'Republicans defended the cuts after Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif., quoted the Book of Matthew in opposing them: "When I was hungry, you gave me food. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink." Several Republicans talked about their Christianity and said the Bible encourages people to help one another but doesn't dictate what the federal government should do. "We should be doing this as individuals, helping the poor," said Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.'
I'll note that if federal aid to needy families was actually handled adequately by "individuals, helping the poor," there would have been little need for such federal programs.
Or, put another way, if the Biblical mandate is toward individuals (and we'll leave aside Religious Right rhetoric about how nations get blessed or punished collectively for their behavior), then what does it say when an individual votes to reduce funding to feed the hungry, or to make it less convenient for them to get the help they need?
House panel set to OK cut in food-stamp program
The problem I have with charity being only an individual responsibility is that it inevitably ends up serving only those whom the giver thinks are “worthy”. Because the point of religious or individual charity is seldom to address any problem that damages all of society, in all its diversity.
@George – A good point. Though at some point in time, it would seem that there’s always some sort of definition of “worthy” that gets applied, strictly or poorly. Even when it’s governmental programs.
The more I think about this, @George, the more I think you are onto something. A huge part of the pushback about governmental charity is that it goes to “unworthy” people — people of the wrong color, people who are lazy, people who take drugs, people who aren’t trying hard enough to find work, people who hold dislikable ideas, people who are immoral, people who don’t worship God the right way, people who don’t follow the right rules with the right fervor. Private charity allows one to discriminate while doing good — giving money to the right kind of needy people.
Jesus, of course, didn’t single out the moral poor, or the worthy poor, or the pleasant poor, or the righteous poor, as the poor that needed to be helped, or the poor for whom “that which you do to the least of these, you do unto me”. He just spoke of the poor.
The problem with relying on charity is there is not enough, cannot be enough. Funding the U.S. safety net programs would wipe out the bank balances and all assets of American churches in a few months.
And then?
I guess one way of making that argument, @Ed, would be to somehow track charitable contributions over time to see how they have risen, or fallen, with governmental programs. E.g., when the War on Poverty was implemented, did charitable giving go down (because the Government was taking care of it?); di
In an arguably much more pious time, the problems of the poor ended up with people starving or being consigned to workhouses and debtors prison. That, to me, confirms that simply relying on private charity is nowhere near enough.
P.S. The Bible doesn’t say, “let private charities handle it so far as they can.” The Bible says we have a duty to feed the hungry, clothe the unclothed, and shelter the homeless.
It doesn’t say “don’t use the national treasury, though.” It doesn’t say “don’t worry about it if you run out of private charity.” It says, “DO IT.”
When the Disciples told Jesus they didn’t have enough to feed everybody, and so Jesus should let them fend for themselves, what did Jesus say?
I can intellectually understand the question of people not being compelled to charity, via taxation. That seems to rob it from any moral benefit to the individual, if it is done unwillingly. (So maybe the point is that we should be figuring out how to encourage people to give willingly.) On the other hand, an individual’s role in society goes beyond just what they, individually can do, but what they can persuade others to do (and, thus, in a representative democracy, what they advocate for the government to do).
(That leaves off the entire pragmatic question of the societal and economic value of not having a starving, disease-ridden underclass.)
Maybe that’s the issue here, speaking (so to speak) charitably. The individuals who argue against governmental charity perceive government as an external entity, taking stuff. Other see it as an expression of the individuals who participate in its representation, directly or through their votes and other advocacy.