widows, entitlement, charity and all that...

[_son of Ishmael]

I am glad for government programs--at least in principle-- and just wish they were run better and more wisely.

That is it in a nutshell isn't it?

[_bcspace]

I notice a couple things. It seems that the ideal recipient of charity is never treated as an authentic person but rather a mere prop for a religious fantasy.

Funny. This is how liberals treat the faceless poor when they shower them willy nilly with stolen wealth and expect them to be better people afterwards.

[_Droopy]

It seems that certain Christians (you know, the crypto-Randian Christains) have a rather self-serving and limited notion of giving.

I've never heard of this group. Not sure there is such a thing. Could you name some individuals or groups who would exemplify this tendency (no one obscure, please, but something that one could say was actually of some salience, socioculturally).

To these people, charity has to be admitted since it is in the scriptures and all that but....

Well, for LDS, and for the majority of traditional Christians, this is assumed.

I notice a couple things. It seems that the ideal recipient of charity is never treated as an authentic person but rather a mere prop for a religious fantasy.

Ahh...now the hidden agenda bubbles to the surface.

The stereotypical biblical widow is perfect for this role since she has an appropriately pitiful appearence and complete lack of assertive personhood. The personhood of the needy person is never enough.

This isn't a stereotype but an example from the ancient world that was simply quite common, at the time.

if you are black with a gold tooth you will get no sympathy no matter what pain you might be suffering.

Really? This group has been the most coddled, pampered, and ring-kissed sub-group of the American (and black) population in American history (especially if they have multiple gold teeth, wear big gold necklaces with oversized symbols in them (like BMW, NYC, $$ etc.), and make funny movements and signs with their hands and fingers. In fact, long ago this particular group was all but removed from any requirement to contribute to society in any useful or productive manner or of the need to observe the normative rules and boundaries required of other civilized human beings, and that waiver of any requirement of being subject to the rules and norms of civil society did not come from conservatives, from the black church, or from within the overall black community itself, but from white leftist intellectuals and political activists, halos following, who fancied themselves redeemers of a fallen world.

In fact, you will often get the reverse.

Affirmative Action is the reverse? Being officially removed by government from any requirement that one be competent, qualified, or even civilized is the reverse of some kind of discrimination (and, well, Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, but the "good" kind (just like African slavery was the good kind, and white on black slavery the bad kind)).

Another important aspect of this conservative charity fantasy is that it doesn't last long or call for any long term systematic action (it is important that we don't help out as a society).

What does this mean? What would this entail as a practical matter?

The fantasy widow takes leave quickly and never bothers us with long term problems and the religious giver never has to discover her impefections--she is never a shrew, a nag or a bitch.

She may be. She may also be drug dealer, drug user, prostitute, child abuser, porn addict, and general low-life, and she may run through ten thousand dollars of contraceptives a year. The welfare state makes no determinations upon those criteria. These are means tested programs. There are no moral or social qualifications, and never have been.

In fact, I have heard it said that God wants us to give to the poor not for their sake but for our sake--you know--so we can grow spiritually (not for their sake?? really? barrf).

CFR.

It seems to me that if we are giving for any other reason than that the other person is indeed a person in need or in pain then we are shallow spiritually.

Excellent. Politician x giving charity and doing good works for the poor then, for the purpose of extending gratuities to constituents using other people's money, confiscated by force through mandatory taxation, so that they will vote for Politician x in perpetuity so long as they remain poor and in need of assistance, and create conditions of permanent incumbency, could be thought of as a perversion of the concept of charity, and "spiritually shallow?"

We (should) give exactly for the sake of the other person; not for ourselves, not for any gods or angels, and not for the building of the kingdom. That's why it is called giving after all.

This bespeaks your own secular atheist mythology that for you determines why and for what reason one should give charity, for which I can find no particular philosophical justification within secularist atheism.

The widow and her mite is a fantasy. A real person is likely to be annoying, intent on being cool or tough, and occasionally angry or at least insufficiently willing to act like a whipped dog.

And the point of all this dramatic leftist moral posturing is precisely what, Tarski?

In fact, many of the needy are that way exactly because the are constitutionally unable to come across in a pleasing way to other people. They are socially awkward or repulsive--maybe they are even mentally ill.

And there are no programs in place to take care of them, is that right, Tarski?

Finally, it seems that the ideal recipient must be willing to adopt appropriate religious beliefs.

Many -many - of those who need help the most are the victims of their own dysfunctional, pathological behavior patterns, attitudes, and life negotiation strategies, and that needs to be changed in anything is going to change in the long term. So yes, many private philanthropic organizations do require things like attendance at Bible study, addiction counseling...some indication that one is willing to work upon oneself and take responsibility for one's own contribution, whatever that may be, to one's condition. The secular welfare state has never required anything like this, which is precisely one of its most destructive features (nor could it or should it, for that matter, which is another good reason why welfare has no business whatever existing at the federal level).

