If conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, why do they think poor people should rely on charity instead of the government?

[buffalo]

Subsidiarity is Catholic teaching.

100 million are on federal poverty programs out of 320 million. Will liberals be satisfied when there are 150 or 200 million? These programs have put people in economic slavery.

 

[Bill_7154]

While I agree partly with what you are saying, I have to disagree in some regards.

There is such thing as a just level of taxation. Put simply, pure capitalism is not supported or accepted by the Catholic church. Our society needs to protect it’s most vulnerable members and governments need tax revenue in order to do this.

That said, however, I believe government support for the poor must not be viewed as a form of charity or something that should be desired except in situations where it is absolutely necessary. Charity demands an act of generous giving which requires full-consent on behalf of the donor (taxation is fundamentally contrary to consent). Government support for the needy, therefore, is not charitable. As a result, government support should be minimized as to not replace the role of true charity (which is morally superior to government wealth redistribution in all cases) or make tax burdens unnecessarly heavy on citizens (making it more difficult for them to perform acts of true charity such as a parent staying at home to raise the children, etc…).

Nice theory. Until you put humans, with human frailties, in charge of other humans who not only steal from them but hire men with guns to do so with the money they steal. Greed exists. Power corrupts. It is in the hand of a very few, very wealthy individuals. I do not think they have the best interests of the poor, or the average person, near the top of the list of their priorities. Even if there are those that do, once they enter the government machine, what can they really, really do to make a real, real difference?

Why are there so many more babies born out of wedlock today, so many more babies born into single parent homes than there were 100 years ago? Are people not more aware today how to avoid pregnancy than they were in the 30’s and 40’s? There are incentives for poor people who do not have good chances of being able to even support themselves, let alone an innocent child, to bear children in order to get money and apartments and food all for free. This encourages irresponsible behavior and reinforces it.

Prior to the implementation of the welfare programs far fewer women had children without a means of supporting them. It was discouraged and seen as morally wrong. Now there are millions of government workers standing in line to hand out checks and apartments to single women who are pregnant and dont’ have a means of supporting themselves either themself, with the father of the child, or the woman’s parents or friends.

It is common knowledge in the inner cities the programs that exist to get free money and goods and services and seen as acceptable. Since government is the middle man stealing to fund this, the people who make babies to not have to deal with their community or their familes or take the thought of having to deal with their families or their communities should they make the choice to make a baby without the means of supporting it.

Remove government and have private charity and women who get pregnant under such circumstances are not going to sleep in the gutter in the USA with people stepping over them unwilling to help them. But a different thought process would be in these individuals minds prior to engaging in sex, with or without a condom. It would be less appealing, it would not be financially rewarding, a means to have a guarenteed income and an apartment, an escape from unfortunate circumstances. Maybe (surely) fewer would get pregnant and more would look towards other solutions to their difficult circumstances.

It’s a very sad thing to see young girls looking forward to, planning to, make and have a baby in order to get an apartment and a check. Girls that are not prepared to be responsible adults themselves, let alone good, responsible parents. But the government lays out a red carpet (I exaggerate to make a point) for this behavior to happen. And a gun is pointed at my head to fund this sadness, this human suffering. While the government takes a nice finders fee for every women (and man she lays with) to make and follow these plans as a means to live their lives.

Surely there is a better way. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

 

[Bill_7154]

When people get welfare, they thank the government. When people get charity from the church, they thank the church. Charity makes the church and Christians look better and having a positive opinion of Christians helps lead people to Christ.

I like this post. Thank you for expanding my views and tying my beliefs together concisely to how charity leads people to Christ and how, in effect, government blocks this by taking from citizens by force money to lead them to ‘government’ as the answer, leaving less money availble to be used to help lead people to Christ.

