(no subject)
Jan. 11th, 2007 04:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shirenomadThere was this icon I saw floating around LJ that revived a certain political issue bothering me. Indulge me for a few minutes, if you will.
The icon was merely text, and it read as follows: "Vote Republican. Because Jesus said, 'Screw the poor.'"
Behind the sarcasm, the idea of the icon is, essentially, a rewrite of Alan Keyes's claim about Barack Obama: "Jesus Christ would not vote Republican. Christ would not vote Republican because the Republicans have behaved in a way (toward the poor) that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
I don't dismiss the idea that the Republicans, as a whole, have done some very un-Christlike things. They got into politics, for starters. :P More seriously, they're human beings, and human beings are going to screw up a lot; it's part of the job description. I've behaved in ways "that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." And I dislike claims by Republicans that they hold some Christlike moral high ground while the Democrats all worship Satan or something. But I would say the same about those who Democrats who claim that they hold the same holy high ground over the Republicans. (I strongly suspect, in fact, that were Jesus Christ to vote in any election, he would do write-ins all the way down the ballot for truly worthy people, none of whom were running.)
But back to this icon's specific objection: the Republican treatment of the poor, and the claim that it is not how Christ called us to be. Three problems I have with that:
1) This is America. We have separation of church and state here. And yes, the Republicans trample over that line all the time, and that's not good either. I just find it odd that the same people who call them out on that, stating that forcing everyone to follow the commands of their God is against everything America stands for, will turn around and complain that the Republicans should force people to follow their God when it comes to helping the poor (through taxes into social programs). If someone chooses to to worship money instead of God, that's their call.
2) It is very arguable that social programs don't help the poor and unfortunate nearly as much as donations to non-profits. I can certainly look at all the money shoveled at New Orleans vs. my church's mission trip to the same area to help clear debris: a radical difference in cost efficiency. Or compare the mass paperwork for unemployment with the same church's emergency network should any of its attendees hit financial difficulties. Better yet, compare Rotary's virtual annihilation of polio around the world with government attempts to wipe out any given disease. Social programs, especially on a national level, are nightmares of bureaucracy that waste much of the tax money before it ever gets into the hands of the needy, and they rarely are able to evaluate how effective they're being... or what gaps they're missing. Charities, meanwhile, are far better motivated, because all donations are conscious decisions and lack of results (or scandals) means the donors go to another charity.
3) Really, half the point of helping the poor is lost if you do it automatically and unwillingly (or, in the case of the politicians themselves, with other people's money). Far better to give of yourself, directly, than have someone else make you do it. It is not the mile someone demands you walk that counts, but the second mile you walk of your own will.
Should we cut off social programs entirely? Well, I think that would be a disaster if we did it all at once and didn't give the charities time to fill in the holes, or give the population time to adjust to the idea that helping the needy will be done more directly from now on. But I think we should start weaning ourselves off them. And I think that a) the "let the government help them" attitude is discouraging people from actually donating, and b) getting more tax dollars back would result in more donations.
Anyway, there's my two cents. So if you've ever been baffled by how someone who professes the love of Christ can oppose the idea of social welfare, now you know. It's because some of us believe love is not something that can or should be forced.
The icon was merely text, and it read as follows: "Vote Republican. Because Jesus said, 'Screw the poor.'"
Behind the sarcasm, the idea of the icon is, essentially, a rewrite of Alan Keyes's claim about Barack Obama: "Jesus Christ would not vote Republican. Christ would not vote Republican because the Republicans have behaved in a way (toward the poor) that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."
I don't dismiss the idea that the Republicans, as a whole, have done some very un-Christlike things. They got into politics, for starters. :P More seriously, they're human beings, and human beings are going to screw up a lot; it's part of the job description. I've behaved in ways "that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." And I dislike claims by Republicans that they hold some Christlike moral high ground while the Democrats all worship Satan or something. But I would say the same about those who Democrats who claim that they hold the same holy high ground over the Republicans. (I strongly suspect, in fact, that were Jesus Christ to vote in any election, he would do write-ins all the way down the ballot for truly worthy people, none of whom were running.)
But back to this icon's specific objection: the Republican treatment of the poor, and the claim that it is not how Christ called us to be. Three problems I have with that:
1) This is America. We have separation of church and state here. And yes, the Republicans trample over that line all the time, and that's not good either. I just find it odd that the same people who call them out on that, stating that forcing everyone to follow the commands of their God is against everything America stands for, will turn around and complain that the Republicans should force people to follow their God when it comes to helping the poor (through taxes into social programs). If someone chooses to to worship money instead of God, that's their call.
2) It is very arguable that social programs don't help the poor and unfortunate nearly as much as donations to non-profits. I can certainly look at all the money shoveled at New Orleans vs. my church's mission trip to the same area to help clear debris: a radical difference in cost efficiency. Or compare the mass paperwork for unemployment with the same church's emergency network should any of its attendees hit financial difficulties. Better yet, compare Rotary's virtual annihilation of polio around the world with government attempts to wipe out any given disease. Social programs, especially on a national level, are nightmares of bureaucracy that waste much of the tax money before it ever gets into the hands of the needy, and they rarely are able to evaluate how effective they're being... or what gaps they're missing. Charities, meanwhile, are far better motivated, because all donations are conscious decisions and lack of results (or scandals) means the donors go to another charity.
3) Really, half the point of helping the poor is lost if you do it automatically and unwillingly (or, in the case of the politicians themselves, with other people's money). Far better to give of yourself, directly, than have someone else make you do it. It is not the mile someone demands you walk that counts, but the second mile you walk of your own will.
Should we cut off social programs entirely? Well, I think that would be a disaster if we did it all at once and didn't give the charities time to fill in the holes, or give the population time to adjust to the idea that helping the needy will be done more directly from now on. But I think we should start weaning ourselves off them. And I think that a) the "let the government help them" attitude is discouraging people from actually donating, and b) getting more tax dollars back would result in more donations.
Anyway, there's my two cents. So if you've ever been baffled by how someone who professes the love of Christ can oppose the idea of social welfare, now you know. It's because some of us believe love is not something that can or should be forced.
