• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should we house the homeless and feed the hungry?

Should we feed those who are hungry and shelter those in need?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 78.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It depends....(feel free to elaborate)

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This poll doesn't reflect my thinking

    Votes: 2 4.9%

  • Total voters
    41

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?
To the first question no, and to the second question I think the answer is complex because secular people seem (to me) more willing to pay their taxes and thus dispense their obligations through the state, which is much more effective means of caring for the poor than charity which is only a drop in the bucket where much more is needed
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The tribes always took care of their own.

There's evidence from 2.8 million years ago that our direct ancestor, Homo erectus, was tending its injured, bringing them food, keeping them from starving.

Adam Smith, the father of capitalism -- as some call him -- was all for society's responsibility to the poor and less fortunate.

It's an ages old human instinct and custom both to take care of our own.

Then along came the neo-capitalists.... The "Me-First Capitalists". The "Greed is Good" crowd. The screwy Boomers.

Sheesh! Millions of years overturned just so some selfish Baby Boomers can make more money than they could use in a hundred life times.

When you don't take care of your own, your society falls apart, splinters. How's that working for you?
 

THOD

The House of Death
I'm more in favor of providing people with the means to care for themselves before they are homeless.
In my native country of America, this translates to more of that satanic socialism.
But yes, of course, we should extend a hand to those in need.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
This was done in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic. I know locally the hotels provided the accommodation. By the end of the first wave something like 35 of 36 homeless people contacted by the appropriate services had been secured more permanent accommodation.
 

THOD

The House of Death
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism -- as some call him -- was all for society's responsibility to the poor and less fortunate.

Could you expand on this part in particular?
I wasn't aware that today's capitalism is something different and greedier than what it was before.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Wasn't Jesus the first 'satanic socialist'? I mean, all that stuff about taking care of the poor? Or am I getting Jesus confused with Gandhi?

I know! I had him confused with the early Christian Church. All those evil people who shared everything with each other. Jeebers! They were scary!
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Could you expand on this part in particular?
I wasn't aware that today's capitalism is something different and greedier than what it was before.

Smith was primarily a philosopher of ethics who developed capitalism as an economic means to promote the well being of all people, very much including the poor.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Smith was primarily and philosopher of ethics who developed capitalism as an economic means to promote the well being of all people, very much including the poor.
How was giving all the economic decision-making power to the rich going to benefit the poor? This Smith fellow doesn't seem to have been very bright. Or at least not very aware of human nature.
 

THOD

The House of Death
Smith was primarily and philosopher of ethics who developed capitalism as an economic means to promote the well being of all people, very much including the poor.

By providing the poor with a chance to build their own wealth?
Coz this is what I see as one of the concepts people use to not extend a helping hand.
"You're poor because you need to try harder. Help yourself."
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Yes, but I'm a strong advocate of this being an individual or communal duty, not the duty of a government entity in which people are taxed, and the government provides assistance without monitoring the individuals for which food or shelter is provided, so people who do have the ability to improve their circumstance can be coached on how to do so and be given some accountability for their own welfare.

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

It depends on the individual. Some are more likely to help on their own, while others will turn a blind eye unless given incentive to provide aid.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

A qualified yes from me. In simple terms, it's a simple yes. People have their own rights, and that includes a right to refuse assistance (which does happen). And society does have the right to set some simple and reasonable qualifications around the aid.
But (to be clear) these are very much periphery issues to my mind. We do have a duty of care, else our society is less.

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need?

No, although it depends how loosely you're defining 'ideology' I guess.

Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Depends entirely on which religion or ideology. Religions and ideologies can impact on our thoughts and actions over time, I believe, both for better or worse.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Well...seeing how wealthy certain banking dynasties are...the problem is not the "lack of money"...
Maybe the problem is that all this money ends up in few hands (through unfair procedures) preventing the State from helping the weak?
Btw I chose yes.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, but I'm a strong advocate of this being an individual or communal duty, not the duty of a government entity in which people are taxed, and the government provides assistance without monitoring the individuals for which food or shelter is provided, so people who do have the ability to improve their circumstance can be coached on how to do so and be given some accountability for their own welfare.

