Osler's Razor

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I actually agree with Lane in the broader sense: Calvin has had a strong influence on many aspects of our culture, politically and economically. Calvinism touches every sphere of society. Of course, Calvin himself didn't fully develop this idea, but it was natural result (see Kuyper)...but going into this in depth would take too long...

As for caring for the poor, I don't think it's inconsistent. I know many conservative Christians (who also happen to be Calvinists) who are very involved with caring for the poor but who also are strongly opposed to government involvement.

I would say (and I think these folks would agree) that it is the church's role and the individual Christian's role to care for the poor, not government's. Government cares for the poor using my money. If I want to be charitable, why shouldn't I be able to give that money to my church or the charitable organization of my choice who I think is better equipped to care for the poor. It is not government's role to "make" me charitable; it is Christ's role to shape me so that I am. When I am, how would I feel fulfilled by giving money to the government hoping some of it will somehow make it to take care of someone, when I can give it to a church or other organization that can use it so much more efficiently?

We will always have the poor, and we should certainly care for them. But there is no reason why we should expect government to do this for us when the church can do it better.
 

I have this argument with Carson about 3 times a week, generally. Maybe he can chime in...
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Lane,
Do you think government actually does as efficient of a job caring for the poor as a church or charitable organization? If I give $10 to each to help the poor, do you think more of those dollars would go to the poor through government or through the charitable organization?

The more people we have, the more poor there will be be. If we are talking about helping one poor person, I think the money I give to the church or charity will help that poor person more than money government takes from me. Government may be able to help more people, but I would rather do a good job helping fewer people than do a poor job helping more people just a little. I think this is the best government could ever do. No matter what system of government (capitalism, socialism, etc), I don't think government could ever do as good of a job caring for the poor as the church or charities. From my perspective, the idea that government can adequately fill this role is pure Utopian.
 

Erik, what about things more complex than giving money to the poor, like job training? Is it ok for government to do that, or to fund private concerns that do?
 

Mark:

I think you are right to let your small government instincts be your guide here. My suspicion is that thoughtful conservative Christians, when it comes to the role of government, are more conservative than they are Christian.

Progressives, a movement heavily influenced by an evangelical/ameliorative Christian ethos, sincerely believe that they can use government to make life better for people. Liberal Christians often see themselves as God's ministers in the world. It is very easy for evangelicals to see the government as an instrument to extend the mission of Christ.

Conservative Christians (at least the ones who emphasize a conservative approach to government) on the other hand, sincerely worry that government solutions are inherently risky, leading to myriad deleterious unintended consequences. Conservatives do not hate the poor. They are simply convinced that government often does more harm than good in social engineering. Conservative Christians (and I think Calvinism is actually constructive here) are generally not sanguine about the power of humanity to usher in God's kingdom on earth.

As for the "pro-military" bent, conservatives generally believe that defense is a vital function of the government. All government programs have big problems. And we know well that defense is a swamp of inefficiency, over-spending, corruption, and a lot of other ills. We allow government to provide a common defense only because there is no other viable solution.

So, in short, conservative Christians are more conservative than evangelical in their approach to government.
 

Farmer-

Does that mean that for (at least some) conservative Christians, their politics are more important in guiding action than their faith? Or that they bend their faith to their politics?
 

I think a Christian is a Christian in the classroom, in the living room, on the street corner, and in the polling place.

One of the reasons I think total separation of church and state is not possible is that as long as we live in a Christian culture, we will have a political culture heavily influenced by Christianity.

More to the point, I think there are a number of ways to go here. I think some Christians have different personal mixtures of politics and morality and religion. This is why people can ask: "how can a Christian support abortion?" It is a question that assumes a common interpretation of Christianity and ignores different views on the role of government as well different honestly held philosophical distinctions about the nature of life.

All of this is very subjective. Thoughtful and reasonable Christians are going to disagree on what the duties of a Christian citizen entail.

To answer your question: some conservative Christians are going to allow their basic sensibility on the role and potential of government to guide their views on amelioration by government agency.
 

