in and have relatives in poor, rural, Southern areas), and I believe the system should be heavily modified, restricted, and overseen, I don't think it should be taken away completely. Some people need welfare/food stamps/medicare/disability/whatever to simply live, to put food on the table and roof over their heads until they can get back on their feet. And I feel that it is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, so... the government should help these people until they are back on their feet, then.
I don't know. I just don't view taxes as theft of my money. Or a disabled man needing disability as making a claim to my stuff. Or a widow working two jobs to provide for her children as a lazy good for nothing trying to steal my money. So in my opinion, the answer is to modify these programs, not scrap them altogether.
If a widow is working two jobs, then she isn't stealing your money. In fact, she is likely the victim of crime when the government takes part of her meager income to pay for someone else's good ideas.
Congratulations light, you are a socialist. As long as you don't run out of other people's money to fund your altruism, you should do just fine. You just want to argue about the decimal places not the moral basis behind taking from one person by force to give to another.
100 years ago, in 1911, widows and orphans could be provided for, and were provided for, by fraternal organizations. The Elks, the Eagles, the Moose, the Woodmen, and other organizations such as the Masons all provided for injured members and their families. There were hospitals, rest homes, and other facilities in existence, all paid for by membership dues and sinking funds set up by national organizations.
So what happened? Well, basically the inflation of the 1920's and the subsequent depression of the 1930's made it all but impossible for these organizations to continue to do their business. They carried on as best they could - there are still Elks retirement homes in some mining towns in Colorado I believe - but ultimately the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Federal government shut them down.
Then, and only then, did the notion of Social Security become sellable. 30 years later, Medicare was sold, on the basis that it would not cost much -- a prediction proven grossly wrong.
So private, subscription organizations could and did take care of many people, including widows and orphans. The Catholic hospital system took care of many others. There were other, private, hospital systems run by large Protestant denominations such as the Methodists. All of these have been eroded away, or overtly attacked, by the Federal government.
It is certain that all of these organizations had lower overhead than the Federal programs. It is also certain that they were more efficient. But they couldn't be used as political carrots, so they had to go.
As the Federal government goes bankrupt, as the US becomes a pension fund / medical system with a military attached, mutual aid will eventually come back. It will have to come back, because Uncle Sap is broke.
PS: I used to know a nurse who worked in a Catholic hospital. They never checked at the emergency room to see if a hurt person was Christian, Moslem, atheist or what have you, they took them in and did the best they could for them. So the notion that somehow, Christian charity would of necessity exclude non-Christians does not pass the smell test (it seems downright stinky, in fact).
@ Cottage,
"Stifling the drive most of us have to help those in need - because we "gave" at the office"
Other than the freedom aspect, this is my top concern, that government's invasion of the "charity space" robs people of a sense of personal responsibility to take care of their fellow man.
@ Country Lawyer,
"When people had to depend on charity and their community for aid, there were social obliations observed, there were social requirements."
And personal accountability, I would think. But honestly, welfare has been in our culture for so long it is somewhat difficult to imagine the community at large holding folks accountable for their own financial condition...or lack thereof. Were welfare to be abolished tomorrow, it would take some time for people to once again re-accustom themselves to looking out for themselves, their families, and their communities.
The state does have a legitimate function in ordering society to the common good. This was tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas. The Catholic Church did not coopt the state as much as the state seized power from the Church (often coming from Protestant rulers) which a matter of fact Protestantism would not be around if were not for the power of the state. The twin revolutions of the Protestantism and the Enlightenment destroyed the organic society of Catholic Christendom leaving us in the situation we are in today. Yet most seem to think the antidote is more Protestant/Classical Liberal individualism when it was these very notions that are root cause of our problems today.
As I do not subscribe to the Marian religion, I am blessed with the ability to read and interpret Scripture for myself and am not confined to accepting the interpretation of another mere man as Gospel.
- yes it precisely because of this type of mentality that we have sects like Mormonism, Christian-Zionism and prosperity Gospel.
@ Light,
"And for that matter, any agency that gives people money at all is often considered welfare; such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Disability, etc. Are these to be demolished as well?"
