Extreme poverty needs to be eradicated from the face of the planet!

[Robert_Sock]

So you plan to manipulate the media until nobody is greedy?

Yes.

 

[Abundant]

A restructuring of values, via the media.

Ever read 1984? This is beginning to sound vaguely familiar to Big Brother there on the t.v. and the idea behind the “Ministry of Truth” which sought to indoctrinate people as the government saw fit…

Now, if you mean education? I do agree with you there. We, as Christians, should seek to educate the world, evangelize and teach just like Jesus did. But just like everyone didn’t listen to or agree with Jesus (in fact, the crucified him!), they will not believe or agree with the ideals you put forth either.

 

[Gricken]

Yes.

So what makes up “the media”? How do you expect to control “the media”? Where do you think you’ll get the influence required to get into a position to manipulate it? What makes you think you can change of the most basic of human vices by simply changing what they watch on T.V?

 

[Robert_Sock]

So what makes up “the media”? How do you expect to control “the media”? Where do you think you’ll get the influence required to get into a position to manipulate it? What makes you think you can change of the most basic of human vices by simply changing what they watch on T.V?

Not just TV, but the media at large. Look at how the media changed the attitude of same-sex marriage over the short course of just several years! Did it just happen by chance, or was it planned?

 

[Gricken]

Not just TV, but the media at large. Look at how the media changed the attitude of same-sex marriage over the short course of just several years! Did it just happen by chance, or was it planned?

The idea that “The Media” planned out the legalization of same-sex marriage is, to me, laughable. The attitude towards same sex marriage came about from the sexual revolution, and the false idea that our technological and scientific advancements render old morals worthless.

 

[Abundant]

Not just TV, but the media at large. Look at how the media changed the attitude of same-sex marriage over the short course of just several years! Did it just happen by chance, or was it planned?

Just because it is in the media, people are talking about it and it is* portrayed* as being accepted…doesn’t make it necessarily so. Nice try though. suntimes.com/news/otherviews/22053066-452/what-polls-really-say-about-gay-marriage.html

Here is what the Rice study’s authors say they discovered: First, they found less support for same-sex marriage than polls like Gallup and CNN tend to find. In fact, in 2012, 53 percent of those surveyed agreed that the only legal marriage should be between a man and a woman, while 13 percent sat on the fence, and 33 percent disagreed with the statement. Second, they detected no statistically significant change in overall sentiment on same-sex marriage over those six years. Third, some things did change — minds — and not all of them toward favoring same-sex marriage. The authors write:

“When we look behind the overall numbers, we find that many people did indeed change their minds over the six-year period. The most stable category was among Americans who agreed in 2006 that the only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman. About three-quarters (74 percent) who agreed with the statement in 2006 also agreed with it in 2012. Among those who disagreed with the statement in 2006, 61 percent also disagreed in 2012. What is surprising in light of other polls and the dominant media reports that Americans are moving in droves from defining marriage as one man and one woman to an expanded definition is the movement of people in the other direction as well, a fact missed by surveys that do not follow the same people over time.”

 

[fnr]

We can judge as lazy those who, when offered a job which will provide them for their needs, refuse it, and then claim that they are suffering and the government needs to help them. I know many people like this personally, and see them on the street all the time.

Again, that puts judgment before relationship. Truth before love. I get the behavioral economics of welfare – that government subsidized leisure time makes it less likely that a person will participate in the job market. But fundamentally, only God can see what’s in their hearts.

From our perspective, charity need not look like welfare. As Harvard sociologist William Julius Wilson has pointed out, many urban ghettos have multiple generations of poverty where no one has started or owned a business, where few people have gotten married, where many men have criminal records, and where drugs and violence are endemic. In such a situation, to say that the problem of the residents is simple “laziness” is to overlook the basic concept that culture matters. Someone always has a choice, but choices can be narrowed. For example, gang members frequently report the reason that they joined a gang was to feel a sense of belonging that was lacking at home – and growing up in a single-parent household (generally mother-headed) where the mother works 2-3 jobs is much more likely to leave a child with much less time with a parent than a kid in a home with two parents sharing responsibility for household finance and maintenance.

“Tough love” makes sense in some ways, but not to the exclusion of basic sociological facts.