 

[Bill_7154]

It’s a little depressing how conservative this forum is. I admire liberal Christians like Brazilian archbishop Dom helder Camara and Martin Luther king who both emphasized private charity and mitigating structural injustices. Camara supported the the independent trade union movement, the workers party, and the landless workers movement. He made a poignant remark about the criticisms he received, " When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." King’s last demonstration was the poor people’s march which called for guaranteed annual incomes and a federal works program. Even if it’s true that conservatives give more to private charity, do they advocate for worker’s rights, better wages, low-income housing. These are some of the ways you show you’re a friend to the poor.

I’m not sure I understand what your saying. I am neither conservative or liberal. I believe in doing good and helping my neighbor. I think private charities do a better job at this than government. Do you think government does a better job than private charities? If government is soo good and does things so well, why do they need to do business at the barrel of a gun? Private charities don’t do business at the barrel of a gun. They simply advertize their services and request donations of time, money, etc. If government did a better job than private charities wouldn’t all the poeple that donate their time and money to private charities choose to give the money they give to charity to government instead?

 

[Bill_Martin]

It’s a little depressing how conservative this forum is. I admire liberal Christians like Brazilian archbishop Dom helder Camara and Martin Luther king who both emphasized private charity and mitigating structural injustices. Camara supported the the independent trade union movement, the workers party, and the landless workers movement. He made a poignant remark about the criticisms he received, " When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." King’s last demonstration was the poor people’s march which called for guaranteed annual incomes and a federal works program. Even if it’s true that conservatives give more to private charity, do they advocate for worker’s rights, better wages, low-income housing. These are some of the ways you show you’re a friend to the poor.

Yes. What we do not advocate is for anyone to be forced, with threat of prosecution, to provide those things.

 

[wavejim]

I wish I had the link to this very simple study, I’ll look for it. It gave a good a great, although limited, picture of our society. It certainly does not paint conservatives as “dark.”

States where more people went to church, politically conservative, gave more money to charity. The more liberal the state was, the least charitable it became.

 

[bri89]

To those who believe private charity is enough.

Father Fred Kammer, S.J.
President of Catholic Charities USA

“Faith. Works. Wonders.” That slogan from Catholic Charities USA in Washington, D.C. sums up the wonderful work of Catholic Charities USA around the nation. Over 225,000 staff and volunteers do miraculous work with over 11 million people each year.

Now some people argue that all social welfare work should be turned over to the churches and religious charities. This is a perplexing desire to many of us who work in social service. Some see it as a strange intrusion into direct services by some religious groups who have been notably absent from the world of social welfare, for example, those represented by the Christian Coalition. Others view it as a well-meaning effort to inject more overtly religious activities into what can be or become secularized social services. But many of us who work daily with needy families see this proposal as just another excuse to cut government spending.

Before responding, it is important to understand how the religious charities have interacted with government supported social-welfare programs up to now. Besides their leadership as innovators of new program ideas, religious charities largely have played two roles.

First, they are the glue that holds folks together when everything else is coming apart. Usually this is short-term help for working or welfare families to meet a crisis–the charity helps pay a seasonally high electric bill to avoid a cutoff in service, or it may provide funds for medicine, to find shoes for the first day of school, to provide shelter for a few nights, or to feed a family for a week.

No charity has the resources to be the long-term support of needy families. That is a role which government fulfills through a complex web of social programs–from Social Security and Medicare to Supplemental Security Income, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

A second role which charities play has been as a partner to government at all levels. Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish charities have a long history of providing specialized services to the public in partnership with state, local, or federal governments. This includes housing for the elderly, protective services for children, resettlement for refugees, transportation for poor people, and counseling for addicts.

Government provides most of the funding; charities provide the care, commitment, and specialized skills needed by the targeted families. Charities make good partners for government because they are widely regarded as deeply committed to those served, trusted by the communities in which they are located, and efficient and economical.

So, why shouldn’t government just turn the whole business over to charities–the way some people think it was 100 years ago? First, religious charities just don’t have the resources to do all this work (and a century ago many more poor families simply died of hunger, sickness, and poverty).

