It is a idea I hear often. The rich should have to give to the poor. I fail to understand the logic behind that. If I work and prosper why should I then be compelled to give it away ? If I inherit a fortune why should I then be forced to give it away ? Why should I have to give anything to anyone ? Other than a moral obligation to do so, I can see no reason I should.
That very idea sparked quite a conversation yesterday. I engaged in a lengthy debate, on Facebook, about the purpose of Government and charity, It is my contention that the Government is not a charitable organization and was not designed to be so. That is not the purpose of Government. Charity comes first from the individual and then the Church or other organizations designed for that purpose.
It is a wonderful thing that our government sees fit to offer assistance. The key word there being assistance. To assist ( to help ) implies that the person receiving that help is doing something to better their position, they just need a little help. This assistance is not a right it is an entitlement. Should you qualify for this help you may receive it. These government programs are not a function of the government, they have nothing to do with governing, they exist only by the charity of the people. To many in our country this has become a " forced charity " and that point is well taken. When I am compelled to pay into a system that in turn gives that money away, without my authorization,to individuals or groups that I do not approve, is that not forced charity ? It is difficult to see it otherwise, unless you are the one getting the free stuff.
Then we reached the point of charity. How much should I have to give. It was determined the Bible suggests 10%. Setting aside the whole Church and State issue let us assume that figure for Government charitable programs. The extremely wealthy man donates his 10% and the minimum wage worker chips in his 10%. Which has donated more ? Ten per cent is ten per cent is it not ? Is your ten per cent any less than my ten per cent ? Of course not and that is where the logic falls off the track. If I am rich I should give more than ten per cent because I am rich ? Why ? Because I have more than you ? Unless you are completely destitute you have more than someone else so why don't you give more ?
We live in a country were we value our freedom over anything else. We are free to do as we see fit, within certain constraints of course. I am free to make as much money and acquire as much wealth as I desire as long as I do it legally. Only my own heart and conscience compels me to give any of it away. Charity is a function of the individual. That is a very old saying, " Charity begins at home " and one worth taking the time to understand. If you believe that all wealth should be distributed equally among the people you are living in the wrong country. A socialist state may be more to your liking. That is how it is supposed to work in their system, unless of course you are in the ruling class, then you are exempt from that whole sharing thing.
It was a nice discussion. I don't think anyone involved in that discussion was offended by any of it. I do think it is a discussion we the people should be having with our government. We should be talking about all of this with our elected officials and those that wish to represent us. It is a very complex issue. Charity or assistance ? Should charity be a forced action ? If assistance is to be given, should not the recipient be compelled to do something in return as grateful acknowledgement of that assistance ? Are there limits to charity and assistance ?
If you take the position that our government is not Christian based then our government has no moral obligation to the people at all. If you believe that it is Christian based then there are those values to be considered. But wait, I already hear the cries of Separation of Church and State. That separation does not imply the absence of Church in government but does define its' role. Charity is not a function of Government.
That very idea sparked quite a conversation yesterday. I engaged in a lengthy debate, on Facebook, about the purpose of Government and charity, It is my contention that the Government is not a charitable organization and was not designed to be so. That is not the purpose of Government. Charity comes first from the individual and then the Church or other organizations designed for that purpose.
It is a wonderful thing that our government sees fit to offer assistance. The key word there being assistance. To assist ( to help ) implies that the person receiving that help is doing something to better their position, they just need a little help. This assistance is not a right it is an entitlement. Should you qualify for this help you may receive it. These government programs are not a function of the government, they have nothing to do with governing, they exist only by the charity of the people. To many in our country this has become a " forced charity " and that point is well taken. When I am compelled to pay into a system that in turn gives that money away, without my authorization,to individuals or groups that I do not approve, is that not forced charity ? It is difficult to see it otherwise, unless you are the one getting the free stuff.
Then we reached the point of charity. How much should I have to give. It was determined the Bible suggests 10%. Setting aside the whole Church and State issue let us assume that figure for Government charitable programs. The extremely wealthy man donates his 10% and the minimum wage worker chips in his 10%. Which has donated more ? Ten per cent is ten per cent is it not ? Is your ten per cent any less than my ten per cent ? Of course not and that is where the logic falls off the track. If I am rich I should give more than ten per cent because I am rich ? Why ? Because I have more than you ? Unless you are completely destitute you have more than someone else so why don't you give more ?
We live in a country were we value our freedom over anything else. We are free to do as we see fit, within certain constraints of course. I am free to make as much money and acquire as much wealth as I desire as long as I do it legally. Only my own heart and conscience compels me to give any of it away. Charity is a function of the individual. That is a very old saying, " Charity begins at home " and one worth taking the time to understand. If you believe that all wealth should be distributed equally among the people you are living in the wrong country. A socialist state may be more to your liking. That is how it is supposed to work in their system, unless of course you are in the ruling class, then you are exempt from that whole sharing thing.
It was a nice discussion. I don't think anyone involved in that discussion was offended by any of it. I do think it is a discussion we the people should be having with our government. We should be talking about all of this with our elected officials and those that wish to represent us. It is a very complex issue. Charity or assistance ? Should charity be a forced action ? If assistance is to be given, should not the recipient be compelled to do something in return as grateful acknowledgement of that assistance ? Are there limits to charity and assistance ?
If you take the position that our government is not Christian based then our government has no moral obligation to the people at all. If you believe that it is Christian based then there are those values to be considered. But wait, I already hear the cries of Separation of Church and State. That separation does not imply the absence of Church in government but does define its' role. Charity is not a function of Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment