August 1, 2006 12:13 PM
Hypothetical Question - Take 2
Paige, I'm sorry! I didn't know where you were coming from (Hypothetical Question of the Day) - you so often ask the hard questions (in fact, I know there's one I promised to blog about but I want to spend some time on it, so I've been postponing - but I will get to it because I have a lot to say :)
Anyway, I understand where you are coming from. There are lots of Republicans who are fiscally conservative but not morally. I am morally conservative but believe in helping our fellow man. Ideally that care should come through the churches and neighborhoods - kinda the spirit Hillary was trying to capture in "It Takes a Village" - only she got it wrong because big government is not a village. It is big government. But the true village has been robbed of resources as the government takes such an enormous bite out of people's income to finance welfare the way they want to do it that it leaves little for individuals to share.
I don't like any attempts to have the government solve problems by giving them more money. It always fails and it always costs more than it would if the private sector handled it. Look at the results of Catholic schools, which produce better results with classes double the size and half the expenditure per pupil.
I don't trust Big Government to make wise decisions. They seem to think the answer to every problem is more money. Increasing the number of government employees is undesirable in my opinion because they are over-protected by unions and so do not have to be competitive or service-oriented. Look at the DMV and Post Office to see how incompetent, balky employees are never fired or forced to do better. (Not that all those employees are that way, but the system protects those that are.)
I don't know the answers either. I do know that liberals in their desire to make a perfect world tend to make government their Messiah. Conservatives (I mean true conservatives, not just the fiscal conservatives who are only governed by economics) seem to sense that the world will not be perfect this side of heaven.
One thing I am grateful Pres. Bush has done is to reinstate faith-based charity organizations, which were pretty much banned under Democratic rule. Living in the DC area I occasionally meet people involved in these and it makes me happy to know that believers are part of the team ministering to those in need in our country today.
I think the saddest thing for me is to see the greed and materialism rampant in the church - Christians spending excessively on momentary pleasures and denying themselves nothing, yet thinking because they say "Praise the Lord" every five minutes they are living a godly life. It's sad to see the money wasted that could be put to good use helping others.
Posted in Church Issues, Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
I agree that big government is a bad thing. I think what attracts many people to the democratic side is that it seems as though the republican side isn't really offering much of an alternative and the big government start to looks like a necessary evil.
I also like the idea of the community helping rather than the government I just can't figure out how to get that going more, especially when so many people are in crisis right now and most americans are deeply rooted in our habits and prejudices that say that poor people are that way because they are lazy, or that charities just steal your money and don't acutally use it for charitable work (a very common belief according to a recent news poll).
I am very attracted to the idea of "intentional communities". These are mostly hosted by liberals with the goal being environment awareness, but there are a few out there for conservative chrisitians. I think that these types of communities could facilitate the ideals represented by distributism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Posted by: paigeu | August 1, 2006 1:20 PM
It seems that I may have developed a pattern of being argumentative and I just want to clarify a few things. I realize that I seem to only ask questions and post comments if my opinion dissents from the majority. I post a "yeah I agree" post very rarely, even though that is what I think about MOST the things I read on my favorite christian blogs. I think I need to correct that so when I do post something that doesn't agree that it doesn't look like I just come around to disagree.
I am strongly convicted on a few religious/moral ideals, but just about everything else I could go either way on. My "leanings" tend to change about as often as my underwear. I think the problem is that I am only 24 years old and there are a lot of things I am really confused about. There is a lot of stuff that makes some sense, but very little that makes TOTAL sense... I am just struggling to find my place in a world of many different ideas. When I get behind something I want to be able to get behind it with my whole heart and mind.
So when I post questions or alternative points of view, it is never ever ever in an attempt to to put someone on the defensive. Most the time I don't assume the person I am responding to is wrong, I just want to understand more fully.
I never was good at wording things in a way that doesn't put people on the defensive. I have often gotten in trouble for it.
Posted by: paigeu | August 1, 2006 3:13 PM
Paige - I really appreciate knowing more about you. I know you've been here and commenting for a long time, but it helps to have some of the details filled in.
