G
graciew
Guest
PS:needless to say,I hope you do not have to see this happen.
- Status
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I think you put your finger on the root problem here. Lack fo self-discipline. I would suggest that staying in school is not a predictor of success because students learn anything important in their last years in high school but rather because it is an indicator of a minimal level of self-discipline. Similarly waiting until you are married to have children.
I’m not nearly as impressed with public schools as you seem to be. It’s hard to imagine a bigger waste of charity than giving to public schools.
M
marci
Guest
From new advent.org
The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)
Textual criticism
As regards textual criticism, the passage offers no serious difficulty. Only in verse 9, the Vulgate and many other ancient authorities omit the pronoun autoi, ipsi; probably a merely accidental ommission. There is room, too, for serious critical doubt, whether verse 5 should not be placed before verse 4. Only the etymological connection, which in the original is supposed to have existed between the “poor” and the “meek”, makes us prefer the order of the Vulgate.
First beatitude
The word poor seems to represent an Aramaic 'ányâ (Hebrew 'anî), bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor; while meek is rather a synonym from the same root, 'ánwan (Hebrew 'ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, meek, gentle. Some scholars would attach to the former word also the sense of humility; others think of “beggars before God” humbly acknowledging their need of Divine help. But the opposition of “rich” (Luke 6:24) points especially to the common and obvious meaning, which, however, ought not to be confined to economical need and distress, but may comprehend the whole of the painful condition of the poor: their low estate, their social dependence, their defenceless exposure to injustice from the rich and the mighty. Besides the Lord’s blessing, the promise of the heavenly kingdom is not bestowed on the actual external condition of such poverty. The blessed ones are the poor “in spirit”, who by their free will are ready to bear for God’s sake this painful and humble condition, even though at present they be actually rich and happy; while on the other hand, the really poor man may fall short of this poverty “in spirit”.
The text of St. Matthew runs as follows:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)
Textual criticism
As regards textual criticism, the passage offers no serious difficulty. Only in verse 9, the Vulgate and many other ancient authorities omit the pronoun autoi, ipsi; probably a merely accidental ommission. There is room, too, for serious critical doubt, whether verse 5 should not be placed before verse 4. Only the etymological connection, which in the original is supposed to have existed between the “poor” and the “meek”, makes us prefer the order of the Vulgate.
First beatitude
The word poor seems to represent an Aramaic 'ányâ (Hebrew 'anî), bent down, afflicted, miserable, poor; while meek is rather a synonym from the same root, 'ánwan (Hebrew 'ánaw), bending oneself down, humble, meek, gentle. Some scholars would attach to the former word also the sense of humility; others think of “beggars before God” humbly acknowledging their need of Divine help. But the opposition of “rich” (Luke 6:24) points especially to the common and obvious meaning, which, however, ought not to be confined to economical need and distress, but may comprehend the whole of the painful condition of the poor: their low estate, their social dependence, their defenceless exposure to injustice from the rich and the mighty. Besides the Lord’s blessing, the promise of the heavenly kingdom is not bestowed on the actual external condition of such poverty. The blessed ones are the poor “in spirit”, who by their free will are ready to bear for God’s sake this painful and humble condition, even though at present they be actually rich and happy; while on the other hand, the really poor man may fall short of this poverty “in spirit”.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Sorry, no. If you are going to pay them “charity” for work, then it makes way more sense simply to hire them for the work and pay them a living wage. That’s called “a job.” Not “charity.”
If you want to exclude the able-bodied from receiving charity, and instead, ensure that they have jobs for which they are qualified, and pay them for that, I’m all for it.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
What I’m suggesting is that it is not a case of black and white but shades of gray.
It may be, for example, that someone is able bodied but that their work attitude and/or skill set is such that they cannot find gainful employment.
So instead of forcing them to one extreme or the other, either competing for a job in the market or taking handouts, one can easily devise in-between solutions that, for example, teach work without yet demanding results equal to the support given.
Parents often require their children to earn an allowance by doing chores. The relationship of work and allowance is entirely arbitrary, not a function of the value of their work, because the point is to teach something.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Apprenticeships already exist, do they not?
They do, but I think this practice has the potential to instill the wrong values. We have to take care of ourselves, and children need to be taught that we don’t get paid to take care of ourselves. Secondly, it makes children to be “employees” of the family who have to get paid to do their ordinary family duties, rather than members who freely contribute to the good of all.
Children should be taught to do their chores, and separately from that, be given money as they require it. An allowance may be given if the purpose is to teach the child money management skills and to provide him with spending money that he is free to use as he pleases, but not as a reward for doing his ordinary chores. After all, what happens if the family falls on hard times, and there is no money for an allowance? Does the child get to quit doing his chores, then?
(And when he moves out and starts a household of his own, who is going to pay him to do his daily household chores?)
