From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: "Christian politics"??
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:36:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

In reply to John Bullough's article, I have the following comments:

It seems to me that those who want government social programs are
trying to have it both ways.  They are saying that people have a moral
obligation to help the poor -- ``Doesn't the government of any nation
have a moral responsibility to care for its widows, orphans, sick,
etc... Yes....''  At the same time, they (NOT John Bullough
necessarily...) say that one must NOT bring up issues of personal
moral accountability.

For example, I would have no problem with Aid to Families with
Dependent Children if it only went to widows.  But if it goes to
unmarried mothers who never were married and have no intention of
getting married, I have to ask myself, ``Why am I paying for the
consequences of moral decisions with which I disagree?''  Should my
tax money be spent encouraging lifestyles that I think are destructive
to individuals and society?  In the case of diseases like AIDS or the
health problems drug addicts have, much the same question arises.

Those who bring up personal morality in this context are accused of
``seeking to force their morality on others.'' However, isn't
REQUIRING people to support the poor and needy a moral decision forced
on others?  After all, arguing against social programs is simply
saying that people must bear some of the consequences of their
actions; arguing FOR them says that people who don't fund them will be
thrown in jail and have their property taken away.

Isn't the claim that a politician is `compassionate' for voting for
some social program a bit like me claiming to be compassionate after
stealing another person's wallet and giving some of the contents to
some poor person?  I am compassionate if I give my own money or time
or other personal commitment to help someone else.  I am not
compassionate if I commit someone else to do so, especially against
that person's will, and ESPECIALLY if I benefit in the process.

It's my view that the biblical injunctions regarding taking care of
the poor are intended to involve individuals, not the government.
Individuals are not to cheat the poor, or lend at interest, or prevent
the poor from gleaning the fields (the OT version of food stamps).
Individuals have to let the slaves go after 7 years and let the land
revert after 49.  When a government program is instituted, it's a way
of saying en masse, ``I gave at the office.''  After a while the
social program simply becomes a contract- and job-letting agency.  I
don't think it brings home to us the needs of the needy.

When I first graduated from Cal with my BA in English and no job
experience, I was virtually unemployable.  A guy hired me to made
plastic parts at his small business.  This guy also employed 4 or 5
other people, including several high-school kids and a family man.
His business did pretty well, enabling him to live in a nice house and
to own a nice boat.  He was a Christian and very conservative.  He
used to say that his business had been ``blessed with cash-flow.''  At
the time I looked down on his conservatism and thought it was
incompatible with his Christianity.  But thinking back on it, I have
to admit that he was a bit like the guy in the bible compared to a
tree in whose branches the birds roosted (in the O.T. somewhere, not
Jesus' parable).  He certainly did a lot for me, and he kept several
kids off the street as well as keeping someone's family fed.  He did
the sales and the engineering, and we did the manual labor.  It worked
out for all of us.  As a result of working for him, I had 1-1/2 years
job experience and a good recommendation, and I had an easy time
getting another job when I wanted something better.

It seems to me that what you want are lots and lots of guys like this.
However, the current political environment makes it harder and harder
for guys like him to stay in business because of taxes and regulation,
mostly in the name of helping the disadvantaged.

It seems to me that the ONLY reason Christians should advocate social
programs is compassion.  If they are advocating that the rich are too
rich, then it seems that they need to ask themselves how much their
motivation is based on envy or bitterness.  Should we be pulling
people down JUST to pull them down?  Isn't that God's prerogative?
Yet in some discussions I have had recently, the person supporting
government social programs has talked about the greed of the rich, as
though that were the problem that government social programs was
supposed to solve.  Certainly greed is a moral issue!  If we take on
that moral issue, why close the door to others?  Isn't that imposing
one's moral vision on society?

I'm not a libertarian.  I think that a society OUGHT to be formed
along the lines of some public moral vision, one arrived at through
debate and democratic processes.  I think this moral vision would
reflect both personal and economic responsibility to society, coupled
with both personal and economic freedom.  I DON'T think the
Republicans always reflect all aspects of this.  Obviously the
Democrats don't.  However, it seems to me that the Republicans are
more willing to leave some slack in the system.  The lesson of the
USSR is that economic regulation quickly becomes personal regulation.
Taking the Mark of the Beast is enforced by economic regulation.

For the sake of this forum, I'll avoid the issue of the unintended
consequences of government social programs except to say that people
should read Charles Murray's book, LOSING GROUND.
--
-Fred Gilham          gilham@csl.sri.com 
``Anyway, the one-night stand never did prove to be the unmitigated
source of pleasure that its advocates predicted. Surely something that
wasn't worth repeating couldn't have been all that much worth doing
the first time.'' -Miss Manners