The fact that you find such requirements disgusting is just another indication that what most leftists are really interested in is not helping the poor, but pious moral grandstanding. That's the forté of the Left, while all they've ever actually been able to accomplish is the spread and entrenchment of long term poverty, the destruction of the inner city black family, and the creation of a permanent, violent, barbarized underclass who's values, mannerisms, language and clothing styles have now seeped into the middle class across racial and socioeconomic boundaries.

They must be already appropriately religious or, even better, they must be perfectly ripe for conversion.

Now your making it up as you go along.

They apparently do not deserve their own sincere goals and beliefs.

Which would be what, pray tell?

Enough bosh for one post.

[_Droopy]

Note that the only qualification for the needy is that they are actually, there and then, hungry, thirsty, in need of clothing or in prison.

Yup.

It is not said that the persons in question have to be in that state through no fault of their own, or that they just need a hand to get back on their feet as productive and self-supporting citizens. It is not said that they are in any way likable as people. They just have to need basic stuff and basic compassion. If you don't give it to them, says Jesus, expect trouble from Me.

True. He also says this:

Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands! (D&C 57:16)

Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer (D&C 42:42).

2. Why on earth do I still feel motivated to give money to beggars although I have no religious belief to speak of? I suppose because I find that being unloving to others makes me feel unloving towards myself. Does that make sense?

For some, it may make sense (for some reason). For others, this would not make sense at all. It all depends on the time, era, culture, and the social trends, ideologies, and attitudes prevailing at the time.

[Guest]

... Not all conservatives fail to give in the way I suggested or are giving for the wrong reasons. All we really have is a lot of ideology being spouted that seems to need a push back. Thus the rant.

In fact, as all available empirical evidence suggests, conservatives, as a group, dwarf liberals, as a group, in charitable giving. Indeed, it isn't even a close call. I also don't believe you have the slightest empirical evidence that conservatives give or withhold giving for the reasons you assert.

It obviously isn't realistic or even wise to give money to every poor person we run across- at least I don't. But this is exactly why I like the idea of my tax dollars being used. I just don't have the time or discipline to do it on my own.

Exactly. You wish to transfer you own responsibility (at least, the gospel and Christianity in general, which you utterly reject, teaches that it is) for giving alms and helping the poor to a third party who uses the monopoly of coercive force it commands to take from some that which belongs to them, and transfer it to others to whom it does not belong, and who's incentives and motives are inherently different from those which motivate authentic charity, and what people who do authentically and personally, and from there own hearts and own funds, give to the poor and seek to lift others get from leftists of this kind is great swelling streams of moral breast-beating, congratulating themselves in public on their anointed moral superiority to those who give personally and to private charities of their own choice, and who are demeaned as moral wretches because they may object to the use of their tax dollars to support ever expanding social pathology and might actually ask that people receiving assistance, when they are capable of doing so, work to improve and eliminate from their lives the underlying roots of their condition.

[_cinepro]

One thing seems more sure; conservative Christians tend to oppose public programs designed to help the disadvantaged. They prefer the uneven and occasionally conditional charity provided by churches.

Which even and unconditional government programs that help the disadvantaged are conservative Christians opposed to, and is this opposition based on their political views or their religious views?

As a conservative Christian myself, let me tell you how I see it. I think governmental assistance is the worst thing a government can do, except for someone dying. So even in those cases where we, as a society, have decided we need to have the government offer "assistance" to someone, we should acknowledge that this is a really bad thing, but the alternative is worse.

I don't think there is any "compassion" or generosity in government programs, because that isn't the "government's money", and you can't be compassionate or generous with money that you forcibly took from someone else.

Suppose you and I were walking down the street and saw a homeless person asking for money for their hungry children. If I take $50 out of my wallet and give that money to them, am I being compassionate? I think so. But what if I hit you over the back of your head, take $50 out of your wallet, and give it to them? Am I being compassionate? No. The end result may be a good one (the hungry children get food), but I can't call it "compassion".

Likewise, I can't call any government program or act of a politician using government money "compassion", because they're not spending their own money, they're spending money they forcibly took from someone else. As a society, I think it's a valid discussion to decide what we want this money to be used for, and to what degree we feel like it should be distributed to other people, but once words like "generosity" and "compassion" start getting thrown around when it comes to other people's money, you've lost me.

[_Tarski]

I've never heard of this group. Not sure there is such a thing.
Could you name some individuals or groups who would exemplify this tendency (no one obscure, please, but something that one could say was actually of some salience, socioculturally).

I think I know at least three people in this group although they might not realize it or admit it. You, BCSpace and maybe Paul Ryan.

"if you are black with a gold tooth you will get no sympathy no matter what pain you might be suffering."

Really? This group has been the most coddled, pampered, and ring-kissed sub-group of the American (and black) population in American history (especially if they have multiple gold teeth, wear big gold necklaces with oversized symbols in them (like BMW, NYC, $$ etc.), and make funny movements and signs with their hands and fingers. In fact, long ago this particular group was all but removed from any requirement to contribute to society in any useful or productive manner or of the need to observe the normative rules and boundaries required of other civilized human beings, and that waiver of any requirement of being subject to the rules and norms of civil society did not come from conservatives, from the black church, or from within the overall black community itself, but from white leftist intellectuals and political activists, halos following, who fancied themselves redeemers of a fallen world.

