Blame the poor mentality

[Mathematician]

James II
1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

 

[des]

Blaming the victim is an infamous and common practice. It was highly popularized by Reagon with his constant anecdotes (perhaps that never happened, who knows) of welfare queens, etc.

As for the Christian basis for concern for the poor, Jim Wallis has a great story. (He isn't a religious liberal, btw.) He said that in seminary he and some friends did a little experiment and took a pair of scissors to an old Bible. They cut out all references to the poor and issues of justice. This was quite a ragged thing barely holding together. Then when it was his turn to preach, he held up the Bible and said something to the effect of that this was the Bible that Christians have been using, and it is a Bible full of holes.


--des

 

[Darkness]

I may come out sounding like a uncaring person, but I do not feel it is the Government's place to bring assistance to the poor. The Government has no right to take its citizens money and redistribute it to other citizens. I am not blaming the poor for anything, by the way.

I'm curious. By worker ants, do you mean tose who live off of welfare and trumped up disability claims ,or people like me and my wife who both work to make enough money to raise our children , keep a roof over their heads and food on the table while giving about 20% of our income for gov programs to support welfare and the like? I don't take any hand outs , I do the handing out while barely hanging on myself.

Is it fair to take away the money Majikthise worked hard in earning and give it to someone because of their "failures?" In other words, should the average citizen be punished because others are financially failing?

This does not mean I am against charity. Charity is a wonderful thing, it is simply not in the Government's right to force its citizens to pay for charity. Charity should be privatized.

 

[Mathematician]

Is it fair to take away the money Majikthise worked hard in earning and give it to someone because of their "failures?" In other words, should the average citizen be punished because others are financially failing?

You asked the question while drawing a (false) conclusion mid-sentence. If a liberal was asked, "should the average citizen be punished because others are financially failing" his answer would be a stern no. Punishment is reserved for those who break the law.

However, if the question was, "should the average citizen contribute to the welfare of the community he relies on" then the answer is yes! Like it or not (hopefully not), unabridged capitalism leads to the exploitation of the middle class and poor, and in that order. Capitalism is a pyramid where the classes rely on the people below to keep their own luxeries and services.

 

[PureX]

I may come out sounding like a uncaring person, but I do not feel it is the Government's place to bring assistance to the poor. The Government has no right to take its citizens money and redistribute it to other citizens. I am not blaming the poor for anything, by the way.

The mistake, here, is that you are assuming that wealth belongs only to the individuals who are clever enough,lucky enough, and aggressive enough to gain control of it, and that the government is someone else. But in fact, wealth belongs to the whole community, and the government is the voice of that community.

Is it fair to take away the money Majikthise worked hard in earning and give it to someone because of their "failures?" In other words, should the average citizen be punished because others are financially failing?

No one is being "punished", and no one is "failing". In any community of people there will be some who are clever, lucky, aggressive, and persistent enough to gain control of most anything they want. There will be others who are not clever, or lucky, or aggressive, or persistent enough to gain control of even the most minimal necessities. It's not the latter's "fault" any more that it's the former's "fault". It's just the way it is in any larger group of people.

But as I stated before, the wealth of a community belongs to the whole community, not just to those who happen to be clever, lucky, aggressive and persistent. A community is not described as "every man for himself". That's anarchy. That's greed run amok. That's living like dumb animals. A human community is a group of people who understand that they share the same needs, dangers, and assets and limitations, as they each depend on each other for the strength and wisdom and security that none of them has alone. The fact than not everyone can contribute equally is an aspect of human nature that the community must accept to remain a community. If it does not, then it is devolving into the hedonistic individualism of dumb animals. And it is no longer a community.

This does not mean I am against charity. Charity is a wonderful thing, it is simply not in the Government's right to force its citizens to pay for charity. Charity should be privatized.

Charity has nothing to do with it. The government is US. And the community's wealth, assets, etc., belong to us all and not to any particular individual, unless the community agrees to it. If it weren't for the community that you live in, you would have no wealth at all. And you would have no security. And you would "own" nothing. You would be living in the animal world where anyone who comes along that is stronger, faster, more clever, or just lucky can take whatever they want from you and do whatever they want to you.