Congressional budget cuts on low- and moderate-income families for the next six years are estimated at $504 billion. If you averaged that amount among the 258,000 religious congregations in the U.S., it would cost every every church, synagogue, and mosque in America over $2 million dollars! That’s $2 million dollars in addition to what these congregations are already spending on needy families.

Second, the church record on social problems is not necessarily one we want as our national standard. Consider civil rights, for example. While some church people were in the forefront of the civil-rights movement, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed that the most segregated hour in America was Sunday morning worship.

My guess is that Sunday morning segregation continues, coast to coast. I do not want to turn over the determination of who does or does not get a welfare check to every priest, rabbi, and minister in America, to their notion of righteous behavior, or to their satisfaction with the sincerity of a potential recipient’s belief.

Some things are better done by a more impartial government–among them the determination of eligibility for public assistance and its distribution. So, too, is creating a fair and equitable tax system to fund needed services.

Some proponents of shifting welfare to the churches have cast a false dichotomy between government and the religious charities. They see a wide gulf between religion and public life. At a hearing this year, one U.S. senator said to me, “I know of lots of volunteers in church-related charities, but I never heard of a volunteer at the welfare office.” The problem here is that the senator ignores the broad middle ground where government partners with religious and other charities.

I told the senator that we have hundreds of programs in Catholic Charities which have both government funding and volunteers. That’s why government likes to partner with us; we bring so many extra resources to the job.

Ultimately the churches cannot do a better job than the government in meeting all the needs of low-income Americans. And we can’t fix all of America’s problems.

What we can do is to be the glue that holds needy families together in crisis moments; what we can do is work as partners with government to make people’s lives better. But in the name of all Americans, it is government that has a moral obligation in social justice to provide a safety net for our most vulnerable families. Religious charities cannot pretend to replace government’s responsibility for the common good nor assume its moral obligations.—END

Father Kammer is the president of Catholic Charities USA

 

[ipwnuathalo2]

Father Fred and I do not agree on either the role of the government or the Church.

This thread is chock full of unsustainable and morally wrong ideas. I do not enjoy watching them crash and burn because their proponents tend to take up torches and pitchforks and take out their frustrations on everyone else.

 

[Nate13]

Wow! Can’t believe I found someone like me on CAF goes back into hiding.

Anyway, we need individual and charity help. That’s what the Church is for. But that doesn’t mean the government has no role either, which is what most conservatives I think seem to miss. Oops, just read that you posted that.

This is straw man… most conservatives believe in a safety net. You seem to think conservative equals anarchists. The difference is liberals come from the perspective of providing as much government assistance as possible, where as conservatives want government involvement to be as little as is needed. Liberals would like to bring as much revenue as they can into the government coffers to distribute out, where conservatives look to find the minimum amount government needs to take in to fulfill its responsibilities. Like I said, go read John Locke and Karl Marx and then come back and try to tell me conservatives have a dark view of human nature…

 

[Brendan]

When people get welfare, they thank the government. When people get charity from the church, they thank the church. Charity makes the church and Christians look better and having a positive opinion of Christians helps lead people to Christ.

That is pretty much what St. John Chrystom said

The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is committing a form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally. The proof of this is all around us. Look at the succulent fruits which the which the trees and the bushes produce. Look at the fertile soil which yields each year such an abundant harvest. Look at the sweet grapes on the vines, which gives us wine to drink. The rich may claim that they own many fields in which fruits and grain grow; but it is God who causes seeds to sprout and mature. The duty of the rich is to share the harvest of their fields with all who work in them and with all in need.

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold form the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth. –

On Living Simply, St. John Chrysostom

That last paragraph is pretty much what I am seeing today. There is no spiritual connection between the rich and the poor as true charity would indicate. The means of material welfare we have right now is doing EXACTLY what +Chrysostom said it would do.

