Social Justice?

[seer]

No, I think all moral standards apply to Christians, but I don't think all OT laws do.

I had hoped that I had covered this in post #144 in the first paragraph when I was talking about the OT being our tutor, and Christ teaching the spirit of the law.

Yes, and I would say with Paul that God loves a cheerful giver, giving not under compulsion or by force of law.

Don't you see any dilemma between saying this, and in post #135 saying, "The problem is Sam that you pick and choose"?

No because I'm not supporting one OT law while rejecting another. I would make my arguments from NT principles.

A need was recognized and attempted as early as the 1880s, with the first social welfare programs being instituted in the 1930s. The US is a relatively young nation and we've had social welfare programs for approx. 85 of its years. How long do you believe welfare programs should be instituted to realize that there's a necessity?

I'm not sure what Federal welfare programs you see from the 1880s. There were state and city programs around.

I don't think anyone desires waste.

And no one is doing anything about the waste. Which only causes those on my side of the aisle to dig in and talk about scrapping the whole thing.

[Carrikature]

Yes, and I would say with Paul that God loves a cheerful giver, giving not under compulsion or by force of law.

It's not as if these are mutually exclusive.

And no one is doing anything about the waste. Which only causes those on my side of the aisle to dig in and talk about scrapping the whole thing.

Perhaps those on 'your side of the aisle' need to learn how to fix things instead of just throwing them out. The options you're presenting are 'less than ideal' and 'nothing at all'. From that perspective, 'nothing at all' is just laziness, but it's more often presented as "you can't make me".

[seer]

It's not as if these are mutually exclusive.

Of course they are, especially if you don't like being forced.

Perhaps those on 'your side of the aisle' need to learn how to fix things instead of just throwing them out. The options you're presenting are 'less than ideal' and 'nothing at all'. From that perspective, 'nothing at all' is just laziness, but it's more often presented as "you can't make me".

Right, it is nearly impossible when you have so many on the dole in one form or another. They will always vote their own self-interest.

[KingsGambit]

Of course they are, especially if you don't like being forced.

I don't understand how they would be. Social programs for the poor currently exist, yet charities still exist. Many people pay their taxes yet still give more.

[seer]

I don't understand how they would be. Social programs for the poor currently exist, yet charities still exist. Many people pay their taxes yet still give more.

We are still being forced by law to support these programs with our tax dollars. And if we didn't have to we could spend more on charities that are actually more efficient.

[Carrikature]

And if we didn't have to we could spend more on charities that are actually more efficient.

You could, except that people aren't doing that anyway. If existing charities were sufficient to meet existing needs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Carrikature]

Right, it is nearly impossible when you have so many on the dole in one form or another. They will always vote their own self-interest.

It's pretty hypocritical to denigrate others for voting in accordance with their self-interest when you (and others) are explicitly voting for your own self-interest.

[KingsGambit]

You could, except that people aren't doing that anyway. If existing charities were sufficient to meet existing needs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

And clearly they weren't even before the social safety net was set up. The room I'm working in today just happens to have an excerpt from Jacob Riis's 1890 work How the Other Half Lives left on the desk that drives home this point brutally.

[Zymologist]

You could, except that people aren't doing that anyway. If existing charities were sufficient to meet existing needs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But clearly, the government programs put in place for this reason aren't sufficient to meet the needs either (because the needs still exist). Is the only solution, then, to increasingly expand government until poverty has been eliminated?

[KingsGambit]

But clearly, the government programs put in place for this reason aren't sufficient to meet the needs either (because the needs still exist). Is the only solution, then, to increasingly expand government until poverty has been eliminated?

The elimination of poverty is going to be impossible under any paradigm (Matthew 26:11) this side of eternity. I think a more realistic goal is to, say, go after child hunger and minimize harms of poverty so people can still have basic needs met.

[Adrift]

Yes, and I would say with Paul that God loves a cheerful giver, giving not under compulsion or by force of law.

I think you're putting an odd emphasis on that verse. As though Paul is saying, "hey, if you're not being a cheerful giver, don't give at all!". He's not saying that though. He's telling people who do give, that its beneficial for them if they do so cheerfully. NT scholar professor David E. Garfield highlights this point by quoting another NT scholar professor David Horrell here:

Source: Second Corinthians by David E. Garland

Horrell reflects on how this verse can be twisted to mean something other than Paul intended:

Source: Paul's Collection by David Horrell

The comfortable rich who wish to remain so may interpret this to mean that if they can only give a little cheerfully, and would resent giving more, then God would rather they give only a little. Paul, it is clear, puts things rather differently: where the grace of God abounds, there people of their own free-will abound in good deeds (9:8), like the righteous one whom the scripture describes as scattering gifts freely to the poor (9:9).

© Copyright Original Source

© Copyright Original Source

No because I'm not supporting one OT law while rejecting another. I would make my arguments from NT principles.

This would launch a whole other side-discussion, but I'm curious how one would thoroughly flesh out all of the major moral debates in this nation using only NT principles. I imagine it'd be difficult to do. And it still doesn't answer the question, why should non-Christians be expected to follow Christian ethics. At any rate, it seems to me that those for social welfare have made arguments from NT principles as well.

I'm not sure what Federal welfare programs you see from the 1880s. There were state and city around.