Seems to me that taking on the responsibility for those in your community who are not as clever or as lucky or as aggressive or as persistent as you are is a small price to pay for having the security of the whole community's wealth, assets, protection, and generosity available to you. And when the "government" says that it wants you to help those who are less fortunate than you are, that's your community talking, not some alien element. That's the same community talking that has given you the opportunity to be so fortunate in the first place, and is allowingt you to keep most of what you've gained. And without them, you would likely have, or be able to keep, little or nothing.

 

[Mathematician]

It's worth noting that without the community capitalism would fall flat on its face. No individual is responcible for his own wealth; the consumers and workers and a lot of times government help you along the way. Even if you win the lottery you have a lot of people to thank.

In capitalism the mind-set is "working against each other is good"; in socialism it's "working with each other is great."

 

[Darkness]

I cleary walked into a nest of socialists and will simply have to walk back out quietly.

I am not in the mood to get into a gigantic discussion.

It's worth noting that without the community capitalism would fall flat on its face. No individual is responcible for his own wealth; the consumers and workers and a lot of times government help you along the way. Even if you win the lottery you have a lot of people to thank.

I do not doubt this. I merely know, "For Men are not equal: thus speaks justice." The Free Market is working in the world today. Why should we try to fix something that is not broken. Forgive me for believing a man/women should be rewarded for their ability.

 

[PureX]

I clearly walked into a nest of socialists and will simply have to walk back out quietly.

I am not in the mood to get into a gigantic discussion.

I do not doubt this. I merely know, "For Men are not equal: thus speaks justice." The Free Market is working in the world today. Why should we try to fix something that is not broken. Forgive me for believing a man/women should be rewarded for their ability.

Socialism does not automatically oppose a free market, and by the way, free markets are not working all that well, in case you hadn't noticed. Free markets work fine with products and services that people can refuse to buy. But the free market is no longer free when people have to buy the products and serviced being offered in order to live.

In our modern interdependent and specialized societies, there are many products and services that people have to have to live, and even when there are several outlets to choose from, as long as the providers know that we have to buy a product from one of them, they still have a monopoly, and will and do behave accordingly. Just look at our own society, and at those products and services that we must have to live (energy, health care, transportation, communication) and you will see that these have becomes dibilitatingly expensive. We are being gouged by the companies that provide these kinds of products and services because they know we can't refuse to buy them.

 

[lilithu]

This may be a little off-topic but I was reading (I can't remember where) that the idea as the poor being bad came from the Protestants. Apparently (correct me if I am wrong), they were told that God has already chosen who will be going to heaven and who won't be. There is no way to know who is on which list. However, God will reward those who are going to heaven by giving them more while on Earth. Therefore, if you are doing well, it is an indication that you may be going to Heaven. Hence, the desire to be seen as doing well on Earth by making lots of money.

Has anyone else ever heard this?

Yes. It is kind of a misnomer, however, given that the theology you describe isn't true of all Protestantism, but is specific to Calvinism. The Puritans, who settled in Massachusetts and greatly influenced our fledgling country, were strict Calvinists.

And yes, there was the idea that material wealth was an indicator of whether or not you had God's favor.

This is also supposedly the source of our so called "Protestant work ethic," which causes Americans to work longer hours than many other cultures.

Actually, I don't find your post to be off-topic at all because I think this is is a large part of an explanation for why we blame the poor. Even tho most of us may not consciously follow Calvinism nowadays, I think this part of the theology has been ingrained into American culture - the idea that if people are poor it's because they somehow deserve to be. They are somehow morally inferior. (And conversely that wealth is an indicator of moral superiority, so that wealthy people can get away with a lot of behaviors that poor people would be socially condemned for.)

Tho it may not be that Calvinism is the cause of this so much as simply a reflection of something deeply ingrained in us. Afterall, the Hindu notion of karma has been used to justify the same beliefs. If you are poor, it's because you did something in a past life to deserve it.

