[herring_RN]

I agree that we should aid those that cannot help themselves and that we should not have to help aid those that can do for themselves.

But unless there is a perfect system there will be errors.

And determining who is who is complicated.

So is it best to err by denying one we think can do for themself? But whi chooses death rather than work?
Or do we err by providing for some who truly could if necessary?
Mentally ill homeless people are routinely foung dead on the street or a hideaway behind the bushes.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by herring_RN

I agree that we should aid those that cannot help themselves and that we should not have to help aid those that can do for themselves.

This quote above is a no-brainer and I submit EVERYBODY could agree to it. And do. The difference of opinion is where to shift the focus. We all support the generic boundaries involved, but we are each stuck in a focus of which boundary is MORE important. And that taints our moral image of ourselves, and those that disagree.

As YOU say, which is better, to inadvertently give aid to those that don't need in order to supply aid to all that do, or the opposite? Clearly you have one point of view.

From MY point of view, aiding those that don't need such aid is a force for destruction in our communities. I would say that it IS a greater moral evil to give aid that inadvertently creates that evil, in things like fatherlessness and lack of gainful employment. I think such aid destroys the ladders out of poverty, and that is NOT a benign side-effect.

It is JUST as destructive as not aiding all that need and cannot do for themselves.

Where do you draw the line? I think, case by case, and so, of necessity, as local as possible. THAT is why I think the federal gov't is ill-equipped to be the arbiter of that line.

While we like to accuse the other ideological side of not supporting the boundary WE deem important in favor of the one we deem not as important, that is perception. In reality, I think it is almost universal that we all support both boundaries.

So the question, it seems, is how to attack these types of social problems in ways that do not pit one boundary against another. Again, I do not think that can be effectively done from remote Washington. And so, there will always be an unnecessary ideological divide so long as Washington is the final arbiter.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Mijourney]

I agree that there is a moral obligation from those who can to help those who are unable to help themselves. This goes in and beyond government. Those of us who are missionaries or volunteers have an obligation to see to it that health care needs are being met in improverished circumstances. The gospel must come to life for the improverished.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Mijourney

I agree that there is a moral obligation from those who can to help those who are unable to help themselves. This goes in and beyond government. Those of us who are missionaries or volunteers have an obligation to see to it that health care needs are being met in improverished circumstances. The gospel must come to life for the improverished.

Exactly. Jesus did not call us to be good little TAXPAYERS. I pay taxes, therefore, my Christian obligations are met. No. I think there is an issue here of the limits of government power to compel charity. Charity doesn't work that way.

Charity, like poverty, is a choice for all but the infirm. When you compel charity, and subsidize poverty, by gov't decree, it becomes something else.

~faith,
Timothy.