Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean the same churches who don't do charity work at all? I quit going to church because in UT and SoCal at least, the church is a wicked cool country club (Mormons excluded from this analysis, and no I'm not a Mormon). When I lived in UT probably half the non-LDS churches did not even have a food pantry at all. They were too busy being snot-nosed country clubs for the middle class with a side order of Jesus. The last one I went to was busy planning foreign missions in exotic locales (come on, these are not missionary trips, they are vacations) for two weeks and bickering over buying strobe lights and a fog machine. So much for WWJD!
Here in OC, I see all the time churches that state plainly that the poor and the indigent are not welcome there and that if they are caught loitering the cops will be called. Also, don't park your car there if you are homeless but still own a car--these nice Bible believers will have your car towed as they stick their nose up at you. As a result the homeless hang out in the library parking lot, on the benches outside bars, shopping malls and clubs, and in the parking lots of schools and libraries.
If the entitlements were taken away, I'm doubtful that the evangelicals here would open up at all. Maybe the Mormons (out here in SoCal they are just as worthless as their evangelical counterparts) or the Buddhists or an occasional Catholic parish. There is no way that these folks will all of a sudden leave their sanctuaries open or even open up their parking lots, let alone (god forbid) start a food pantry for the poor. That would just be inviting "those people" in.
One of the big driving factors in my becoming non-religious was the church. They just don't care. And I really don't think that if you take away the government they will step up. No freaking way. They don't want the riffraff at their doorstep. That would be too much like what Jesus did.
Wow, that's terrible. It's true though that many churches spend more money on sound equipment, tech stuff and mission vacations than helping the poor. Very sad.
Consider this too. If the economy is bad enough, what if there aren't enough donations to go around? If you have a lot of unemployed churchgoers (or buddhists, jews, atheists etc) who are struggling themselves, they wouldn't have enough to contribute to the food pantry. In a perfect world, charity probably does work better--less beaurocracy--but charity alone cannot solve the entire problem.
You mean the same churches who don't do charity work at all? I quit going to church because in UT and SoCal at least, the church is a wicked cool country club (Mormons excluded from this analysis, and no I'm not a Mormon). When I lived in UT probably half the non-LDS churches did not even have a food pantry at all. They were too busy being snot-nosed country clubs for the middle class with a side order of Jesus. The last one I went to was busy planning foreign missions in exotic locales (come on, these are not missionary trips, they are vacations) for two weeks and bickering over buying strobe lights and a fog machine. So much for WWJD!
Here in OC, I see all the time churches that state plainly that the poor and the indigent are not welcome there and that if they are caught loitering the cops will be called. Also, don't park your car there if you are homeless but still own a car--these nice Bible believers will have your car towed as they stick their nose up at you. As a result the homeless hang out in the library parking lot, on the benches outside bars, shopping malls and clubs, and in the parking lots of schools and libraries.
If the entitlements were taken away, I'm doubtful that the evangelicals here would open up at all. Maybe the Mormons (out here in SoCal they are just as worthless as their evangelical counterparts) or the Buddhists or an occasional Catholic parish. There is no way that these folks will all of a sudden leave their sanctuaries open or even open up their parking lots, let alone (god forbid) start a food pantry for the poor. That would just be inviting "those people" in.
One of the big driving factors in my becoming non-religious was the church. They just don't care. And I really don't think that if you take away the government they will step up. No freaking way. They don't want the riffraff at their doorstep. That would be too much like what Jesus did.
It doesn't have to be a church, any charity will do. Nobody knows who will step forward when gov't steps back - but we will have a lot more money in our pockets to be decisive about what charity we support as individuals. You could even start your own, if you don't like what's available.
I don't believe what you say about church's. Yes, many don't have a pantry or sleeping place for the homeless, but they do help support local homeless shelters.
You are bitter, sounds like you have personal issues to me.
Last edited by claudhopper; 08-09-2011 at 01:33 PM..
Wow, that's terrible. It's true though that many churches spend more money on sound equipment, tech stuff and mission vacations than helping the poor. Very sad.
Consider this too. If the economy is bad enough, what if there aren't enough donations to go around? If you have a lot of unemployed churchgoers (or buddhists, jews, atheists etc) who are struggling themselves, they wouldn't have enough to contribute to the food pantry. In a perfect world, charity probably does work better--less beaurocracy--but charity alone cannot solve the entire problem.
In a free society, people will be motivated and have numerous opportunities to take care of themselves. They simply won't if gov't says they will provide for all their needs. Nobody should be forced to take care of anybody else, unless they are children, then the parents are responsible. We owe a responsibility to our parents, as well. The rest can be supported by small community based organizations, charities, or private businesses.
FDR had the CCC Camps they received 3 squares a day and made a small allowance which most of it went home to the folks.They did public work projects and FDR wound not approve of todays social justice programs put these welfare people to work in their communities for their Uncle Sam free hand outs 25 hours a week will not kill these people maybe it will motivate them more to be productive in society than productive in the bedroom...JMO.
This is what I've been saying all along. It would give them a sense of accomplishment, and perhaps motivate them to find better employment.
Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.
I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.
mackinac
I think the key thing to remember is what life was like before and after entitlements. There is simply no record of anyone starving or huge homeless amounts or people dying in the streets prior to the 1964 Food Stamp Act or Medicare/Medicaid which both came out at the same time.
After they came out we began a debt which has never stopped increasing in every year since. But the bigger damage is in the social fabric with people more dependent on goverment they look less to themselves or in desperate cases to voluntary charity. The number of single mothers greatly increased in the 60's as many find they no longer need a man to provide for them and have governement to do enough for them instead.
Crime also started having much larger yearly increases right at that time: United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009
So I would eliminate them gradually and I think we would do better in nearly every way if we did.
Dependence breeds more dependence, after those entitlement programs came the pill bill and now Obamacare, in other countries they propose universal daycare. It never ends, not even with crushing debt and obvious societal degradation and never will until we simply say that people are responsible for themselves and mean it.
If there is one thing that defines my beliefs and why I became a Conservative it's that I simply realized that though the left have good intentions it simply is not possible for people ever to become more self-dependent and responsible by continually making them more dependent on the responsibility of government.
I think the key thing to remember is what life was like before and after entitlements. There is simply no record of anyone starving or huge homeless amounts or people dying in the streets prior to the 1964 Food Stamp Act or Medicare/Medicaid which both came out at the same time.
After they came out we began a debt which has never stopped increasing in every year since. But the bigger damage is in the social fabric with people more dependent on goverment they look less to themselves or in desperate cases to voluntary charity. The number of single mothers greatly increased in the 60's as many find they no longer need a man to provide for them and have governement to do enough for them instead.
Crime also started having much larger yearly increases right at that time: United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2009
So I would eliminate them gradually and I think we would do better in nearly every way if we did.
Dependence breeds more dependence, after those entitlement programs came the pill bill and now Obamacare, in other countries they propose universal daycare. It never ends, not even with crushing debt and obvious societal degradation and never will until we simply say that people are responsible for themselves and mean it.
If there is one thing that defines my beliefs and why I became a Conservative it's that I simply realized that though the left have good intentions it simply is not possible for people ever to become more self-dependent and responsible by continually making them more dependent on the responsibility of government.
Well said, I could not agree more. The yet to be answered question is: Can we pull ourselves back from the brink?
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Congress is becoming as corrupt as the Roman senate, which kept transferring property from the productive sector of society to the unproductive sector, until finally the productive sector collapsed and Rome herself fell. We are not quite at that stage yet, but there is not much time left to wake up and confront the moral rot that threatens to sink us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