The rich feel resentful and the poor exhibit no gratitude. The rich (especially the liberal rich) consider their obligation to their fellow man to be complete when they pay taxes. The poor consider their governmental check to be an entitlement, something that they are owed, and thus feel no gratitude

For example, this recent study showed that conservatives give more to charity than liberals

aim.org/newswire/red-states-more-charitable-than-blue-states-study-finds/

Wolfe gives the typical liberal opinion, stating that people in less religious states “view the tax money they’re paying not as something that’s forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they’re citizens in the common good. … I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they’re being altruistic.”

And here is one, a bit older, from the New York Times

nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1

What is interesting in that article is that conservatives donate blood

“If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.”

Given all that, I would state that the OP is in error. I would claim that the liberals have a darker view of human nature. They feel that Charity must be compelled in the form of taxes,while a conservative is more likely to open their own wallets out of actual Charity. In add, it seems to be the liberal view that the State must establish an extensive business regulatory environment. If the liberal has a more optimistic view of human nature, they would be among the largest advocates of reduced regulation, as they would have more trust that businesses would be ethical.

.

 

[cmforte]

To those who believe private charity is enough.

Father Fred Kammer, S.J.
President of Catholic Charities USA

“Faith. Works. Wonders.” That slogan from Catholic Charities USA in Washington, D.C. sums up the wonderful work of Catholic Charities USA around the nation. Over 225,000 staff and volunteers do miraculous work with over 11 million people each year.

Now some people argue that all social welfare work should be turned over to the churches and religious charities. This is a perplexing desire to many of us who work in social service. Some see it as a strange intrusion into direct services by some religious groups who have been notably absent from the world of social welfare, for example, those represented by the Christian Coalition. Others view it as a well-meaning effort to inject more overtly religious activities into what can be or become secularized social services. But many of us who work daily with needy families see this proposal as just another excuse to cut government spending.

Before responding, it is important to understand how the religious charities have interacted with government supported social-welfare programs up to now. Besides their leadership as innovators of new program ideas, religious charities largely have played two roles.

First, they are the glue that holds folks together when everything else is coming apart. Usually this is short-term help for working or welfare families to meet a crisis–the charity helps pay a seasonally high electric bill to avoid a cutoff in service, or it may provide funds for medicine, to find shoes for the first day of school, to provide shelter for a few nights, or to feed a family for a week.

No charity has the resources to be the long-term support of needy families. That is a role which government fulfills through a complex web of social programs–from Social Security and Medicare to Supplemental Security Income, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

A second role which charities play has been as a partner to government at all levels. Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish charities have a long history of providing specialized services to the public in partnership with state, local, or federal governments. This includes housing for the elderly, protective services for children, resettlement for refugees, transportation for poor people, and counseling for addicts.

Government provides most of the funding; charities provide the care, commitment, and specialized skills needed by the targeted families. Charities make good partners for government because they are widely regarded as deeply committed to those served, trusted by the communities in which they are located, and efficient and economical.

So, why shouldn’t government just turn the whole business over to charities–the way some people think it was 100 years ago? First, religious charities just don’t have the resources to do all this work (and a century ago many more poor families simply died of hunger, sickness, and poverty).

Congressional budget cuts on low- and moderate-income families for the next six years are estimated at $504 billion. If you averaged that amount among the 258,000 religious congregations in the U.S., it would cost every every church, synagogue, and mosque in America over $2 million dollars! That’s $2 million dollars in addition to what these congregations are already spending on needy families.

Second, the church record on social problems is not necessarily one we want as our national standard. Consider civil rights, for example. While some church people were in the forefront of the civil-rights movement, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed that the most segregated hour in America was Sunday morning worship.

My guess is that Sunday morning segregation continues, coast to coast. I do not want to turn over the determination of who does or does not get a welfare check to every priest, rabbi, and minister in America, to their notion of righteous behavior, or to their satisfaction with the sincerity of a potential recipient’s belief.