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That is one option among many. Companies have their own selection criteria that may not fit with charitable needs and some laws are designed to discourage the practice.
Whatever your opinion of the matter, it is an illustrative example.
More pertinent is whether adults need to be taught employment skills. Sadly, many do.
Can charities assume such a role? I think they can.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Charities run on volunteer work; they don’t pay their regular people. Why would they pay the clients to “work” for them, while unpaid volunteers are doing the real work?
(Also, charities don’t give out money to people, anyway. They distribute groceries and clothing, and provide housing of some kind, but they don’t give any cash directly to the clients.)
R
ringil
Guest
When is this offensive thread going to pass away. I cringe everytime I still see it. It’s disgusting.
G
graciew
Guest
This is what I have experienced.The place has to be cleaned,many other little things volunteers do are being done by volunteers and those persons whom the church assists together.and it is building together.Getting to know each other and much more.Charities run on volunteer work; they don’t pay their regular people. Why would they pay the clients to “work” for them, while unpaid volunteers are doing the real work?
(Also, charities don’t give out money to people, anyway. They distribute groceries and clothing, and provide housing of some kind, but they don’t give any cash directly to the clients.)
Also there are groups that learn skills,or use the skills they have,work together,produce sth and sell it.Money is distributed among the members of the group.They can choose to cash it or reinvest it in the group to buy more stuff to produce,etc.The best of all is that we can talk about “we”.Not “they”.This is the personal encounter where you get to know each other,pray together and generalizations do not work any longer.For me it has been one of the best experiences in my life.
G
graciew
Guest
I would say that when the target is unattainable,it ends up being lack of hope. And it takes more than self discipline for this,in my opinion.Cause you orient your will towards a goal.When your goal becomes unrealistic,you loose hope.And hope si not sth you can obtain by repetition.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
I would be cautious about any sugh generalization, charities come in all sorts. We already discussed one example of giving out money to people: giving change to panhandlers. Other examples include helping out a relative.Charities run on volunteer work; they don’t pay their regular people. Why would they pay the clients to “work” for them, while unpaid volunteers are doing the real work?
(Also, charities don’t give out money to people, anyway. They distribute groceries and clothing, and provide housing of some kind, but they don’t give any cash directly to the clients.)
Also, charities often, though not always of couurse, pay employees.
Finally, the idea of working for a charity for what is given, i.e. working in a soup kitchen as a condition to getting soup, is not a new idea.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Hope is an essential ingredient. But confidence can be built up by experience. That is one reason that a hard bifurcation between charitiy (given without strings) and employment (necessary net value of work over compensation) is a problem.
If, instead, you only provide those two extremes then little wonder that people get trapped.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
G
graciew
Guest
The hard bifurcation and the trap are clearly presented in the title of this thread,Bubba.
Virtue is not the ball in a volley-ball game that comes and goes depending on statistics.Especially when one of the teams claims to own the ball and sets the rules.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
So you subscribe to the view that the poor have steadily lost their work ethic due to a conspiracy among the rich?
I actually tend to agree, and I think that is largely what Charles Murray is suggesting.
His argument is that it has been a moral silence, an unwillingness to be “judgemental” by the rick which is the cause. I would add, and I suspect that Murray would agree, that there are other policies by the rich that have a similar effect including the bifurcated welfare policies, high minimum wage laws, etc. that discourage those with less talent from finding gainful employment.
But neither of us is in a position to change that. Instead, my question here is what ought we do in our charitable activities.
G
graciew
Guest
N
nordskoven
Guest
I think it may be like the recent study that shows angry people have heart attacks. I think the people were sick first and that made them angry and that the heart attack was from the original sickness that made them angry.
Having said that, social controls like welfare payments and Earned Income Tax Credits/EIC higher for those women who have booted daddy out of the home may need a second look as sabotaging the poor. Social workers peeping under the bed for daddy are no longer needed as this is done by checking computer records for addresses, see? No daddy means kids with less education, more jail time, more poverty and of course a truly materialistic view of salvation, so to speak. That may include engineering their lives to have no marriage to conform with welfare/tax codes for cash; and more abortions and no kids so that missed child support payments won’t lead to jail time and loss of one’s job under America’s debtor prison system that suddenly ignores the ability to exact payments from IRS and state refunds. “The Lord hears the cry of the poor; blessed be the Lord.” I hope God gives us the wherewithal to dismantle this toxic social control system posing as a government.
America started erasing dads under Lyndon Baines Johnson’s War on Poverty, and it increased poverty if the unemployment rate of blacks and whites, before then only a few percentage points different and increasing widely under LBJ, is any indication. So let’s look and see how America is sabotaging the poor, including insistence on government funded abortion that plays out in a racist fashion with 10% of the population receiving 30% of the abortions–African Americans. “Brown eyed people” are the very targets of racist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.