 

[Abu]

Those who realise the utter folly of communism, socialism and the Welfare State, all condemned by the Church, realise the absolute necessity of free enterprise as eventually acknowledged by Bono re free enterprise, and by The Economist: ‘Much of world poverty has in fact been reduced or alleviated, as a recent essay in *The Economist *has shown. Christians often seem not to know that this change has happened or why it happened.’
[tinyurl.com/ldjt6go]](http://tinyurl.com/ldjt6go])

But the inability to understand the errors of “welfarism” as revealed and condemned by the acknowledged Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as against helping the genuine sick and poor and genuinely unemployed, is beautifully and starkly exposed by William James’ truism: “those who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

 

[fnr]

In the parable of the prodigal son, the son was repentant. He came to his father to beg for mercy and forgiveness, and only asked that he live as one of his father’s servants. His father graciously forgave him, and reinstated him.

That’s actually a frequent exegetical mistake! Here’s the actual text (starting from the son’s having spent all the money his father gave him):
Luke 15:

14 When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need. 15 So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. 16 And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any. 17 **Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. 18 I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’ **20 So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. 21 His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’ 22 But his father ordered his servants, ‘Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast, 24 because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.’ Then the celebration began.

The text in black bold illustrates that the son’s decision wasn’t to repent, but to get more for himself to eat. That’s clearly his motivation. However, he plans out what any parent will recognize as a too-repentant presentation to his father. And when he sees his father, the words he says are exactly the ones he planned to say, hoping to get fed more. How many overly-gushing apologies do parents hear when they catch their kids in the cookie jar? Parents know that those gushing apologies are a ploy by their kids to get out of trouble.

But the father doesn’t wait for the son to repent. As the text in red shows, as soon as the father saw his younger son, he ran to him and embraced him. Now, I can imagine that every parent in the the audience listening Jesus at this point would be wondering what the heck the father could possibly be thinking (I imagine a number of palm-to-forehead gestures)! This is the part where any normal parent would hold out on their kids, hoping that the moral lesson of will actually sink in under the weight of the shame of getting caught. But the father didn’t hold out on his son at all. He went running straight for his younger son and embraced him without hearing a word of the overly-gushing apology that any father would expect his son to proclaim.

That’s radically unfair. And the older son reacts like any of us would in the same situation.

25 Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. 26 He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. 27 The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ 28 He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him. 29 He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. 30 But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’

Here, the son is as outraged as any of us would be in the same situation. Jesus is playing on the sense of outrage in his audience at the father’s action in embracing his son without a word of rebuke (or even hearing the son’s apology). But this parable tells us that the Kingdom of God is radically unfair from a worldly perspective. If it were fair, the son would have had to prove that he’d been a changed man, but that’s not the case in the Kingdom of God.

People like those I have mentioned do not repent. They **can **live and **do **live on welfare alone, and are perfectly happy to live their lives doing nothing of value to the society while the government fattens them up and gets their votes.

I would be interested in how they describe themselves. I’ve volunteered in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Detroit, and I wouldn’t call many people “perfectly happy.” These neighborhoods of endemic poverty and blight are brimming with problems, both structural and moral. “Get a job” isn’t a particularly effective way to talk to a mother who leaves the house at 6 and who gets home at 9 after working her two jobs. Those are real stories. Yes, there are welfare issues, but TANF is not AFDC.

What about the “hidden welfare” trends for higher income people? Like the increasing fraction of workers claiming permanent disability to claim Social Security disability payments?
Or the mortgage interest deduction?
Or the employer tax deduction for providing health insurance?
Or the bailouts of Wall Street?
Or the long-term subsidy in oil prices that comes from providing “security” in the Straits of Hormuz, Suez, the Horn of Aden, etc.?

 

[Abbagail]

But there is such a thing as restructuring values so that greed is eradicated and LOVE reigns supreme. The world will simply fail to sustain itself unless this becomes a reality.

This I like. But I don’t think we should work to rid the world of poverty by using money.

 

[fnr]

From our perspective, charity need not look like welfare.

What I meant here is that charity can be spending money to send someone to vocational training. Or to hire tutors to get 7th graders reading at grade level. Or to teach NFP in prisons. There are all sorts of other ways to spend time and money helping the poor that’s not direct cash handouts.

If you want to proclaim the Kingdom of God, prove that it’s here!

