Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
a number of good and interesting points, and I agree with all of your 4 points.

I have always read Mathews comment as being to each of us as individuals.  And in fact was a very personal comment, and not directed at the government.  I'm responding to "What good is a government that does not do what it can and leaves a second-class charity to its citizens to pick up? "  we as individuals don't have a lot of control over how the government spends its money (except through advocacy, and one vote counts).  But I've never taken my tax bill and computed how much is going to helping my brother--maybe I should.  And Mathew was talking about each of us doing this from the heart--when we do it through tax policy, we force some of the people who are paying taxes to give,,,,and it may not come from their heart at all.  I don't mean to argue on the other hand that the government shouldn't do this--it's effective and needed in many areas.  It's just the linkage of the reason for this scripture somehow doesn't fit with government spending for me.  Sorry to ramble--I probably need to think about this more.

by wchurchill on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 01:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've been mulling over your response a bit. I would agree that Matthew was thinking on personal terms. I suspect that in Matthew time a government that engaged in extensive charitable activities (such as Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Denmark -ODA > .7% GNI) as part of a national identity (?) was unknown.

I like the idea that one of the responsibilities of government is charity, or to remove it from charity entirely and say this is basic to our society. We don't do food banks because everyone in society has enough to eat. It isn't charity; it is because this is what civilised people do. (I wish.) Ya - I'm going beyond Matthew.

In Canada various conservative governments have tried to court the popular vote by promising to lower taxes. It doesn't work very well. Maybe on some level we really are giving - at least some of our taxes - from the heart. At least enough of us to keep the taxes going. If it isn't from the heart, I guess it isn't charity, but government policy and taxes. I don't think that this would make it wrong though.

Instead of calling what we do at the governmental level charity, maybe we should call it human dignity. Ours and theirs. (Just as torture states degrade themselves as they degrade their victims, so to - we degrade ourselves when we allow others to be degraded poverty and hunger.)


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 03:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series