Thoughts from Timothy Dalrymple:
One of the great difficulties of this issue, for Christians, is that the morality of spending and debt has been so thoroughly demagogued that it’s impossible to advocate cuts in government spending without being accused of hatred for the poor and needy. A group calling itself the “Circle of Protection” recently promoted a statement on “Why We Need to Protect Programs for the Poor.” But we don’t need to protect the programs. We need to protect the poor. Indeed, sometimes we need to protect the poor from the programs. Too many anti-poverty programs are beneficial for the politicians that pass them, and veritable boondoggles for the government bureaucracy that administers them, but they actually serve to rob the poor of their dignity and their initiative, they undermine the family structures that help the poor build prosperous lives, and ultimately mire the poor in poverty for generations. Does anyone actually believe that the welfare state has served the poor well?
It is immoral to ignore the needs of the least of these. But it’s also immoral to ’serve’ the poor in ways that only make more people poor, and trap them in poverty longer. And it’s immoral to amass a mountain of debt that we will pass on to later generations. I even believe it’s immoral to feed the government’s spending addiction. Since our political elites have demonstrated such remarkably poor stewardship over our common resources, it would be foolish and wrong to give them more resources to waste. What we need our political leaders committed to prudence and thrift, to wise and far-sighted stewardship, and to spurring a free and thriving economy that will encourage the poor and all Americans to seize their human dignity as creatures made in the image of God, to be fruitful and take initiative and express their talents and creativity.
Fat chance of that. Not enough opportunities for graft.
Guess the Circle of Protection (protecting the “liberal” Plantation, that is) isn’t big on keeping religion out of politics.
Rather than use moral philosophy to determine who the good guys are, why not just use empirical evidence? On the right, you have the Tea Party: loving fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives who defend their spouses and children. On the left, you have degenerates like Bill Maher and Anthony Weiner.
We’re good. They’re evil. And we’re going to crush them.
Whatever.
Voting for other people to pay your (or someone elses) bills is an act of theft. More precisely, given that the police enforce it, armed robbery. Why this isn’t brought up in these “What would Jesus do?” pseudo religious debates is beyond me.
One of the strengths of our system is the ability for churches or other groups to form or donate to a charity that will address the problems they think are most important. Churches shouldn’t look to government to do the job they should be doing themselves.