 

[lilithu]

How come sometimes the last post in a thread doesn't match up with what the main page says is the last post?

I've noticed this since the upgrade.

It used to be that the "last post" link was somehow linked to a category or term, which was defined as the last post in the thread. So that when you click on the link, it took you to whatever is the last post at the time when you click the link.

Now, the "last post" link is linked to a specific post, not a category. Specifically, it is linked to the last post in a thread when your main page is generated. So that if someone has posted since the last time you loaded your main page there will be a discrepancy.

If you refresh your main page it should correct that.

 

[Darkness]

In our modern interdependent and specialized societies, there are many products and services that people have to have to live, and even when there are several outlets to choose from, as long as the providers know that we have to buy a product from one of them, they still have a monopoly, and will and do behave accordingly. Just look at our own society, and at those products and services that we must have to live (energy, health care, transportation, communication) and you will see that these have becomes dibilitatingly expensive. We are being gouged by the companies that provide these kinds of products and services because they know we can't refuse to buy them.

As opposed to socialism/communism where we would have One all-powerful company i.e. the Government. :sarcastic

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Did Jesus ever blame the poor?...

No, but then he never advocated that the government take from those who were not poor. In the passages you quoted, Jesus encouraged charity, people helping other people, which is a much better solution that government programs.

 

[PureX]

As opposed to socialism/communism where we would have One all-powerful company i.e. the Government. :sarcastic

Ummm ... socialism and communism are not the same thing. And neither of them are "one all-powerful company". Please get a clue as to what you're discussing, here.

There are many forms of socialism. Most of the people who lean toward socialism on this thread have differnt ideas about what they mean by "socialism". And most of those ides of socialism are moderate, and likely even democratic, as in the forms of government of many modern European nations. They work similarly to our own, with the exception of having nationalized some social commercial endeavors, like health care, energy, transportation, etc.

 

[PureX]

No, but then he never advocated that the government take from those who were not poor. In the passages you quoted, Jesus encouraged charity, people helping other people, which is a much better solution that government programs.

The government is only mandating what Jesus said we should do. Seems to me that this is EXACTLY what many conservative Christians WANT: the government mandating what they believe Jesus (through their interpretation of the bible) says. Isn't this why they're fighting to get abortions and gay marriages outlawed? Why is it OK for the government to promote Christian idealogy using it's laws regarding abortions and gay marriages, but not regarding helping the poor?

 

[The Seeker]

The government is only mandating what Jesus said we should do. Seems to me that this is EXACTLY what many conservative Christians WANT: the government mandating what they believe Jesus (through their interpretation of the bible) says. Isn't this why they're fighting to get abortions and gay marriages outlawed? Why is it OK for the government to promote Christian idealogy using it's laws regarding abortions and gay marriages, but not regarding helping the poor?

Great point. Far too many people use religion to suit their own agenda. The religious right is quick to condemn gay marriage but can look the other way when Newt Gingrich admits to adultery (a sin comparable to homosexuality according to the Bible).

We also can't rely on solely on charity to help the poor. If we did, poor minorities would surely suffer since they are usually seen as lazy and deserving of their place in life.

 

[Darkness]

Ummm ... socialism and communism are not the same thing. And neither of them are "one all-powerful company". Please get a clue as to what you're discussing, here.

There are many forms of socialism. Most of the people who lean toward socialism on this thread have differnt ideas about what they mean by "socialism". And most of those ides of socialism are moderate, and likely even democratic, as in the forms of government of many modern European nations. They work similarly to our own, with the exception of having nationalized some social commercial endeavors, like health care, energy, transportation, etc.

Socialism and Communism are such ill defined terms, that everyone has a different view of what they are. It is not that I am utterly clueless as mixed up by the terms.

 

[PureX]

Socialism and Communism are such ill defined terms, that everyone has a different view of what they are. It is not that I am utterly clueless as mixed up by the terms.

I agree. And to make matters even more confusing, there are a number of entities here in the U.S. that have been working hard at slandering all other forms of government and commerce but the ones they are actively exploiting. Slander has become "spin" in a culture where dishonesty is considered a natural aspect of politics and business.