Farmer-- Good answer, and true.
 

I don't recall Jesus every saying that Caesar should render unto the poor, yet I do recall him telling a number of people that if they should sell all of their possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow him.

He knew that it was something that many would not do, yet he still loved each of those mentioned in scripture. Something about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven. Those that managed to do it became Apostles! It seems obvious that this was a personal test of each individual.

The point I'm making is that Jesus wasn't concerned with whether the government helped the poor. He helped them and expected his followers to do the same.

That's why I don't think it's so off base, as a Christian, to think this is a personal issue rather than a state issue. I don't think it inconsistent to believe that it should be up to each one of us to express this part of Christianity in our own ways as a test.

I feel perfectly comfortable for my religious leaders to use the money I give them for this purpose and dole it out as part of a Christian message rather than "Rome's."

It seems that people forget that Jesus' religion was different than the one supported by the state and he was acting out of his teachings and beliefs and wasn't expecting the state to help.

What would it say about our own faith if we left it up to the state to take care of what Christ commanded each of us to do?

"St. Peter, what do you mean I can't get in!? I paid my taxes and then the state paid it out to the poor! It's not my fault they only asked for 2% of what I made!"
 

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill

The liberal position is all about emotion, all about heart, all about SHOWING how much they care. "Oh my, there are poor people in the world, let us spend endlessly to help them. What? It isn't working? Then we must spend more! We must care more! And the only way to show how much we care is by spending more money through the federal government!"

Has the New Deal eliminated poverty? What about Johnson's great society? Welfare?

What about socialism in Europe? What about communism?

Nope, all of that money spent by a centralized government, and not only does the scourge of poverty persist, but in many instances the countries with the highest levels of centralization and government spending on poverty are also the countries with the higher levels of poverty.

Yes, you prove that you care more when you publicly worry about the plight of the poor and offer them millions of dollars in government aid, but you don't actually do much to help them.

Convenient that the only time liberals want to talk about God and Jesus is on this issue, but they will ignore all those parts of the bible about social issues that are oh so inconvenient for them.

Conservatism isn't about ignoring the poor. It is about setting conditions to allow the best opportunity for each person to advance themselves, mostly by getting the government out of the way. I also agree 100% with the comments about individual charity and giving, as well as organized private charitable organizations.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em...
 

Question for RRL:

at what age did you become a conservative?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I wish I had the intellectual background to dive deep into this argument... and the time! This job thing gets in the way.

From personal experience, however, I know that my small Episcopal Church delivers services and goods to the poor both directly and through local aid agencies at little or no cost. There is very little overhead.

I can and do write checks to other small, local groups that deliver services at minimal costs.

My checks and cash to larger organizations do not result in direct assistance, however. There are salaries to be paid, rent on buildings, utility bills, expenses, etc. The larger the group, the more money is spent on "overhead" as opposed to aid.

Same with governments. Smaller governments deliver services much more efficiently.

Of course, some problems are so big, only big non-profits and big governments can address them.

There's the related issue of creating a culture that EXPECTS government assistance due to the fact that there are so many programs and ways to get money. The trouble is, the clever and corrupt usually get the lions share.

Ok, back to billing hours.
 

Waco Farmer - it depends on what you mean by "become." I mean, I don't think I've ever gone fully to the other side, but I would say that my political ideology was formed mostly in college, so when I was around 20.

And I freely admit I have no heart.

Lane - so we get to cherry pick the places where it has worked. You want emperical evidence? Communist Russia. Cuba. Pre-Thatcher England. Ireland. East Germany. The Eastern Block nations.

Also, it helps when socialism is tried in a place where poverty never really existed. Norway is either the richest nation in the world or the second richest nation in the world, depending on what measure you use. They have little to no imigration, a largely homogeneous population, little to no history of serious conflicts or wars...I mean, Norway has lived a pretty blessed life, and I don't think you can honestly say that it is because of socialism.
 

