Charity or Social Work

Excellent post!

Thanks, Tony.

My take on this convention: the democratic party has become irrelevant and meaningless....it has unequivocally and openly embraced evil....it is in fact an axis of evil.

The difference between charity and social work is like the difference between chastity and abstinence. One carries an aura of 'we must do this because it is an obligation' - the other carries that of 'we will do this because it is a gift that I am both giving and receiving'.

Thanks for this post. It has always driven me crazy to hear people say "Well, the Democrats are more in-line with the Church on social issues." I've learned to control myself now, but in my youth I was apt to point out quite snidely that the mandate of Christ was for Christian love to feed the poor, not taxes that are poorly spent in the creation of a beuaracracy that feeds the poor but in such an impersonal way that it dehumaizes them and keeps them trapped in a vicious cycle of systematic povery.

The problem is that if we rely on charity in this society, people will die of poverty by the thousands. There are not enough Christians left who take their obligation to help the poor seriously. Thus, the Republican policy of relying upon charity won't work, and people will die.

So, in that sense, the Democrats do have Republicans beat. It's not as if they're eliminating charity, but they're putting a social work system in place for when and if charity fails to help.

Nathan - please reread your post, and then think about your other recent posts.

Above, you say Republican policy would kill poor people. Republicans kill poor people. Do you really think it's official Republican policy to gut all social programs and let the poor and hungry die if they aren't helped?

And when you say something like Republicans kill poor people and then play the equivalence game on abortion between John Kerry and George Bush, well that's just regrettable and makes no sense.

The point of my original post is this:
Catholics who think the govt is going to be the main source of social welfare and implement the best ways of helping the poor and needy are kidding themselves. They are asking the state to do something minimalistic where Christ asked us to not only feed and clothe the poor but also show them the way to eternal life.

One more thing - this is something I was trying to say in a subtle way but Nathan has forced me to be blunt:

If Left-leaning Christians who think the Govt. is going to save the poor with social programs spent a fraction of their time on real charitable work, there wouldn't be a deficit of true charitable activity in this country. And the same politicians who think another billion spent on food stamps or homeless shelters for the little people are the ones who work very, very hard to make sure that the littlest people can be aborted.

This is a challenge to all Christians: spend more time on charity than on watching TV, reading trashy novels or just doing selfish things. Then you won't be shamed into having a cheap politician who has sold out on abortion tell you he can make the world a better place just by throwing money around.

More poor Americans die from obesity than from hunger. Drive around the inner city sometime, or rural areas, and you'll see far more fat people than those who are starving. Thanks to the productivity of our capitalist economy, we've got more food than we can handle.

Once again, Nathan, I challenge you to be specific. You're all about making grandiose generalities, but are you aware that the Republicans are not (and, unfortunately, will not) be reducing any welfare programs either for the poor (Medicaid, AFDC) or the middle class (Social Security, Medicare)?

Why do you think the "social safety net" would be impeded by a Republican victory, when we're already spending two-thirds of the Federal budget on social programs, a number that will only increase as the Boomers get older? Nobody in national politics is proposing that we change that; indeed, the only proposals on the table are to feed our quasi-socialist government.

Which is unfortunate, because I don't think anyone who can help themselves has any right to someone else's money. Even if they're old.

Specifics, Nathan.

Eric, you disgust me on so many levels, and I will no longer reply to your comments. Your opinions are inconsistent with Catholic social teaching. They are, however, very much in accordance with Republican social teaching. That just contributes to the evidence that you are a Republican in Catholic clothing.

The Republicans have already reduced funding to social programs in favor of their unjust war; your lying will not change that fact.

JS -- I did not say that Republicans were deliberately killing people by their policies. You, my friend, are the one who needs to go back and reread my comment. I said that Republican policies would result in the deaths of thousands -- not that they were deliberately trying to kill anyone. I'm inclined to give you the same response that Teresa Heinz Kerry gave to a reporter who misquoted her and took her words out of context, putting words in her mouth that she didn't say; but I'll refrain.

Nathan, your last comment on this thread is far out of line. If you can't force yourself to be polite, take a time out.

RC - thanks for the moment of sanity.

Nathan - here's my reasoning.
If A is the principal cause of B, and B is the principal cause of C then A is the principal cause of C.

I can't quote you as saying that "Republicans kill the poor" but the logic of your argument can be boiled down to that.

In any case, the rest of my post is more important than what I'm put above.

I have a few questions regarding this subject, is anyone still reading this post.