Hypocrisy and Right vs. Left Wing

[vern_humphrey]

I agree that poor education is a huge cause of today’s poverty. Most of the jobs available in America that support a family require at least a high school education, most careers require a college degree. My point is that social welfare programs run by the government have never solved poverty in poor districts, and therefore, haven’t solved the problem of horrible education in those districts. The private sector, including the many inner-city Catholic schools have greatly contributed to a rise in education in poor districts. We need to keep the government out.
I do not like to mention political parties, but I can’t resist in this case. Which party controls most of the cities and claims to be the party of the minorities and of the poor? The Democratic Party. Yet, they have failed in their social programs in reviving America’s cities and education systems, mainly for the reasons Al Masetti already posted.

Let us distinguish between Charity and Social Justice. Charity is basically the Corporal Works of Mercy – feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and so on. Good works, and we are commanded to do them (although it is us, not the government that are commanded to do these things.)

But charity is open-ended. If you feed the hungry today, you must feed them tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after – it’s an endless cycle.

Social Justice is different. Social Justice seeks to change conditions so the poor become self-supporting.

The Parable of the Sunken Ship

A ship sank in the middle of the ocean. The survivors floated under the blazing sun in the life rafts, without food and water. Then a plane flew over and dropped food, water, chapstick and sun block.

A few days later, another plane flew over and dropped more food, water, chapstick and sun block. And another a few days later. And so it went, week after week, month after month – a drop of food, water, chapstick and sun block every few days.

And finally one of the survivors said, “I don’t want to seem ungrateful, and I really appreciate all this food, water, chapstick and sun block, but don’t you think it would be cheaper if they’d just take us ashore, and we could find our own food, water, chapstick and sun block?”

Charity – especially government charity – locks the poor into the poverty cycle. Social Justice breaks the poverty cycle.

 

[donmaximuso27]

Let us distinguish between Charity and Social Justice. Charity is basically the Corporal Works of Mercy – feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and so on. Good works, and we are commanded to do them (although it is us, not the government that are commanded to do these things.)

But charity is open-ended. If you feed the hungry today, you must feed them tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after – it’s an endless cycle.

Social Justice is different. Social Justice seeks to change conditions so the poor become self-supporting.

Charity – especially government charity – locks the poor into the poverty cycle. Social Justice breaks the poverty cycle.

I agree completely. But social justice does require the virtue of being chartiable. It is a just and chartiable act to change the conditions of the poor so they can become self-supporting.

 

[Ender]

If you embrace a position that is commonly held by left-leaning people that is not compatible with Catholicism … then you will be condemned.
However, if you embrace a position that is commonly held by the right, and is likewise out of step, then it’s just ignored.

Evan already answered this back in the 3rd post but his comments seem to have passed unnoticed. The “positions” held by the Left that are condemned are those that are explicitly condemned by the Church: female priests, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual unions. The “positions” held by the right that are ignored are prudential: how best to meet the needs of the poor, care for the sick, and educate children. There is no “likewise out of step.”

The assumption is repeatedly made that the Left cares for the poor while the Right is indifferent to them when in fact the disagreement is not whether the poor should be helped but how that can best be done. The disagreement is not over the objectives but over the best means to achieve them. Whether or not the minimum wage should be increased is not a moral question but a tactical one: do the gains outweigh the costs?

The “positions” the Right condemns are those the Church condemns; the “positions” the Left condemns are prudential beliefs about which the Church is silent because there is no moral issue involved. Do not assume the command to help the poor means the minimum wage must be raised. Keep the objective - helping the poor - separate from the means used to achieve it - raising the minimum wage. Left and Right disagree over the means, not the objectives.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree completely. But social justice does require the virtue of being chartiable. It is a just and chartiable act to change the conditions of the poor so they can become self-supporting.

You’re absolutely right – we must do both.

But the problem is, we have not done both. We have pushed charity exclusively – and pushed “government” charity over private or church charity. In the process, we have locked generation after generation into poverty.

I challenge anyone to name a high-profile Social Justice program.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The “positions” the Right condemns are those the Church condemns; the “positions” the Left condemns are prudential beliefs about which the Church is silent because there is no moral issue involved. Do not assume the command to help the poor means the minimum wage must be raised. Keep the objective - helping the poor - separate from the means used to achieve it - raising the minimum wage. Left and Right disagree over the means, not the objectives.

Ender

To an extent you are right – but let me point out, the objectives I have supported are different from those advanced by the Left.

The Left wants more welfare. I point out that over the last two generations, welfare has locked people into poverty. I want to get them out of poverty – and make them self-supporting.

The Left accepts abortion as the price to power. I want to end abortion – or reduce it as much as possible.