 

[Robert_Sock]

The idea that “The Media” planned out the legalization of same-sex marriage is, to me, laughable. The attitude towards same sex marriage came about from the sexual revolution, and the false idea that our technological and scientific advancements render old morals worthless.

What caused the sexual revolution, if not the mass media (e.g., rock music and television).

 

[Robert_Sock]

Those who realise the utter folly of communism, socialism and the Welfare State, all condemned by the Church, realise the absolute necessity of free enterprise as eventually acknowledged by Bono re free enterprise, and by The Economist: ‘Much of world poverty has in fact been reduced or alleviated, as a recent essay in *The Economist *has shown. Christians often seem not to know that this change has happened or why it happened.’
[Towards the end of poverty | The Economist]](Towards the end of poverty | The Economist])

But the inability to understand the errors of “welfarism” as revealed and condemned by the acknowledged Saint John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as against helping the genuine sick and poor and genuinely unemployed, is beautifully and starkly exposed by William James’ truism: “those who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Who’s condoning communism, socialism or a welfare state?

 

[Gricken]

What caused the sexual revolution, if not the mass media (e.g., rock music and television).

Or, you know, they started doing that stuff because that’s what people wanted to hear. The Sexual revolution came about as a way to “break away” from the past, to stop conforming to old values. The movement picked up steam, entertainment providers noticed that it was what people are doing and started making shows and music about the same thing, because they knew it would sell.

You seem to have this idea that the “Mass Media” is some kind of monolithic entity capable of deciding peoples values for them without anyone noticing.

 

[fnr]

The idea that “The Media” planned out the legalization of same-sex marriage is, to me, laughable. The attitude towards same sex marriage came about from the sexual revolution, and the false idea that our technological and scientific advancements render old morals worthless.

I’d say that the sexual revolution is the product of the economics of contraception. The first rubber condoms were produced in 1855 after the invention of vulcanization. Cheap industrial production of condoms began in the 20s and 30s, and the U.S. military was thrilled in the wake of the epidemic of sexually-transmitted infections that followed nearly every single one of their overseas deployments (particularly the Spanish-American War). The Army quickly began to promote condoms among its troops, and in WW2 condoms were widely distributed and the subject of education/propaganda materials for soldiers.

In the wake of the war, the Baby Boom was the first generation to come of age with cheap contraceptives readily available. The pill became increasingly widely available from the late 50s up to 1965 when the Griswold v. Connecticut made them available to all married women and in 1972, when Eisenstadt v. Baird made them available to all unmarried women. The “sexual revolution” (which really only became more vigorous in the 1960s) was arguably a product of the Pill making contraception (and hence, fertility) something that women could control. But that was in the context of long-term cultural changes. In the 1950s, the Beats celebrated “deviant sexuality” and in the 1940s “Rosie the Riveter” portrayed women in men’s traditional work roles. The late 19th and early 20th century’s suffragette movement and subsequent passage of the 19th amendment also radically changed the cultural and political role of women. And as far back as the early industrial revolution, gender roles were changing, with the Lowell Girls being the first on a wide scale to leave home and postpone marriage and children for the opportunity to earn money.

So the sexual revolution can’t be blamed on just the media. The whole culture was changing, with women increasingly being recognized as equally capable of men in determining their economic and political fate. Control of fertility was really a product of this cultural shift, and itself the cause of more cultural change.

 

[Gricken]

I’d say that the sexual revolution is the product of the economics of contraception. The first rubber condoms were produced in 1855 after the invention of vulcanization. Cheap industrial production of condoms began in the 20s and 30s, and the U.S. military was thrilled in the wake of the epidemic of sexually-transmitted infections that followed nearly every single one of their overseas deployments (particularly the Spanish-American War). The Army quickly began to promote condoms among its troops, and in WW2 condoms were widely distributed and the subject of education/propaganda materials for soldiers.

In the wake of the war, the Baby Boom was the first generation to come of age with cheap contraceptives readily available. The pill became increasingly widely available from the late 50s up to 1965 when the Griswold v. Connecticut made them available to all married women and in 1972, when Eisenstadt v. Baird made them available to all unmarried women. The “sexual revolution” (which really only became more vigorous in the 1960s) was arguably a product of the Pill making contraception (and hence, fertility) something that women could control. But that was in the context of long-term cultural changes. In the 1950s, the Beats celebrated “deviant sexuality” and in the 1940s “Rosie the Riveter” portrayed women in men’s traditional work roles. The late 19th and early 20th century’s suffragette movement and subsequent passage of the 19th amendment also radically changed the cultural and political role of women. And as far back as the early industrial revolution, gender roles were changing, with the Lowell Girls being the first on a wide scale to leave home and postpone marriage and children for the opportunity to earn money.