Yes. If I had my way, yes. And not only for Biblical and moral reasons, either, but for the simple fact that all are unconstitutional at the Federal level. One can make arguments about whether they are permissible at the state level, for sure, but the Constitution clearly proscribes the FedGov from these programs.
"And in the end, saying that welfare is unBiblical should mean nothing to the government anyway, right? Because the government is (should be) separated from religion completely, and therefore does not have to take being Biblical into account. "
I suppose yes, but this post wasn't addressed to the government per se. It was addressed to those who fancy using the Bible as justification for taking the money of others to give to a 3d party, so that they can feel better about themselves for "helping".
Also, the government itself, aside from the procedures that are in place, is peopled by Christians and Catholics and atheists and Moslems and a whole host of other faiths and lack of faiths. It is they who make the law, interpret the law, and enforce the law. I am merely pointing out to Believers that they should not be so quick to think that welfare is justified or endorsed by the Bible, which I think (and I have shown) is not the case. Despite what a certain man (Leo 12) presumed to speak on behalf of God so many years ago, to claim that welfare is Biblical or even moral strains credulity in the face of Biblical and observable evidence to the contrary.
I have other comments of a more meta nature; I'll post those on Wednesday in a separate article.
@ Theo,
"The state does have a legitimate function in ordering society to the common good. "
Whose order? Whose definition of "the common good"?
Also, the Catholic Church prior to the Reformation was effectively the State. So Protestantism came about as a consequence of the abuse of that close, almost inseparable, nexus between ecclesiastical and temporal power, as well as the desire of man to communicate directly with their Maker and not filter it through other men who thought themselves intermediaries for God.
Literacy and the printing press sure exploded that conceit, praise God for that.
" Yet most seem to think the antidote is more Protestant/Classical Liberal individualism when it was these very notions that are root cause of our problems today."
I've seen this argument before from Roman Catholics. I think it is important to disentangle Protestantism with Classical Liberalism.
Protestantism, at its core, to a layman like myself, is about a personal relationship with God. It says little to nothing about the nature of government, which is what the Enlightenment (which begat Classical Liberalism) addressed.
Classical Liberalism, OTOH, dealt with the relationship of man to his government and to his fellow man. That men were born free and could remain so unless interfered with by those who wish to exercise a tyranny over them.
The dethroning of State-cum-God that came with the Enlightenment unfortunately also threw the baby out (God) with the notion of the Church-blessed divine right of kings to rule. Man finally had freedom, but he eventually came to put his own Devil-whore reason on the pedestal and worshipped the created instead of the Creator.
This--the tendency to confuse freedom for rationalized licentiousness--is something that I rail about quite often here, as I'm sure you are aware.
The writings of Leo XII wrt welfare suggest to me that the RCC hasn't quite internalized the lesson of the all-consuming nature of government. What would you have in the place of Classical Liberalism?
It's one thing to poke at all those heretical Protestants and Classical Liberalism and say its all their fault. It's quite another to suggest a viable alternative that isn't just another tyranny by another name.
PH~ A widow working two jobs might very well need welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid to help support her children. So, in your definition, she is a thief, no matter the jobs she's working.
And no, not really a socialist. I just consider myself a nice person. One that doesn't mind helping out another in need, and doesn't mind having a government that takes care of that for me. But, like I said before, the government needs to re-think the way it handles that assistance.
EW~ Isn't the gist of your argument to simply replace the government with the Church (or churches)? We'd still be giving our money "to a 3rd party (the church) so that we can feel better about ourselves for 'helping'" as you say. Just, instead of the government taking the money and distributing it as it will, it would be the churches who take the money and distribute it as they will. The only difference is that we'd be doing it out of the kindness of our hearts, I suppose. Which, yes, can make a big difference, but once again, it's the cynic in me that can't help but imagine that many people would simply refuse to give money to help others if the enforcement were taken away.
You say that the government forcing us to give to others robs us of our ability to be charitable to those in need. Once again, I simply have seen too many people look straight into the faces of those in need and then immediately turn away, sneer, or make comments about laziness, greed, incompetence, or, of course, God giving certain people lousy lots in life. We can't force people to be charitable in any other capacity than taxes. Take those away, and I would just be afraid that the already numerous poor and suffering in our country would grow while the money to help them would deplete.