And I'm done arguing about socialism v. capitalism for the day because that isn't the point of Osler's post, and I know that me and Lane always try to hijack the conversation to talk about that.

I do have this question, which is on topic - why is it OK for liberals to embrace Christianity to create a moral imperative to eliminate poverty, but scoff at conservative Christians that rely on Christianity to make arguments regarding homosexuality, abortion, etc.?
 

Thanks, RRL.

My story is not unlike yours.

Which is why I have never liked that particular Winnie quote, as it serves him well as a growth narrative--but casts me in a bad light.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I propose Osler write two really appalling posts, one really right of center and then not Lane respond, the other, some really leftist ideology and not let Lane respond! :)
 

Why do we all assume that a church will help the poor, just because it's a church?

I suppose that most Christian churches do help the poor, to some extent, but nobody's making them help the poor.

There are always going to be people in a society who can't help themselves, for one reason or another (no family; serious mental illness or physical handicap; or all three).

To me, it's part of a government's role to assure that the helpless are helped. Nobody's going to assure that a church does that--and a church can be selective about who it helps. A public school, on the other hand, can't be selective about who it admits.
 

And I do agree, by the way, that churches can often do a lot more with less resources, when helping the poor, than government can. But nobody's making a church have that agency . . .
 

Relax Lane...it was a joke. Obviously this is a forum for ideas and opinions...yours included!
 

What happened to Lane's comments? They were great... sigh.
 

I don't disagree with anybody's take on the greater effeciency of private giving, but I see two problems with pointing to it as the ultimate solution:

Private giving and charity doesn't do enough. If it did, we wouldn't need government aid. One example -If mulit-billion dollar developers hooked up with Churches and said, lets build a shit-ton of really decent affordable or even free housing so that folks in the cities don't have to live in these God awful projects anymore - we wouldn't need to pay a bunch of taxes so that HUD can repair or build more of these hell holes. But that doesn't happen on the scale that would allow government to completely bow out of the public housing business.

Second point - I don't understand the "I should be able to send my charitable dollars where I want" argument. You can! And then you can get a huge tax write off for it. If people actually gave the way they say they would if they didn't have to pay a bunch of taxes... they already wouldn't have to pay a bunch of taxes b/c a ton would be written off.

The truth is, we're all really busy and concerned with our own success - and that's perfectly fine. But b/c of that, we won't ever thru private action alone be able to provide the help is necessary (I understand "what is necessary" is open for debate as well) for people that need it. And for those who believe there is a moral imperative to lend a hand, the government keeps us on our charitable ps and qs.

The joke was made about St. Peter not accepting the "I paid my taxes" line. It was a funny joke. But actually, for me, I'd be pumped if that line worked - if when I got up there he said "yall did right by everybody in America, so you're good."
 

WE DON'T HELP THE POOR PEOPLE BECAUSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, JESUS WAS A SECRET BELIEVER IN THE INDIAN CASTE SYSTEM. IF YOU'RE POOR, IT'S BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG IN ANOTHER LIFE. IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT.

HE NEVER MENTIONED THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD DAMAGE HIS REPUTATION.

HE ALSO SAID THAT OBAMA WAS AN EVIL COMMIE LIBERAL NAZI BABYKILLER MUSLIM TERRORIST KENYAN.

-ALL CAPS CONSERVATIVE GUY
 

What is a more efficient and effective means by which to aid the poor?

Is it more efficient to do so through churches and other charitable institutions, through the government, or perhaps, through a mix of both?

Government has great inefficiencies whether one looks at military spending or dollars spent on social programs.

Christians, convservative and liberal and other, do like other people of faith, make great contributions, financial and in kind, to help poor people.

Yet, on average, I can tell you, as one who works in the Church, that the average contributor of record, as we say, gives somewhere between one and two percent of his/her annual income to the Church, synagogue, or mosque.

This is just as true for conservative Christian Churches as it is for more liberal ones.

One of the greatest myths in contemporary Christianity is that conservative Christians give more money to their Churches than liberal Christians do.

In particular instances, it may be true, but on average it simply is not so.