Having said that, social controls like welfare payments and Earned Income Tax Credits/EIC higher for those women who have booted daddy out of the home may need a second look as sabotaging the poor. Social workers peeping under the bed for daddy are no longer needed as this is done by checking computer records for addresses, see? No daddy means kids with less education, more jail time, more poverty and of course a truly materialistic view of salvation, so to speak. That may include engineering their lives to have no marriage to conform with welfare/tax codes for cash; and more abortions and no kids so that missed child support payments won’t lead to jail time and loss of one’s job under America’s debtor prison system that suddenly ignores the ability to exact payments from IRS and state refunds. “The Lord hears the cry of the poor; blessed be the Lord.” I hope God gives us the wherewithal to dismantle this toxic social control system posing as a government.
America started erasing dads under Lyndon Baines Johnson’s War on Poverty, and it increased poverty if the unemployment rate of blacks and whites, before then only a few percentage points different and increasing widely under LBJ, is any indication. So let’s look and see how America is sabotaging the poor, including insistence on government funded abortion that plays out in a racist fashion with 10% of the population receiving 30% of the abortions–African Americans. “Brown eyed people” are the very targets of racist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger.
N
nordskoven
Guest
And don’t forget the World Bank. A few years ago the World Bank expressed the desire that families have both parents working; and dialed in the economy to insure that kids would be more at risk with parents working. God, Good Shepherd, slay the wolves now!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It has been observed that during the “Victorian Era”, the morals of the very rich were bad and the morals of the very poor were just as bad. The real “Victorian morality” was on the part of the people in the middle…particularly the petit bourgeoisie. Those people did not have it easy in a material sense. They had to make their own worlds, and had the determination to do it.
But that does not answer the question in that or our own society; which is the chicken and which is the egg? Murray is basically talking about “secular morality”; the kind of morality that does not get you into binds here and now and in your worldly future. He does not know, and, as i read him, does not pretend to know, the moral fibre of any of the people he talks about. Nor, certainly, does he know how God regards the struggles of individuals. Secular morality is essentially self-discipline; the kind the “strugglers” of the middle class find essential to their well-being and that of their children. It is not necessarily equated with personal morality in a spiritual sense.
But there is little doubt in my mind that the “strugglers” do have, at least objectively, a higher moral code. But again, are they successful because they’re moral or are they moral because that which causes them to be successful also gives them greater strength to avoid devastating consequences of bad moral decisions?
I have also read those stats on the pathologies of Wall Street traders. Assuming they’re correct (and that’s a big assumption) it may be observed that sociopaths are risk takers almost without exception. They are risk takers because they refuse to see the downside of their decisions, and are unrealistic about the rewards. Are sociopathic Wall Street traders successful? Are they sucessful in the long run? Are they any more successful than compulsive gamblers? One may reasonably doubt it. But that tells us nothing at all about, say, the morals of a successful physician, businessman or investor.
It is not unreasonable to believe that persons with high moral character likely tend to be more successful in a worldly sense than those without it. People can often read character. Who has not avoided a business transaction with someone when their intuitive sense told them “this person is not to be trusted”? Who has not placed confidence in someone in a business sense because of their perception that the opposite party is fundamentally honest?
But that does not answer the question in that or our own society; which is the chicken and which is the egg? Murray is basically talking about “secular morality”; the kind of morality that does not get you into binds here and now and in your worldly future. He does not know, and, as i read him, does not pretend to know, the moral fibre of any of the people he talks about. Nor, certainly, does he know how God regards the struggles of individuals. Secular morality is essentially self-discipline; the kind the “strugglers” of the middle class find essential to their well-being and that of their children. It is not necessarily equated with personal morality in a spiritual sense.
But there is little doubt in my mind that the “strugglers” do have, at least objectively, a higher moral code. But again, are they successful because they’re moral or are they moral because that which causes them to be successful also gives them greater strength to avoid devastating consequences of bad moral decisions?
I have also read those stats on the pathologies of Wall Street traders. Assuming they’re correct (and that’s a big assumption) it may be observed that sociopaths are risk takers almost without exception. They are risk takers because they refuse to see the downside of their decisions, and are unrealistic about the rewards. Are sociopathic Wall Street traders successful? Are they sucessful in the long run? Are they any more successful than compulsive gamblers? One may reasonably doubt it. But that tells us nothing at all about, say, the morals of a successful physician, businessman or investor.
It is not unreasonable to believe that persons with high moral character likely tend to be more successful in a worldly sense than those without it. People can often read character. Who has not avoided a business transaction with someone when their intuitive sense told them “this person is not to be trusted”? Who has not placed confidence in someone in a business sense because of their perception that the opposite party is fundamentally honest?
- Status