Once again, however, let me reiterate that I agree that the current welfare system is deplorable. I am personally related to multiple people who have been on assistance, and cheated the system, so I know first hand how bad it can be. I just think there should be some other solution to the problem than magically doing away with it altogether.
@ Light,
"We'd still be giving our money "to a 3rd party (the church) so that we can feel better about ourselves for 'helping'" as you say. Just, instead of the government taking the money and distributing it as it will"
That's the distinction I'm trying to get at. It's not just the same ends, but the means that matter. There is a world of difference between my giving my own money and time to help the poor, for whatever reasons I have, be they self-interested or altruistic, and someone else who, through the coercive power of the state, takes my property, takes his own self-interested cut, and then helps, strike that, gives that money to his own political clientele in exchange for votes.
Besides, the "ends" aren't the same. The difference in the end results between government charity and private charity is substantial.
"many people would simply refuse to give money to help others if the enforcement were taken away."
Let's not mince words. Your solution is to hire a gang of armed men to take others' money, including that of the unborn, by force, because some fraction of your neighbors and their unborn children would be niggardly. This is the sort of compassion the system you recommend involves. This is exactly the sort of situation that the recommendation of Leo XII results in because "this far and no farther" is not much of an impediment to those who are compassionate with other people's money.
"I would just be afraid that the already numerous poor and suffering in our country would grow while the money to help them would deplete"
The poor and the Body are not static. If the amount of money available to "help" the poor diminishes, which I think it probably will, the behavior of the indigent, and the behavior of others around them, will change.
I agree with Alte that we'll probably get both...a lack of welfare, in which families and the Body as a whole will have to step in, and huge tax increases, because government grew so large from being permitted to be so kind and generous in the first place.
In the end, I think it all hinges on how much we as a nation really believes in Scripture where it says "if one does not work, one shall not eat". Yes, there are cases where some cannot care for themselves, for whatever reason. Jesus did say the poor will always be with us. Private institutions can make the distinction between the truly indigent and the lazy much better than can government, which must take on all comers.
Do you want to be free, or do you want to be a slave?
I'm not against private charity. So if I believed that private charity alone could solve the problem of the poor and needy in the country, then I'd agree with the doing away with government assistance. Although, perhaps it could be something that is done away with in steps, instead of all at once.
I agree that the government does a poor job of distinguishing between the truly needy and the lazy, which is something a private institution would be able to handle better.
@ light.
PH~ A widow working two jobs might very well need welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid to help support her children. So, in your definition, she is a thief, no matter the jobs she's working.
Bad laws make criminals of us all. So this woman works two jobs. You didn't say what kind of jobs but you imply that they are low wage and full time, otherwise 2 four hour a day jobs is no greater effort than one 8 hour day job.
16 hours x 8/ hour X 6 days/week X 52 weeks/year = $39,936, which is above the national average. But according to you, it is poverty. But certainly, at that level, the government will deduct from her check social security, FDIC, and 10% income tax withholding, then the state will take its cut.
Without a doubt, she would be better off if she were not paying all those taxes to finance other people's altruism. She might even be able to get by on just one job.
But the fact is, You are a socialist. I judge you by your own words, not by your wishes about what you would like to be called. You think it is just fine for the government to seize by force the wealth of your fellow citizens for the purpose of redistributing it to other citizens. Q.E.D. Socialism.
Then you have the cheek to tell us that you are against how it is being run. Obviously insufficient efficiency in stealing from your fellow citizens is the only problem.
This whole argument is silly.
You do not ever get rid of the "gang of men with guns". You do not ever get rid of taxes.
All you have Elusive Wapiti doing is imagining there's a way of having a stable society with the worlds current economic setup without government welfare. This is foolish, and will merely result in the destruction of the current system, some sort of wars, and likely tyranny worse than the "horror" of a "welfare state".
The economic system of a country is set up for the use and profit of the people in a country, not the other way around.
And while I'm sympathetic to Constitutionalism, I'm not so sympathetic that I'm going to deny that:
A. This country hasn't been run by the Constitution for well over 50 years now so its rather ridiculous to think its going to start now, esp. in a time of crises
B. We are no longer a nation of self-sufficient small farmers. Indeed, I'm not sure America could physically support 300 million people without high technology for growing food.