Just a question on your opinion. Is it useful for governments to provide funds from taxes to bodies who can better monitor and assist people?
Clumsy example, but as an individual I can give money to a beggar, I can give money to a charity, I can give tax money to the government, or I can donate time and effort to help.

My assumption is that the time and effort is by far the best of these for various reasons. But if we assume there'll be a shortfall in the capacity of a community to provide the required time, effort and goods required directly, do you see value in government providing a level of funding to assist charitable or humanist organisations?

Whilst not ideal, this seems better than just providing cash to people in difficult situations, and assuming that is an effective anything.

It depends on the individual. Some are more likely to help on their own, while others will turn a blind eye unless given incentive to provide aid.

It's also possible for a religion or an ideology to provide a disincentive to provide aid. And then there is the interaction and interpretation of the individual with the religion or ideology, because...as you point out...people are people, and it comes down to the individual.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
How was giving all the economic decision-making power to the rich going to benefit the poor? This Smith fellow doesn't seem to have been very bright. Or at least not very aware of human nature.

Without going into it too much, you have to look at the ideas he was countering, and the time in which he lived.
He was in favour of the free flow of goods and services, and felt that it was possible for all nations to prosper, as opposed to mercantile ideas of driving imports down and exports up.
He was also in favour of measuring the wealth of a nation based on the goods and services available to it's citizens, rather than the cash reserves available to it.

I could imagine you agreeing with this:
The rate of profit, he said, was “always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.”

Source, in case you're interested...
Contrary to popular and academic belief, Adam Smith did not accept inequality as a necessary trade-off for a more prosperous economy | British Politics and Policy at LSE
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Wasn't Jesus the first 'satanic socialist'?

He was indeed Sun but hardly the last one, either, to emerge in the course of Christian history ;) "Sex, revolution, or mysticism - what's the difference?". It was the same at the dawn of the second millennium, one thousand years ago:


Gregory VII - Medieval Studies - Oxford Bibliographies


Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) was one of the most important and controversial popes of the Middle Ages....

So convinced have historians been of his importance that the term “Gregorian Reform” served for a century to describe the period in which Gregory lived...

As Archdeacon Hildebrand, he directed the affairs of the Roman Church at a crucial period of realignment, as a small group of international reformers removed the papacy from the grip of local aristocratic families, first in collaboration with the Emperor Henry III and later under the protection of the Norman princes who were carving out a territory for themselves in southern Italy. In pursuit of a purified Church, the reformers supported a group of radical protestors, the Patarenes, who sought to impose clerical celibacy on the clergy of Milan...This iconic struggle saw Gregory excommunicate Henry IV and release his subjects from their oaths to him in 1076 only to absolve him at Canossa in 1077 and, after the outbreak of a civil war in Germany, to depose him again in 1080. In the meantime, Henry IV had convened a synod of German bishops that denounced Gregory as “Hildebrand, false monk” and called on him to abdicate and another that deposed him and elected a new pope...

The quarrel between empire and papacy was the first such dispute since antiquity, and it resulted in a completely unprecedented war of words between the protagonists and their supporters. Its effects are still felt, not least in the idea that the separation of Church and State is desirable. Gregory VII continues to provoke lively debate, partly from a confessional standpoint, with Catholics tending to admire him and Protestants to denigrate him, or from a nationalistic perspective, with Germans seeing him as the destroyer of their nation and Italians regarding him as a hero of Italian autonomy. Even here, however, some Germans have not been able to restrain their admiration for Gregory, even while they deplore the effects of his policies; like Peter Damian, they see the pope as a “holy Satan.”