I didn't say they don't get sympathy. I said they don't get sympathy from conservative religious types (usually).
But the rest of your response above makes my point well. You are repulsed by these people based on stupid things like what they wear. How dare they try to be cool by the standards of their own culture? How dare that make hand gestures.

Affirmative Action is the reverse?

Affirmative action is coming from conservative Christians? Did you forget who I was talking about?

Being officially removed by government from any requirement that one be competent, qualified, or even civilized is the reverse of some kind of discrimination (and, well, Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, but the "good" kind (just like African slavery was the good kind, and white on black slavery the bad kind)).

wow!!! What a load of bigoted assumptions about the groups in question.

What does this mean? What would this entail as a practical matter?

Public programs for example. Government (Que scary music). Money targeted for inner city schools and so forth.

[_Droopy]

I've never heard of this group. Not sure there is such a thing.
Could you name some individuals or groups who would exemplify this tendency (no one obscure, please, but something that one could say was actually of some salience, socioculturally).

I think I know at least three people in this group although they might not realize it or admit it. You, BCSpace and maybe Paul Ryan.

So, let me see if I get this: you think my giving to the poor, which I have done many times is "self serving" and that, in my mind, any recipient is seen, not as an "authentic person" but as a "mere prop for a religious fantasy."

Anyone I give to must be "pitiful in appearance," and be void of "assertive personhood." Being a person isn't enough for the likes of me. One must be, for some reason, utterly debased, in some sense. I don't give because someone is in need, but to satisfy some self-serving need for self-affirmation. And, if I don't give to the local homeboy who's selling pot at the local Junior High School and pimping 14 year old girls downtown by the Sunset Grill, I'm morally excoriated as below contempt.

My giving, according to you, because it is not systematic (i.e., is not a socialistic restructuring of the entire society), is essentially worthless; if it comes from my heart to another whom I see, or to a local charity that works at the local level with the local poor (and asks from them some accountability for the reception of their charity and for their own life circumstances), this is essentially discounted as authentic charity. The only authentic charity, as with Brother Bokovoy; the only charity that can be understood to be authentic charity, must ultimately be punitive in nature with regard to those from whom it comes. To be real charity, and real, legitimate welfare, it must be taken by force. Free will offerings will not do; the haves must be punished - and must be given to understand that they are being punished for not, in the past (ever) having contributed their "fair share" - because they have (not necessarily because the poor don't have, per se; this is a key distinction between the way in which leftists and conservatives view the world). Free will giving is not morally satisfying for the Left because it is not taken by force and at levels that would cause consternation and resistance; and it only raises, it does not level, which is the other overriding motive on the Left.

Further, if I resist giving to sociopaths, criminals, and degenerates who would kill me without a second thought for my tennis shoes or because I wandered into the wrong neighborhood, I am again excoriated as a moral pariah.

My personal giving, in sum, is a pseudo-moral exercise in selfish religious point-scoring. Leftist police state giving through the legal plunder of the citizenry, is authentic charity (and faith and hopeychange too).

I see.

You are repulsed by these people based on stupid things like what they wear. How dare they try to be cool by the standards of their own culture? How dare that make hand gestures.

I am repulsed by barbarism, yes (what Thomas Sowell has so aptly described a black redneck culture).

Being officially removed by government from any requirement that one be competent, qualified, or even civilized is the reverse of some kind of discrimination (and, well, Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, but the "good" kind (just like African slavery was the good kind, and white on black slavery the bad kind)).

wow!!! What a load of bigoted assumptions about the groups in question.

All the bigoted assumptions are, in point of fact, on the Left, and within AA itself, not within me.

Public programs for example.

We have those. Hundreds of them.

Government (Que scary music). Money targeted for inner city schools and so forth.

Been there. Done that. Over and over and over, for forty years. Failure, failure, failure, failure, and more failure.

[Guest]

I have to admit that I really don't know what to think about the private charity vs. government entitlements debate. I, like most people, want to help the poor and needy, those who can't help themselves and at the same time I don't want to enable those who won't help themselves. But how do you tell the "can’ts" from the "won'ts". How do you empower the "can'ts" so they don't become "won'ts".

While we might not like the way they operate or feel that they go to far, there was a reason they came about. It is because the private charities weren't able to reach out to all the needy. Just like there would not be a need for unions, child labor laws, and the EPA if businesses had behaved themselves properly in the past.

For the most part I am a small “l” libertarian and believe in a small federal government with more power so maybe the welfare type programs should be operated at the state and levels only.

At the end of the day, I pay my taxes (yes I am part of the country that does pay taxes) and grumble when I hear about the guy who is on welfare and drives a better car than I do and I give to charities because I can and I do feel guilty that I am not doing enough.

[_Blixa]

Further, if I resist giving to sociopaths, criminals, and degenerates who would kill me without a second thought for my tennis shoes...

Seriously? Nobody wants your tennis shoes.