C. While I don't mind public works projects -esp. as with intelligent automation I see less need for human workers in the future - and I'm not opposed to requiring things from those receiving public assistance (and even taking the vote away from them or limiting it in some ways)- I think its downright silly to expect people to starve for your economic ideology. In the past if you didn't make it in the "Big City" you could go back to the farm and eke out a living or hunt and eke out a living. Short of family or friends, where would a poor man go in these times?
D. If i got to determine where my tax dollars went, we wouldn't be fighting 2 and "a half" wars right now, for one thing.
Clarence
Clarence - you missed the whole point of the posting. EW isn't arguing for whatever you claim he is.
EW is pointing out that those who claim Biblical support for the welfare state are wrong, period. You didn't address that at all.
Theodoret:
The state does have a legitimate function in ordering society to the common good. This was tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas.
More to the point, it can be found in the Epistles.
The Catholic Church did not coopt the state as much as the state seized power from the Church (often coming from Protestant rulers)
I'm sorry, that is not correct. Please read some history. The Papacy had its own army until the 19th century unification of Italy (search on "Papal States" for example). And that is just for a start.
which a matter of fact Protestantism would not be around if were not for the power of the state.
This is grossly incorrect. The Roman Catholic state of France did its best to exterminate Protestants starting with the Bartholomew's Day massacre in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic armies of Tilley and Wallenstein killed half of the men and boys in some parts of what is now Germany in the 17th century (see "Rape of Magdeburg" for one example), as late as the 18th century the Catholic government of Salzburg drove Protestants out by force (there is a Protestant church in that city that was built in the 1850's, but only by special permission of the Austrian emperor. I have worshipped there.)
The fact of the matter is, because the Reformation threatened the worldly powers of the Roman church (the income stream from sale of "holy" relics, income stream from the sale of indulgences aka "get out of Hell" cards, the income stream from pilgrims visiting Rome, and so forth) the Roman church used governmental powers to seek to destroy Protestants.
In the US, even now, many people are descended from Huguenots, Anababtists, Scots Calvinists, German Lutherans, all of whom fled their homelands - some barely escaping Catholic mobs bent on murder - to come to North America. In some cases, the first thing they did upon arriving was travel as far West as possible, in order to get away from government.
The twin revolutions of the Protestantism and the Enlightenment destroyed the organic society of Catholic Christendom leaving us in the situation we are in today.
The rot and corruption that had set in to the Catholic church, root and branch, all the way to the top, is what destroyed that organic society.
Yet most seem to think the antidote is more Protestant/Classical Liberal individualism when it was these very notions that are root cause of our problems today.
Who are these "most", and where can I find them? "Most" people know little or nothing of the Reformation, "most" people rarely crack open the Bible, and "most" people have no idea what "classical liberalism" is.
"Most" are watching American Idol...a very fitting pastime, for the modern world.
"Our hearts are idol factories" - John Calvin
Excellent post, EW. I would also that even if government-sponsored charity were authorized by God, one could oppose the current system on the grounds that it does more harm than good (cf. Matt 12:1-8).
Blogger at Anonymous Protestant's comment, but emailed a copy to me anyways, so here it is:
===== CUT =====
Clarence - you missed the whole point of the posting. EW isn't arguing for whatever you claim he is.
EW is pointing out that those who claim Biblical support for the welfare state are wrong, period. You didn't address that at all.
Theodoret:
The state does have a legitimate function in ordering society to the common good. This was tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas.
More to the point, it can be found in the Epistles.
The Catholic Church did not coopt the state as much as the state seized power from the Church (often coming from Protestant rulers)
I'm sorry, that is not correct. Please read some history. The Papacy had its own army until the 19th century unification of Italy (search on "Papal States" for example). And that is just for a start.
which a matter of fact Protestantism would not be around if were not for the power of the state.
This is grossly incorrect. The Roman Catholic state of France did its best to exterminate Protestants starting with the Bartholomew's Day massacre in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic armies of Tilley and Wallenstein killed half of the men and boys in some parts of what is now Germany in the 17th century (see "Rape of Magdeburg" for one example), as late as the 18th century the Catholic government of Salzburg drove Protestants out by force (there is a Protestant church in that city that was built in the 1850's, but only by special permission of the Austrian emperor. I have worshipped there.)