I didn't specify federal, but this may interest you http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1135.html

And no one is doing anything about the waste. Which only causes those on my side of the aisle to dig in and talk about scrapping the whole thing.

A bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Carrikature]

But clearly, the government programs put in place for this reason aren't sufficient to meet the needs either (because the needs still exist). Is the only solution, then, to increasingly expand government until poverty has been eliminated?

In most cases, my assessment of existing government programs finds them to be insufficient in part because of how private sector contractors treat the government and in part because of general governmental inefficiencies. So no, I would not say that the only solution is to expand the government. I would, however, suggest that we be willing and prepared to expand it when/where it's necessary. If things are inefficient, we need to correct that. If things are insufficient, we need to expand them. There can be reasonable limits to this, of course.

The arguments from most conservatives regarding social justice issues are seldom based on a disagreement about the existence of certain inequalities, but about who has to pay to help correct those inequalities (at least the payment side is a much louder dissent). It comes across as the left saying "we should fix all these things" and the right saying "I don't wanna pay for it" or "I'm already paying too much for those lowlifes". If we really wanted to do this right, we'd have both sides evaluating and discussing priorities and possible alternatives including tightening loopholes. I've seen plenty of complaints about people on welfare having nice cars and big screen televisions, but I haven't seen anyone trying to fix that. I've seen a lot of complaints from the right about how the left tries to assist minorities with things like college aid, but I haven't seen the right trying to fix that, either. It's a 'do nothing' or 'do it badly' scenario, and most people are going to vote for the latter because at least it's something.

[seer]

I think you're putting an odd emphasis on that verse. As though Paul is saying, "hey, if you're not being a cheerful giver, don't give at all!". He's not saying that though. He's telling people who do give, that its beneficial for them if they do so cheerfully. NT scholar professor David E. Garfield highlights this point by quoting another NT scholar professor David Horrell here:

Source: Second Corinthians by David E. Garland

Horrell reflects on how this verse can be twisted to mean something other than Paul intended:

Source: Paul's Collection by David Horrell

The comfortable rich who wish to remain so may interpret this to mean that if they can only give a little cheerfully, and would resent giving more, then God would rather they give only a little. Paul, it is clear, puts things rather differently: where the grace of God abounds, there people of their own free-will abound in good deeds (9:8), like the righteous one whom the scripture describes as scattering gifts freely to the poor (9:9).

© Copyright Original Source

© Copyright Original Source

I don't see how that counters the free will nature of my argument.

This would launch a whole other side-discussion, but I'm curious how one would thoroughly flesh out all of the major moral debates in this nation using only NT principles. I imagine it'd be difficult to do. And it still doesn't answer the question, why should non-Christians be expected to follow Christian ethics. At any rate, it seems to me that those for social welfare have made arguments from NT principles as well.

We would have to take one topic at a time.

I didn't specify federal, but this may interest you http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohisto...ages/1135.html

Yes, and as far as I can tell the Settlement houses were not funded by the Federal Government, but I like this idea:

American settlement houses functioned on a philosophy of “scientific philanthropy,” a belief that instead of giving direct relief, charities should give resources to the poor so they could break out of the circle of poverty. American charity workers feared that the deeply entrenched social class system in Europe would develop in the United States.

A bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But we will lose the whole ball of wax if we keep going this way. We are already trillions in debt.

[Carrikature]

The elimination of poverty is going to be impossible under any paradigm (Matthew 26:11) this side of eternity. I think a more realistic goal is to, say, go after child hunger and minimize harms of poverty so people can still have basic needs met.

I agree, and I'd be strongly in favor of figuring out how to do this by way of teaching them basic life and work skills. For a country whose infrastructure is well on the road to decay, it seems like a golden opportunity to re-enact some of the New Deal programs (but ofc someone has to pay for that, too).

[Zymologist]

In most cases, my assessment of existing government programs finds them to be insufficient in part because of how private sector contractors treat the government and in part because of general governmental inefficiencies. So no, I would not say that the only solution is to expand the government. I would, however, suggest that we be willing and prepared to expand it when/where it's necessary. If things are inefficient, we need to correct that. If things are insufficient, we need to expand them. There can be reasonable limits to this, of course.

The arguments from most conservatives regarding social justice issues are seldom based on a disagreement about the existence of certain inequalities, but about who has to pay to help correct those inequalities (at least the payment side is a much louder dissent). It comes across as the left saying "we should fix all these things" and the right saying "I don't wanna pay for it" or "I'm already paying too much for those lowlifes". If we really wanted to do this right, we'd have both sides evaluating and discussing priorities and possible alternatives including tightening loopholes. I've seen plenty of complaints about people on welfare having nice cars and big screen televisions, but I haven't seen anyone trying to fix that. I've seen a lot of complaints from the right about how the left tries to assist minorities with things like college aid, but I haven't seen the right trying to fix that, either. It's a 'do nothing' or 'do it badly' scenario, and most people are going to vote for the latter because at least it's something.

But what if those opposed to these policies don't think they actually help, for example? You seem to be assuming very selfish motivation on the part of all those who disagree with you, and purely altruistic motivation on the part of all those who agree with you, as though there's no possible reason for opposing any government program other than "I don't wanna pay for it, even though it'll help other people."