The Left wants the government to take over the health care industry, and make people’s health care decisions for them. I want people positioned to pay their own way (and make their own decisions.)

The Left wants to raise teacher pay, spend more money, and eliminate all accountability. I want to educate every child.

 

[ribozyme]

The assumption is repeatedly made that the Left cares for the poor while the Right is indifferent to them when in fact the disagreement is not whether the poor should be helped but how that can best be done. The disagreement is not over the objectives but over the best means to achieve them. Whether or not the minimum wage should be increased is not a moral question but a tactical one: do the gains outweigh the costs?

Ender

That can be answered by relying on reputable think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution, and the Economic Policy Institute.

 

[donmaximuso27]

You’re absolutely right – we must do both.

But the problem is, we have not done both. We have pushed charity exclusively – and pushed “government” charity over private or church charity. In the process, we have locked generation after generation into poverty.

I challenge anyone to name a high-profile Social Justice program.

I agree, we have not done both. And no, I cannot name a high-profile social justice program.

 

[Ender]

To an extent you are right – but let me point out, the objectives I have supported are different from those advanced by the Left.

I will allow your distinction but accept it only for some individuals. I accept that there are people (on both sides) who have ulterior motives but I am only comfortable judging arguments, not people. The people on the Left in this forum do not openly support the motives you described (and what they may believe in private I am not able to know) any more than those on the Right openly support the objectives ascribed to them (let the poor fend for themselves). Rather than trade charges about illicit motivation it would in fact be a significant advance for the Right if we could get the Left to recognize that their judgments of us are unfair, unfounded, and … uncharitable.

Ender

 

[JimG]

That can be answered by relying on reputable think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution, and the Economic Policy Institute.

Or perhaps the politbureau. Do think tanks think better than the rest of us? And there seem to be ‘think tanks’ pushing all sides of various issues. There are right wing think tanks, left wing think tanks, Vatican think tanks. Do think tanks generate income to support themselves, or are they also dependent on the charity of donors?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I will allow your distinction but accept it only for some individuals. I accept that there are people (on both sides) who have ulterior motives but I am only comfortable judging arguments, not people. The people on the Left in this forum do not openly support the motives you described (and what they may believe in private I am not able to know) any more than those on the Right openly support the objectives ascribed to them (let the poor fend for themselves). Rather than trade charges about illicit motivation it would in fact be a significant advance for the Right if we could get the Left to recognize that their judgments of us are unfair, unfounded, and … uncharitable.

Ender

Listen to what they say.

Have you seen anyone on the Left offer an alternative to welfare?

Have you seen any of them pushing the idea the education is the solution?

Have you seen any point out that charity helps** two** people – the receiver – and that “government charity” with forced contributions denys the giver the grace of giving voluntarily?

Have you seen anyone offer solutions other than more government intervention to solve our problems?

 

[Ender]

That can be answered by relying on reputable think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution, and the Economic Policy Institute.

Think tanks, as JimG pointed out, differ on these questions; there is no ultimate (human) source. The reason for this I think is founded in individual beliefs about human nature so there won’t ever be a single source of right answers. Aside from basic disagreements about how the world really works the issues are so complicated with unintended consequences that unanimous conclusions are impossible - like playing the perfect game of chess.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Think tanks, as JimG pointed out, differ on these questions; there is no ultimate (human) source. The reason for this I think is founded in individual beliefs about human nature so there won’t ever be a single source of right answers. Aside from basic disagreements about how the world really works the issues are so complicated with unintended consequences that unanimous conclusions are impossible - like playing the perfect game of chess.

Ender

Indeed, “reputable” is in the eye of the beholder. Most “think tanks” have axes to grind, agendas to advance – and they are not above intellectual prostitution to advance their agendas.

 

[ribozyme]

Indeed, “reputable” is in the eye of the beholder. Most “think tanks” have axes to grind, agendas to advance – and they are not above intellectual prostitution to advance their agendas.

I suppose the exceptions include the veritable Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suppose the exceptions include the veritable Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. right?

If there are exceptions, they are your exceptions, not mine.

 

[mary_bobo]

I will allow your distinction but accept it only for some individuals. I accept that there are people (on both sides) who have ulterior motives but I am only comfortable judging arguments, not people. The people on the Left in this forum do not openly support the motives you described (and what they may believe in private I am not able to know) any more than those on the Right openly support the objectives ascribed to them (let the poor fend for themselves).

COLOR=“Red”]I take exception to this notion. GIVING things to those less fortunate is not the best way to help them. We have tried that over and over with increasingly more government funds being expended, and the problem has gotten worse instead of better. Newt Gingrich has a very good commentary on C-SPAN just today and about ways to help populations and I am sure you would consider his suggestions politically incorrect, but they suremade sense. Perhaps someone on this forum could link us to this speech because it bears hearing. Rather than trade charges about illicit motivation it would in fact be a significant advance for the Right if we could get the Left to recognize that their judgments of us are unfair, unfounded, and … uncharitable.