The fact of the matter is, because the Reformation threatened the worldly powers of the Roman church (the income stream from sale of "holy" relics, income stream from the sale of indulgences aka "get out of Hell" cards, the income stream from pilgrims visiting Rome, and so forth) the Roman church used governmental powers to seek to destroy Protestants.
In the US, even now, many people are descended from Huguenots, Anababtists, Scots Calvinists, German Lutherans, all of whom fled their homelands - some barely escaping Catholic mobs bent on murder - to come to North America. In some cases, the first thing they did upon arriving was travel as far West as possible, in order to get away from government.
The twin revolutions of the Protestantism and the Enlightenment destroyed the organic society of Catholic Christendom leaving us in the situation we are in today.
The rot and corruption that had set in to the Catholic church, root and branch, all the way to the top, is what destroyed that organic society.
Yet most seem to think the antidote is more Protestant/Classical Liberal individualism when it was these very notions that are root cause of our problems today.
Who are these "most", and where can I find them? "Most" people know little or nothing of the Reformation, "most" people rarely crack open the Bible, and "most" people have no idea what "classical liberalism" is.
"Most" are watching American Idol...a very fitting pastime, for the modern world.
"Our hearts are idol factories" - John Calvin
@ Clarence,
"You do not ever get rid of the "gang of men with guns". You do not ever get rid of taxes."
I never said that we would.
In fact, government is always about violence and force, since it is the voluntary pooling of a portion of an individual's right to use violence and force in the furtherance of their own security.
I am merely deflating arguments that attempt to say that government "helps" anyone, or that so-called charity gotten via violent means such as this has no support in the Bible, as some claim.
@ Simon,
Thanks for the accolades. Coming from you, it means much.
What Clarence/Anonymous is essentially arguing is the (for lack of a better name) 'complexity justification for liberalism', i.e, that because modern society is just so darned complex, therefore liberalism/leftism is not only necessary but inevitable. This has always struck me as being an especially arrogant and duplicitous version of historical determinism, and I reject it completely.
Complexity has nothing to do with the ability of private organizations of various sizes and at various levels to funnel private charity to those requiring such assistance for whatever length of time. Indeed, the more complex types of organizations not co-opted by and therefore allowed OUTSIDE of government, the better they will find their optimal niche. Overall, therefore, the complexity argument is really an apples/oranges blunder in logical analysis. "To expect people to starve for your ideology" amounts to little more than a gratuitously vitriolic and typically lazy leftist trope.
As to Clarence's other assertions, the roll-in of unconstitutionality over the decades does not provide a fait accompli to declare it wrong, nor to prevent us from a new and concerted effort to roll-back of same.
@ Eric CS,
I wholeheartedly agree. One can argue that as the complexity of a society increases, the less a society should expect its government to perform. It's the whole fatal conceit/pretense of knowledge bit--government can and should only attempt to do so much.
Also, I note that a healthy, free society encourages a parallel civic society outside of the auspices of government, not restricts it or attacks it. This civic society would fill niches and needs that (a) government has no business dealing with in a free society, and (b) does so in a much less efficient manner.
Last, I would love to have unconstitutional programs up and disappear. But since they have built a constituency--and the population at large has become accustomed to government encroachment on the Church's space--it will be quite difficult indeed.
I think it's also worth mentioning that taking more from some people than others is also theft. If government is to take from people, it should be an equal percentage. The tithe was an equal percentage for all regardless of income in the Bible.
Plus, in a country as large and varied as ours, what truly is rich anyway? Somebody from Alabama might think "rich" is anybody that makes more than $80,000 per year because you can buy a house for $40,000 in that state. In California, where taxes, gas, and housing prices are sky-high, $80,000 isn't jack squat. You're not rich if you make $80K in Orange County or the Bay Area. You need to make six figures minimum if you want to enjoy a reasonably nice lifestyle in those areas.
The liberal left is always talking about "fairness", so let's make the system fair! Equal percentage of taxation regardless of income.
Post a Comment