From, "Civilization of the Middle Ages" by the historian Norman F. Cantor p.260-261:



"...In his Letter to Hermann of Metz, Pope Gregory contended that royal power was originated by murderers and thugs and that the state continued to bear the stamp of Cain. In the whole history of the world, he said, there were scarcely half a dozen kings who had avoided the damnation of their souls...Many simple and ordinary Christians, he said, were more certain recipients of divine Grace than were the mighty and powerful holders of royal power, who were the instruments of the devil...

Gregory concluded that the only legitimate power in the world resided in the priesthood, particularly in the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on Earth...He boldly asserted that the freedom of the Christian man consisted in the subjection of his selfish will to the divine ends that the papacy pursued in the world. Only a world order in which these doctrines were realized could be called just and right...

With an apocalyptic zeal he demanded a new right order that would fulfil the ideals of Christian justice and liberty...Nothing less than the total Christianitas (the application of his puritan ideals to all aspects of social life and to establish a unified Christian world system under the papacy) was acceptable....

His writings are full of references to the pauperes Christi, "Christ's poor ones", whose assistance he summoned and whose welfare he sought....He was on the side of the poor, the meek, the humble, and the downtrodden; he was the enemy of the rich, the proud and the powerful, whoever or whatever they might be. His hatred of the most powerful men in Europe was based upon a psychological and emotional sympathy for the underdog and hostility to their lords and oppressors.

Gregory's conception of Christian poverty was an attempt to read the Sermon on the Mount to the class-stratified society of the eleventh century. At the same time, his violent hatred of the leaders of contemporary society and the highly emotional concern for "Christ's poor ones" were probably symptoms of a paranoic hysteria and manifestations of a deep psychosis..."


Can Church Influence Explain Western Individualism? Comment on “The Church, Intensive Kinship, and Global Psychological Variation,” by Jonathan F. Schulz et al. – The Occidental Observer


Church policies directed against the power of secular elites focused on marriage as an essential battleground, including, besides rules on incestuous marriage, developing ideologies and enforcing social controls supporting monogamy.

Particularly important was enforcing consent as the basis of marriage. Consent in marriage promotes individualist marriage choice based on the characteristics of spouse rather than family strategizing in which one’s spouse is determined by parents, with the result that “the family, the tribe, the clan, were subordinated to the individual. If one wanted to marry enough, one could choose one’s own mate and the Church would vindicate one’s choice.[15]

The Church also developed ideologies of moral egalitarianism and moral universalism that undermined the ideology of natural hierarchy typical of the ancient world, and often encouraged the emerging cities as independent power centers opposed to the interests of feudal lords. Regarding the ideology of moral egalitarianism:



Canon law … had a strongly egalitarian tenor—status, which had been central to ancient law—was irrelevant. Ecclesiastical ideology thus facilitated the Western liberal tradition. Aristocrats and commoners had the same moral standing. Moreover, canon law was recruited to lessen the power of kinship groups by also rejecting the privileged status of testimony from family and friends (which had led to more powerful families getting favorable judgments). [From Chapter 5, 188; emphasis in original]
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Just a question on your opinion. Is it useful for governments to provide funds from taxes to bodies who can better monitor and assist people?
Clumsy example, but as an individual I can give money to a beggar, I can give money to a charity, I can give tax money to the government, or I can donate time and effort to help.

My assumption is that the time and effort is by far the best of these for various reasons. But if we assume there'll be a shortfall in the capacity of a community to provide the required time, effort and goods required directly, do you see value in government providing a level of funding to assist charitable or humanist organisations?

Sure, but I also see it increasing taxes and the size of government.

You mention giving money to a charity. Why is this not every bit as valuable a solution as increasing taxes and the size of government. There are non-profit charities that are quite effective in that purpose, perhaps every bit as effective, if not more effective, than a government agency would be. The ASPCA is a perfect example of such a charity. The organization raised over $202 million dollars in 2019.

https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/ar2019-online.pdf

To my knowledge, there is no government agency dedicated exclusively to animal welfare.

Such a charitable organization dedicated to helping the homeless and hungry could be every bit as effective, in my opinion, as any government agency, and people donate not because they are forced to through taxes, but because they're doing what they feel is right.
 
Top