I'm sorry for the times I haven't heard you correctly. I have always been happy to have you around, though :)
Love,
Barbara
Posted by: barbara | August 1, 2006 3:30 PM
Paige, what it sounds like from your statement about your fluctuating views is that you need a "moral compass". That is something where all competing ideas would be able to be measured against. For me that is the bible, so when I hear an idea or thought presented I look back to the "compass" to see if it is a direction that a believer should follow.
As far as government's being the provider or "village" that is inherently inefficient. Why should I give the government $100 so they can give to my neighbor in need $75? They take the other $25 for "expenses". Wouldn't it just be more efficient to give it to my neighbor if he needs it. The problem is that governments don't trust people to do the right thing. And sadly, many don't. They would rather let the masses take care of what we as individuals should be doing on our own.
The church has all0wed the government to take care of the widow and the orphan.
Posted by: spunky | August 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Spunky - are you sure it's not that the government keeps $75 so they can give my neighbor $25? :)
Bureaucracy is the great gas guzzler in government. In California, it was completely out of control.
Your comment is right on the money (pun intended).
Posted by: barbara | August 1, 2006 4:20 PM
I completely understand where paige is coming from. I started off at 20 thinking I knew everything and by 30 the only thing that I know for sure is that Christ died for me and the Bible is infallible. Life sure has a way of making us really question what is what; at least the smart ones question - I think the stupid ones sit back and rely on what others spoon feed them or lives thier life "like our family did". I remember asking a family member about something in the Bible and she told me that their family did it this way for several generations. She never questioned whether it was Biblically based or not.
Keep seeking paige. I believe that God wants us to question and look and seek and find because that draws us closer to Him in the end of it all. After all, God is a God of wisdom and knowledge. They are good things!
Mrs. DMG
Posted by: Mrs. DMG | August 1, 2006 4:23 PM
I feel that I do have a pretty strong moral compass. That isn't the issue. The issue is deciding what choices fit best with my morals, because it often seems that my choices demand I choose a lesser evil, rather than what is right.
But like I said before, that may just be due to not fully understanding the choices.
Like the choice to have more children and use medicaid, or to prevent more children. Which is the lesser evil? My common sense says that self-sufficiency is important, but my morals say that openness to life is "the greater good".
The bible says that debt is bad, so what if going in debt with medical bills is the only way to have another child? What is the moral thing to do then?
I appreciate that people can read the Bible or look to their moral compass and have all the answers, but it really isn't that easy for me.
Posted by: paigeu | August 1, 2006 5:09 PM
"I think what attracts many people to the democratic side is that it seems as though the republican side isn't really offering much of an alternative and the big government start to looks like a necessary evil."
This is similar to the way many people think pro-lifers only care about unborn children and no one else. That's because the only time they are recognized as pro-life is when they discuss the unborn. When someone who is pro-life is discussing child welfare or other charity, why would you even think about what their position is on abortion unless they mention it?
Republicans often DO present alternatives to Big Government -- they present these things in their churches or communities. When they are "Republicans" they are discussing Government, the one place where "charity" doesn't fit in.
Posted by: Michelle | August 1, 2006 6:30 PM
Michelle-
You have to be realistic.
I am prolife, I have always voted republican, and I DESPISE the Godlessness of the liberal agenda, and I still see that the alternatives to social medicine are not very visible, especially to those people currently suffering due to their lack of health care.
If someone accuses me of not caring about women because I care about the unborn, I take that as a challenge to make the fact that I care about both more obvious.
Posted by: paigeu | August 1, 2006 7:32 PM
Regarding your religious orgs and local solutions for schooling:
I always taught in lower economic schools and that is what I would go back to. I appreciate the challenges there. Also, the teacher tends to have more leeway in those schools and I love finding that diamond in the rough.
