Author Archive
Welfare falls short of Christian charity
Written by Thomas Lasher
Tuesday, 26 February 2008 05:58
14 Comments

The favorite example of Democratic righteousness is the party’s support of the welfare system. They claim that if conservatives really cared about Christian values and helping fellow Americans in need, then the Republican Party would favor policies that tax the rich and redistribute wealth to the poor. Liberal Democrats point to government assistance and the welfare state as a model of Christian charity in action. In reality government welfare is at best a pale reflection of true Christian giving.

Admittedly, the welfare system was designed for a noble purpose – to assist the less fortunate either financially or through other means including food, housing, and work programs. Certainly this type of assistance benefits many people. And those who work for or support government sponsored welfare programs generally have the best intentions at heart. They genuinely want to make a positive difference in the lives of those who receive these services. I do not doubt the honesty of their convictions, nor should we discredit the good they do accomplish. But in the end government bureaucracy does not fulfill the demands of Christian love of neighbor.

Liberals correctly point out that Jesus commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. The Sermon on the Mount and the command to love our neighbor form the basis for the liberal argument in favor of the “Christian” welfare state. Liberals argue that Christian Conservatives neglect this key element of their faith when applying Christian principles to their own version of public policy. Supposedly conservatives have no heart when it comes to the down-trodden and do not heed the words of Jesus about those in need. In truth, conservatives are not heartless or dismissive of human suffering or ignorant of basic Christian ethics. Conservatives know that the poor suffer and need our help. But they also know that making charitable work an integral function of the government actually diminishes the goodness of charity and reduces its spiritual impact.

Charitable acts, when they are truly “Christian,” not only alleviate the suffering of those in need, which is a great good in itself, but goodness is also found in the giver who makes a willing sacrifice. Jesus tells Christians to help the poor because in doing so we not only help our neighbor, but we too benefit spiritually by strengthening our own faith and by building communal bonds with others. Government welfare on the other hand creates a barrier between the giver (the taxpayer) and the receiver (those in need) that filters out any spiritual context. The poor receive benefits from a faceless and faithless bureaucracy; and taxpayers pay taxes, not out of charitable goodwill or faith in God, but because the force of law compels them to do so under strict penalties. That is not Christian charity; it is simply doing your duty to Uncle Sam.

This is not to say that the government should never play a role in assisting the poor. The government has an obligation to regulate certain variables within the economy to prevent or correct social injustices including poverty. But the primary responsibility for ensuring basic human rights and assisting economically oppressed rests with individuals and private organizations such as churches and civic groups which meet the spiritual and emotional as well as the physical needs of those they serve. A partnership with government that allows faith-based organizations to do the job that government is not equipped to do would be in the best interest of all involved.

Making “charity” a function of the secular bureaucracy, rather than a genuine outpouring of love between individuals, contradicts the true spirit of the Christian message. Authentic Christian charity is given out of compassion and love for humanity, and as an act of obedience to God. From a Christian perspective, our charitable good works belong to God. If we make government the primary facilitator of charity, in effect forfeiting our Christian duty to love our neighbor, is this not in effect giving to Caesar what is rightfully God’s? That is a concept no “party of Christian values” should ever proclaim.

 
Conservatives more open minded than liberals?
Written by Thomas Lasher
Tuesday, 12 February 2008 04:33
No Comments

It is no secret that liberals tend to be more permissive than conservatives on decisions of morality. Part of the reason for this stems from the Left’s insistence that “right” and “wrong” are determined by each individual rather than as a function of society or the culture. On the Left many reject the conservative belief in traditional morality as being closed-minded and unsympathetic to the uniqueness of each person. I propose that the truth is exactly the opposite. It is the Left’s moral relativism that is (1) closed-minded and (2) ignores the true value of the individual.

 

1) Moral relativism is closed-minded.

A relativist approach to morality holds that moral truth depends largely on who you ask. According to this way of thinking, we may each hold an opinion or version of the truth, but that opinion is shaped by cultural, religious, and historical conditions, and is constantly in flux. For the Left, morality can vary from person to person depending on his or her own life experience which, of course, can change over time. There is no one moral code for everyone that remains constant. Or in more simple terms: “What’s right for you may not be right for me, and what’s wrong for you may not be wrong for me.” Morality is an individual choice.

And so, the left gets away with moral laziness. They do not have to make tough moral decisions because they can simply fall back on the relativist claim to an individualized moral code where there is no absolute “right” and “wrong,” other than what you make for yourself. Thus Leftists never need bother to explore the complexity of any moral issue. You can simply do what makes you feel good, without consideration for anything bigger than your own desires and emotions. Moral relativism is closed-minded because it completely shuts out the possibility that there is something greater than the individual and even beyond all of humanity, something that exists outside of space and time that can show us a truly moral life.

 

2) Moral relativism devalues the individual.

Supposedly moral relativism elevates the status of the individual by granting each person the ability to determine his or her own moral code. We are told this empowers each person and is therefore uplifting. However this does not bring more dignity to the individual, but instead devalues the human person in at least two ways. First, it isolates each person from others because cultural and social bonds deteriorate when the shared values of a society are removed. The common values we hold as a society dictate the intrinsic worth of human life and establish moral justice. Without an agreed upon moral code, no one can be certain of his or her personal rights because each individual is free to define those rights differently based on their own parameters. We are then left with a multiplicity of competing moral codes which cannot guarantee equal dignity or rights to any individual.

Secondly, and perhaps most damaging of all, moral relativism diminishes the dignity and value of each individual because relativism essentially denies the existence of God. By questioning moral truth, the Left implicitly questions the source of that Truth, which is to say the Left is for all practical purposes atheistic (or at the very least agnostic). According to the relativist stance, human rights and dignity are granted by group consensus which relies on the changing whim of the populace. This runs entirely contrary to our founding principles which state that our rights are endowed to us by our Creator and in this way are unalienable. By acknowledging a creative source to our being, the traditional system of morality raises the level of dignity of each individual by showing humanity to be a reflection of the divine Being. In contrast, moral relativism has closed its mind to God and thus shatters the worth of each human person.