And your judgments of conservatives, as noted above, are unfair, unfounded and uncharitable.

Ender

 

[Sheeniac]

You’re absolutely right – we must do both.

But the problem is, we have not done both. We have pushed charity exclusively – and pushed “government” charity over private or church charity. In the process, we have locked generation after generation into poverty.

I challenge anyone to name a high-profile Social Justice program.

I was watching A&E’s biography of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta last night. Towards the end, this criticism came up… she did a lot of charity, but why didn’t she ever work for social justice?

GOOD GRIEF.

In B16’s first encyclical, he mentioned that the government ignores the fact that we cannot just feed the body without feeding the soul. This is a grave injustice to people. I agree.

On a related note, I also feel that if Govt gets too involved, why should I? What’s the point?

I can cite the exact moment I stopped being left oriented… I had stepped over a couple of drunks in the subway, and the stench of urine was overwhelming… (Chicago, mid-80s). I thought… I wish they would do something about these guys.

I spent the rest of the day pondering who ‘they’ was. Now, all I need to do is look at CA to see who they are, and how bad they are doing things.

I realized that it all comes down to me. Now, this is while I was an atheist. This started me off towards becoming a more charitable and concerned citizen. (Christianity took a long time to reach me…)

~~

On a related note, I spoke to someone from Ireland in September about old castles. She lamented the fact that they had such beautiful places, but were falling apart.

I asked her why she didn’t do anything about it. We discussed non-profits, etc, and she said that such things weren’t really done over there.

Now, she was a college student, so perhaps she was just clueless. But at a higher level, bad money and effort drives out good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

IOn a related note, I spoke to someone from Ireland in September about old castles. She lamented the fact that they had such beautiful places, but were falling apart.

I asked her why she didn’t do anything about it. We discussed non-profits, etc, and she said that such things weren’t really done over there.

We had just the same situation here – an old house built around 1900 and a historical landmark, was just torn down. It was so rotten and delapidated, there was no choice.

And as usual, there were people moaning and wringing their hands. I asked one, “Why didn’t you guys get together, raise money and buy it and restore it?”

From the look he gave me, it was obvious that he expected the Tooth Fairy to solve all his problems.

Now, she was a college student, so perhaps she was just clueless. But at a higher level, bad money and effort drives out good.

That is a brilliant statement – “bad money and effort drives out good.” Worthy of being remembered and repeated over and over.

 

[rlg94086]

That can be answered by relying on reputable think tanks such as the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution, and the Economic Policy Institute.

Oh, absolutely! Because there is nothing that helps the poor more than an expensive study on poverty.

 

[Sheeniac]

We had just the same situation here – an old house built around 1900 and a historical landmark, was just torn down. It was so rotten and delapidated, there was no choice.

And as usual, there were people moaning and wringing their hands. I asked one, “Why didn’t you guys get together, raise money and buy it and restore it?”

From the look he gave me, it was obvious that he expected the Tooth Fairy to solve all his problems.

That is a brilliant statement – “bad money and effort drives out good.” Worthy of being remembered and repeated over and over.

But it is SO different here. We do things, we work for nothing, volunteering our time and effort. And by ‘we’, I mean Americans. I think maybe Christianity has permeated our culture that even non-Christians believe in volunteering and forming together to get things done.

I was an atheist for 25 years, and was still involved in charitable endeavors.

Regardless of ANY situation, people will fall through the cracks. We need to feel responsible and act.

I just read Kreeft’s Culture War. It describes the horrific state of our culture of death. In the end, he says its because we don’t have enough saints in our culture.

In other words, IT’S MY FAULT! And it’s yours, and it’s mschrank’s too. We need to look within and start there. We need to reach out in love and inspire others.

B16’s encyclical (I just reread it earlier this week) speaks of Julian the Apostate… he tried to promote paganism over Christianity in Roman society.

The thing he singled out was our charitable acts, our outpouring of love even to those who didn’t like us.

And now, I state that I believe that love and charity MUST come from us, not an institution, and I am demeaned as a right-wing Catholic. Sigh…

Disagree with me if you must, but I wish those people who stop insulting my motives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And now, I state that I believe that love and charity MUST come from us, not an institution, and I am demeaned as a right-wing Catholic. Sigh…

Disagree with me if you must, but I wish those people who stop insulting my motives.

That’s their ultimate argument – when faced with proof that their opponents do the right thing, they howl, “But they do it for the wrong reason!”