Some things are better done by a more impartial government–among them the determination of eligibility for public assistance and its distribution. So, too, is creating a fair and equitable tax system to fund needed services.

Some proponents of shifting welfare to the churches have cast a false dichotomy between government and the religious charities. They see a wide gulf between religion and public life. At a hearing this year, one U.S. senator said to me, “I know of lots of volunteers in church-related charities, but I never heard of a volunteer at the welfare office.” The problem here is that the senator ignores the broad middle ground where government partners with religious and other charities.

I told the senator that we have hundreds of programs in Catholic Charities which have both government funding and volunteers. That’s why government likes to partner with us; we bring so many extra resources to the job.

Ultimately the churches cannot do a better job than the government in meeting all the needs of low-income Americans. And we can’t fix all of America’s problems.

What we can do is to be the glue that holds needy families together in crisis moments; what we can do is work as partners with government to make people’s lives better. But in the name of all Americans, it is government that has a moral obligation in social justice to provide a safety net for our most vulnerable families. Religious charities cannot pretend to replace government’s responsibility for the common good nor assume its moral obligations.—END

Father Kammer is the president of Catholic Charities USA

The government shouldn’t be “partnering” with or funding religious groups and charities like Catholic Charities USA. I thought Liberals yell about the separation of church and state? And the idea that the government is “impartial” had me

-Chris

 

[wavejim]

The catholic charities in Spokane, WA once had Marian Wright Edelman as their key note speaker for their 50 year celebration. Small c was on purpose.

 

[JimG]

Father Kammer says this: “No charity has the resources to be the long-term support of needy families. That is a role which government fulfills through a complex web of social programs–from Social Security and Medicare to Supplemental Security Income, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.”

But that is just the problem. The first sentence gets it correct–no charity has the resources to be the long-term support of needy families over an indefinite period of time. The unacknowledged corrollary is, neither does the federal government have the resources to accomplish that over an indefinite period of time.

He goes on to list precisely those federal programs which are becoming fiscally insolvent.

Is it really ethical to make promises which cannot be kept?

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

An interesting article on Bishop Dom Helder Camara

“At the same time, in Vatican II discussions, Dom Hélder infuriated conservative bishops and traditionalists with his progressive positions, particularly the concept of a dialogue with Marxism. In early 1964, the reactionary traditionalists successfully had him shuffled off to an obscure archdiocese.”

links.org.au/node/1151

 

[MidnightSun12]

That is pretty much what St. John Chrystom said

The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is committing a form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally. The proof of this is all around us. Look at the succulent fruits which the which the trees and the bushes produce. Look at the fertile soil which yields each year such an abundant harvest. Look at the sweet grapes on the vines, which gives us wine to drink. The rich may claim that they own many fields in which fruits and grain grow; but it is God who causes seeds to sprout and mature. The duty of the rich is to share the harvest of their fields with all who work in them and with all in need.

That was a brilliant quote by St. John Chrysostom. You don’t help the poor by creating new social programs, you help the poor by bringing God back into society and helping both the rich and poor to live the life that Christ has taught us!

Thanks for sharing that!

 

[Contarini]

I have a question I’ve been pondering, which is something I don’t really understand about conservatives. For the record, I am very pro-life and consider myself generally socially conservative, but economically I am much more liberal.

I’ve often heard that liberals and conservatives have different views of human nature. Liberals tend to believe people are basically good, whereas conservatives have a “darker” view of human nature, or maybe a more realistic view, depending on your point of view. If they are religious, they tend to believe in original sin, and that is reflected in their political views.

When it comes to addressing poverty, liberals tend to favor government programs like welfare, whereas conservatives think the poor should rely on their families or private charities. Conservatives will say that people should give to charity voluntarily and not be forced through taxation.