I'm generally for smaller government and local control of schools, but there are issues of fairness here as well. Many top public schools are in suburban areas that pass zoning laws that in effect bar poor people from being able to live in those communities. In Texas, where most funding for schools is provided by property taxes this is very unfair. Many of my students did not speak English in their homes. And they lived in places where property taxes did not yield as much revenue, so you can see how this can start to snowball.
Quite frankly, I believe that when we fail to care for the poor in our midst then God uses other means. We see this in the Old Testament where Israel does not take care of the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner. Instead they are too engaged in idol worship which always resulted in the sacrifice of its young. Eventually, God decides that the world is better off if his kingdom of priests is in captivity.
I believe that Paul is right when he says "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." I also believe that when the Church begins practicing these in a radical way--The kind of way in which we can be identified by these practices and these alone, then many of these questions of politics will resolves themselves.
Posted by: Leslie | August 1, 2006 11:46 PM
To respond to Paige's original question, I'd have to say that I think it may be irresponsible to continue having children when in financial distress. I say "may" because it would depend a lot on the circumstances. If my family was in a temporary, but dire, financial situation, I don't think that it would responsible of my husband and I to conceive another child at that time. Pregnancy is hard, especially when your other children are small, and if my family was already struggling to survive, I don't think it would be right to put the other children (and my husband and I) through that stress. As a parent, you always have to think about the children you have already. What if something goes wrong in a pregnancy? What if a mother isn't going to prenatal appts. because she doesn't have insurance and never finds out she has gestational diabetes? You have to think about those kind of things.
I am completely pro-life, but I also believe that God has given us brains and that sometimes we have to do things that we don't really want to do, but it's the right thing for that whole family. Now if the financial situation is more permanent because of job availability, location, skill levels, etc., that might be a little different situation. You can't wait forever to be able to "afford" to have children. None of my children would have been born if we'd waited to be financially stable. But again, you have to use your brain and discern what God's will is for your family. Being poor isn't a curse and it is quite possible to be very poor and to raise many healthy, happy and holy children. Just like it's quite possible to be rich and raise hellions. I think it depends on what the financial situation is doing to the family. I know several wonderful families who have used public assistance and I'm glad they've benefited from the tax dollars my husband has paid into the system.
I guess all this to say that I don't think it's wrong to put having more children on hold while you get your family stable and care for the children you've already been given. At the same time, being poor is no reason to not have children.
I have some sympathy with this situation because I'm in something similar, although it's health situation, not a financial one. I hope this helps!
Posted by: Sarah | August 2, 2006 12:19 PM
Just a quick note, on the comments of the government giving your "neighbor" $75 of your $100 or $25 of your $100. The last couple of years the acutal budget looking like this of your $100 the government gave $13 to your "neighbor" or acutally your "neighbor's" local neighborhood agency and they the agency chose (due to the horrendous way the run the agency)to give your neighbor $1.3 - $8.00.
Now also your elderly "neighbors" got a larger chunk of that $100, $35 to be exact, through Social Security and Medicare, now I am not sure how fiscally sound either groups are or how run so how much of each dollar actually get sent to your elderly "neighbor".
We have to remember this is two distictive and separate group. Elder care, by the government uses up about 35% of the national budget, and care for the social needs of the people take up 13% of the budget. If the government completely eliminated the 13% for social care, I guarantee that our taxes would not go down. Instead other categories would eat it up or it would go to our every growing national debt.
The only true resolution to this and other crises is God's Kingdom. If you are a Christian, that is where we need to be guiding people to not name calling of ungodly liberal. I am sure there are both liberals and conservatives that He will need to judge. I don't want to lable myself with the titles of this world. I would rather be known to all as a follower of Jesus Christ. Whether in America or another country. I am Christian, not red, white, not conservative etc, but a person who preaches the gospel and know this and only this is the answer to all of mankinds woes.
Because I know Christ, I glady give back Ceasar's things to Ceasar's, I let Ceasar agrue over how to spend it. I tithe, I do attempt to care of fatherless children and widows. To teach men how to fish, but more importantly how to be fisher of men not just fish.
Posted by: Roberta | August 7, 2006 4:26 AM