So the sexual revolution can’t be blamed on just the media. The whole culture was changing, with women increasingly being recognized as equally capable of men in determining their economic and political fate. Control of fertility was really a product of this cultural shift, and itself the cause of more cultural change.

Thank you. This is what I was trying to say, but didn’t have the right words and my mind was drawing a blank. Sorry, it’s been a long day

 

[Jozefo]

This I like. But I don’t think we should work to rid the world of poverty by using money.

I agree. But since the main definition of poverty is not having enough money with which to buy basic necessities, then I think people ought to be empowered to issue their own money. Crazy idea, yet it’s possible to do, if only the middleman - then lender - is taken out of the equation.

People are the source of money. Without labor, there is no capital.

 

[Abundant]

What I meant here is that charity can be spending money to send someone to vocational training. Or to hire tutors to get 7th graders reading at grade level. Or to teach NFP in prisons. There are all sorts of other ways to spend time and money helping the poor that’s not direct cash handouts.

If you want to proclaim the Kingdom of God, prove that it’s here!

I agree with this completely. About 15 years ago I was a freshman in college. I did not grow up ‘rich’ by any means. I was raised by my grandmother who worked 2 or more jobs to support us and just make ends meet. However, I was raised in an area that was predominately middle class and had a good school district. During my Freshman year, I got an internship at a US Senator’s office and I had to drive downtown twice per week to file papers and do a bunch of menial, intern work which I never learned anything from.

However, one day on the way home in my grandmother’s struggling down station wagon, I got a lesson that I will never forget. I got lost in inner city Houston. There were elementary schools that were crumbling with broken windows and unpaved parking spaces. There were kids walking through the neighborhood without shoes and there was garbage, stray dogs and filth everywhere.

For the first time in my young life, I realized that while American may boast of equality, the idea of EQUAL opportunity was a myth. It shattered my reality. I could see, with my own eyes, that these children clearly did not have the same opportunity that I had. I attended a school with a brand new natatorium (pool), cafeteria where I could choose chinese/mexican/american food on any given day and feel safe.

Our charity need not be providing cash (though sometimes that is necessary). Instead, we ought to focus on ensuring that everyone, in every country has access to food, healthcare, education and spiritual guidance as a means of charity. Sometime that means giving people the basics: food, shelter and clothes so that they have the means to pull themselves up. Always that means approaching them with love and not assuming that they are lazy. When you know better, you do better and the same goes for those less fortunate than us.

 

[Abbagail]

I agree. But since the main definition of poverty is not having enough money with which to buy basic necessities, then I think people ought to be empowered to issue their own money. Crazy idea, yet it’s possible to do, if only the middleman - then lender - is taken out of the equation.

People are the source of money. Without labor, there is no capital.

I really know very little about economics, not by choice but because I have a hard time understanding it, but I have lived in third world countires. And worked with people far poorer than most poor in the USA. My thoughts behind what I posted are these.

1. Spiritual poverty is much more important than physical poverty. What comes to mind is the verse about gaining the world and losing your soul. So it is my belief that any relief work done with the poor should be coupled with evangelism.
2. When people work to help the poor based off of pure social justice people get greedy and jealous. Whereas when you help to meet their basic needs and spread the gospel then the people you are helping learn about offering up suffering and turning the other cheek.

I hope that makes sense…

 

[Jozefo]

I really know very little about economics, not by choice but because I have a hard time understanding it, but I have lived in third world countires. And worked with people far poorer than most poor in the USA. My thoughts behind what I posted are these.

1. Spiritual poverty is much more important than physical poverty. What comes to mind is the verse about gaining the world and losing your soul. So it is my belief that any relief work done with the poor should be coupled with evangelism.
2. When people work to help the poor based off of pure social justice people get greedy and jealous. Whereas when you help to meet their basic needs and spread the gospel then the people you are helping learn about offering up suffering and turning the other cheek.

I hope that makes sense…

It makes perfect sense, and I find it refreshing to read. Thank you for your thoughts.