But here’s what I don’t understand. If you’re a conservative, you have a darker view of human nature and don’t necessarily believe that people are basically good. So WHY do conservatives think that people will voluntarily give enough of their money to charity to help the poor?? Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. If people aren’t “forced” to give through taxation, the poor won’t get the help they need. This idea that the poor should rely on charity seems like pie-in-the-sky idealism, which is what conservatives often accuse liberals of.

Though the more cynical part of me sometimes thinks that conservatives simply don’t care much about the poor, and if people don’t give enough to charity – well, too bad.

And yes, I’m aware of the research that shows that conservatives give more than liberals to charity on average. I think that’s good, because it shows they practice what they preach. But even if individual conservatives give to charity, that doesn’t change the reality that most people simply don’t give enough.

And even though I believe we need government programs to help the poor, I still give money to charity. I’ve never thought that I don’t need to give money to charity because government programs exist. The poor need all the help they can get. Government AND charity should play a role.

Anyway – any thoughts on why conservatives have this view? It seems out of synch with their views on human nature.

I agree that it’s an inconsistency–further evidence that what Americans call “conservatives” aren’t really conservatives at all.

It’s hard to be a real conservative and an American. American politics are really a fight between two branches of the liberal tradition.

Now if you ask a liberal (using the term in its common contemporary American sense), they’ll tell you (at least in their more polemical moods) that there’s no contradiction–that “conservatives” want to bring “back” a dark world of dog-eat-dog. And there may be some folks who have been reading too much Ayn Rand who really think this way. But on the whole, at least if one trusts their rhetoric, American “conservatives” do seem to think that if left alone people will take care of the poor voluntarily. And I agree, this just doesn’t square with the orthodox Christian view of human nature. What particularly doesn’t square with it is the confidence in the rich involved in this view, since the historic Christian view is that wealth, while certainly not intrinsically evil, does tend to corrupt people–particularly the effort to acquire wealth. (Traditional Christian ethics are more comfortable with inherited than acquired wealth–exactly the reverse of the typical American attitude and further evidence for the “un-conservatism” of American “conservatives.”)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because power corrupts.

And yet we are expected to believe that multi-millionaires, with the immense power that comes with their wealth, are to be trusted to act for the common good?

Or worse, we are expected to put our faith in a blind process by which “the market” produces a utilitarian “greatest good for the greatest number” even though the individual actors are selfish.

Nothing truly conservative about either point of view as far as I can see.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because taking things from someone without their permission is stealing.

Giving the stolen goods to a poor person does not mean it wasn’t theft.

Ganging up with 100 million of ones fellow citizens to bureaucratize the process doesn’t change it either.

So, simply, what liberals do is morally wrong.

I hear this all the time these days, but it just makes no sense at all.

If you are denying that the government has the right to tax, then you’re at odds with the Christian tradition as well as with the traditions of most civilized human societies.

I don’t see how you can claim that taxation is “stealing” when used to help the poor and not “stealing” when used for some other purpose, like raising an army.

Now you may hold the view (deeply mistaken and immoral in my opinion, but consistent) that the government’s job is only to provide “security” and not to help the poor. But even if you think this, I don’t see how that difference makes taxation stealing in one case and not in the other.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That was a brilliant quote by St. John Chrysostom. You don’t help the poor by creating new social programs, you help the poor by bringing God back into society and helping both the rich and poor to live the life that Christ has taught us!

Thanks for sharing that!

Way overused by libertarians. He’s not saying that the government should do nothing–he’s saying that the “communist” ideal he holds cannot be imposed by government.

That goes without saying. It’s a straw man.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Where do you get that conservatives have a darker view of humanity. If anything most liberals do. They seem to think that people are greedy, selfish, discriminate against others, steal from others, take jobs away from people, and a whole host of other issues.

A view that is both realistic and orthodox.

By your own admission, the contemporary American ideology misnamed “conservatism” is fundamentally Pelagian.

Edwin