They really don't want us to notice and begin asking questions about why most first and even second world nations on Earth have nationalized health care that exceeds the overall standard of quality of our own, and why they can manage to do this for all their citizens without paying significantly more taxes than we do. And they don't want us to notice and start asking questions about why we rank 23rd among the industrialized nations of the world in terms of income equity, and why the disparity of income in this country has increased exponentially relative to these other nations in just the last 30 years. They don't want us to notice and start asking questions about how the members of big business lobbies can write their own legislation, of course favoring themselves, and have the legislators come to work in the middle of the night to pass it so that no one will see them.

Instead, they want to pretend that unregulated business is the answer to all the world's ills, and that unbridled greed will somehow lead us all to an economic nirvana. And they've been doing such a good job at lying about this, that a lot of people actually believe them these days.

I sometimes come off a bit nasty in conversations about commerce because I've encountered so much of this entrenched nonsense, and have had to become a bit harsh as a way of trying to cut through this wall of status quo parroting of the corporate party line.

Sorry.

 

[des]

Well most of government assistance programs go to middle income people and high income industries. We have lots of corporate welfare programs going to Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex and so on (say Haliburton that gets millions in no bid contracts. So I doubt very much that even if we quadrupled the amount of money going to the poor (which I don't think is even necessary it would make much of a dent in our pocketbooks).

I personally dislike paying for the charity to Haliburton!! (I don't see conservatives worrying about that. Of course, I am not totally sure as I don't read your forums, so I stay out of your discussions.)

However, the idea that poor people are "failures" is a repellent notion, imo. True, some are, but most are only failures in economic terms, they are not failures on the basis of their hard work (most of the poor work, for instance).

Someone else mentioned that it is better for private people to be doing this-- not government. Yet probably the biggest expense and huge problem for Americans is health care. I don't think in Jesus' time they had to worry about this. (After all, you just lived or died.) I don't know of much in the way of private programs that could solve this. There are some small private clinic but one small state program in NM probably covers more children than the biggest small private clinic for the poor.


BTW, what are these folks doing in a liberal forum. I thought this is was not a debate for conservatives or libertarians. You have your own forums. There are also debate forums.



--des

I may come out sounding like a uncaring person, but I do not feel it is the Government's place to bring assistance to the poor. The Government has no right to take its citizens money and redistribute it to other citizens. I am not blaming the poor for anything, by the way.

Is it fair to take away the money Majikthise worked hard in earning and give it to someone because of their "failures?" In other words, should the average citizen be punished because others are financially failing?

This does not mean I am against charity. Charity is a wonderful thing, it is simply not in the Government's right to force its citizens to pay for charity. Charity should be privatized.

 

[lilithu]

We also can't rely on solely on charity to help the poor. If we did, poor minorities would surely suffer since they are usually seen as lazy and deserving of their place in life.

Kinda goes back to the OP. Given that there is this tendency to blame the poor for being poor, we can't rely solely on charity.

The purpose of govt assistance is so that those of our citizens who are most vulnerable and in need of help are not at the mercy of the whims of others.

 

[des]

That's true. I've seen a lot of talk about the so-called "deserving poor".
These are people who, unlike most of the poor (in their opinion) are poor for no reason of their own. As opposed to those poor who are responsible for their own poverty.
As in: "We give to the deserving poor."

Even if this were true, there are children of those undeserving poor.

BTW, someone made a comment re: what kinds of things government handles and what Jesus said about it.
Seems unlikely Jesus could have imagined the sort of large societies that we live in. But it also seems that the political agenda of conservatives determines would "moral" battles we take on. It isn't big enough for individuals
and charities to deal with gay marriage and abortion that goes for bigger solutions. But poverty and injustice need
smaller solutions.

--des

Kinda goes back to the OP. Given that there is this tendency to blame the poor for being poor, we can't rely solely on charity.

The purpose of govt assistance is so that those of our citizens who are most vulnerable and in need of help are not at the mercy of the whims of others.