Published: Thursday, April 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Ok Fred,Lets say that you are 100% correct. And that we all agree
with you.Now, lets talk about a separate issue.People
without food or health care.There will always be some in society
that are not making it. Yes, maybe they are lazy, or crazy, or stupid, or sick,
or hurt. Surely you understand that "charity" does not cover all these
people.What do we do as a society? I mean that as a completely
serious question. I am talking about the people (children included) that dont
have access to their church welfare program or friends and family that can help
them out. Do we let some starve to death? Or die because they cant afford a
routine medical procedure?Now, many will say that we are too
generous with our government help, and I would agree. Government help should be
reserved for those who are truly in need. Those that wont make it otherwise.
Until we get out of the ALL or NOTHING mindset, ideas just look
crazy. And to those of you who carp about what the constitution
does and does not allow for, you may want to re read. Supreme court perhaps?
My father diesd in 2010 at the age of 90. He grew up in the midst of the Great
Depression. Over the years, we enjoyed many philosophical discussions about the
country and our obligations as citizens. I'm sure my father would never
have wanted a return to the Depression, but when he talked about those times he
almost spoke with fondness about the community he grew up in where nieghbors
looked out for each other and, despite those challenging times, no one went
hungry. It was a small community which probably had a lot to do with how they
lived. Today urbanism has replaced rural life and some hardly know the names of
their neighbors just two doors away, let alone whether or not they need help. I
think it was probably that communitarian spirit that John Florez was writing
about.A favrite scripturwe says "And the Lord called his people
Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in
righteousness; and there was no poor among them."Those are lofty
goals. So the question is how to attain that condition in our modern lives?
So is Christianity a part of the constitution or not? Because when it comes to
social issues, repubs love to insert religion into the constitution. Just look
at mike levitt's comments at Uvu a few days ago. But when it comes to
health care or edu, all of a sudden religion is yanked out. Why?Make
up your minds repubs! Y'all can't have it both ways!
Charity is an essential element in our society, but it must be done freely, in a
way which elevates both the giver and the receiver.If the giver is
forced to give, it's not charity. If the receiver feels entitled to take,
it's not charity. Our current programs fail in both regards. Federal
bureaucracy is a horrible way to provide charity, even laying aside
constitutional considerations.We need to revive the concept of civil
society, which includes all of the diverse ways in which citizens freely
organize in order to provide charity for those less fortunate. Churches, clubs,
fraternities, schools, families, professional organizations, philanthropic
foundations, trade unions, and sports groups are all examples of organizations
which make up civil society.I disagree with the headline. I believe
charity *is* freedom. We can't have one without the other.
Fred, have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?It came from some
guy named Jesus. Ever heard of him?
I would love to hear Fred parse the phrase from the preamble to the Constitution
that one of the functions of our government is to "provide for the general
welfare". No religion mentioned or inferred. Straightforward and easy to
understand. I am puzzled how he missed this clause as it comes prior to the
second amendment in the document.
Excellent letter Fred. Thank you.
Fred, one purpose of our constitutional government is to "promote the
general welfare". Why in your view are public "moneys" excluded as
a means to accomplish that constitutional goal?
To me, everybody who makes this argument sounds selfish.
For the billionth time, the Founders DID NOT intend a limited federal
government. They already had one, in the Articles of Confederation. They hated
the result. The central Constitutional doctrine is NOT limited government,
it's separation of powers. In other words, government was intended to be
big enough, and powerful enough, that it required decentralization. Get this
principle right, people.
The Government does not provide "Charity", it provides
"Welfare".There's the problem.Not using proper
definitions, or twisting them to suit an agenda.BTW - Charity
is the pure love of Christ.So, I can give money to a church [an
organization] that helps those in need, or I can give money to a
government [an organiation] that helps those in need, The
underlying factor is: Are you helping your neighbor or serving mankind? Who CARES who's name is on it.I'm obeying God
regardless.It's really a mindset.It all depends on where
your heart is.
It appears that the letter writer does not want his tax dollars to go toward
these sorts of things. I think we can all point to many things that we do not
want our tax dollars to do. But providing, in some small way, for those that our
society leaves behind falls dead last on the list of wasteful spending in my
The purpose of government is to do those things for people citizens that they
can’t or don’t want to do for themselves. There are no golden
or laws from God that put limits on what those things can do. In
America, under the Capitalistic economic system, people who profit from the
needs of people don’t want government to fill those needs. Because the
government can always do it better and cheaper than the private businessmen it
cheats the businessmen of their profits. Business is a necessary
and proper element in our society, it provide the transfer of wealth and goods
through out the society. Private charity is a business that takes wealth from
the people and returns a portion thereof but never destroys the need for
charity. Only the government has the authority and ability to fix the problems
that charity feeds upon. But if it did, it would eliminate the need for the
@Eric Samuelsen "[T]he Founders DID NOT intend a limited federal
government."I'd like to see your explanation of the Tenth
Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."It is clear that the Founders
intended to delegate some powers to the federal government, and withhold others.
The entire Bill of Rights enumerates individual rights which cannot be infringed
by government.They intended a stronger government than was provided
by the Articles of Confederation, but they still created it with limits.@Ultra Bob "[T]he government can always do it better and cheaper
than the private businessmen."On which planet?
The distain for having to provide for societies poor, sick, homeless, needy
[those not willing or able to contribute to society] -- was the primary driver
for Nazi gas chambers.That, and the continuing distain for
non-Christians, homosexuals, liberals, communists, and immigrants.sounds to close for comfort to me...
Fun posts to Fred's letter. I get a kick out of Eric's tirade of the
correctness of his opinion, or else. Those who would not have government be
"charitable" however it may be defined are vilified, those who would
have government do everything but turn down the bed and leave a cookie seem to
see themselves as one rung below angels. How about this: Life isn't fair,
not charitable nor evil it just is. We as carbon based life forms can make a
difference by our actions. If we want charity then we should individually fund
it. Agree to increase withholding taxes earmarked for charitable giving by your
favorite entity be it government or private. Or, donate to Shriner's
hospital, PCMC, Fourth Street Clinic, etc. and allow others the same privilege.
We can all start by taking care of our own back yards, and when
that's done we can focus on our neighbor's ills.
" I have a plan, it will save every man. I will force them to live
righteously. They won't have to choose. Not a one we will lose and give all
the glory to me. This is the way, not a thing you will pay. Any problems and
pain will not be. No wars and no strife, a wonderful life and give all the glory
to me. Follow me this is the way it should be. Nobody needs to be free."Satan.
God will not force any man to Heaven.
I find it hilarious that some deluded people who shall not be named, actually
believe the Government helps people. They take everything for themselves and
give the people they are supposedly helping the table scraps leaving them
dependant instead of teaching them a trade of any kind. Most of
these other "charity" organizations take all of the money for themselves
and give the people they are supposed to be helping the pocket change.
Fred illutrates the big difference between conservatives and
progressives/liberals. Fred believes the government is a foriegn body that
needs to be controlled - the enemy. Liberals believe that "we the
people" are the government - and that there is no third party called the
"government".Back when the concstition was written, big
government was not an over bloated democracy. It was a monachy rulled by birth
right. They were not talking about anything like we have today - because what
we have today did not exist - anywhere - in society at that time. They
couldn't have been talking about it... they didn't know what
"it" was.Now, I do agree, government, and government
spending needs to be contained. We the people have been given access to the
piggy bank, and it is very hard to control that urge to spend beyond our means.
I fully support "limited" government in this context.But
there was no "Big Government" as Fred illudes at that time.... when
applied to todays defnitions. It didn't not exist.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments