Charity doesn't require religion

Funny how the Republicans are so quick to reach for the Bible when it comes to regulating sexual behavior, but feel that religion has no place in making economic policy,

It seems clear to me that there is NO "constitutional" obligation or mandate to use public funds to provide aid to those who are unable to care for themselves. However, I do think that there is a moral obligation for citizens of a constitutional republican form of democracy to provide such help. When we see other members of our society who are in financial, medical and other kinds of distress, what comes to my mind is "There but for the grace of God go I." I have been greatly influenced by the writings of the American philosopher John Rawls who wrote about what he called the "Lottery of Life." No one of us can claim personal responsibility for the "life" into which we were born, whether rich or poor. Each of us is the recipient of a position in life over which we had absolutely no previous control: some were born into positions of wealth, others into position of poverty, most of us into some position in between. Our respective position in life is truly a matter of "the luck of the draw." I believe that it behooves us as members of a society, a kind of society in which we would all like equally to flourish, to show concern about those who, through no fault of their own, have ended up in a position which makes their life not only difficut but deadly: full of dead ends, sickness, disease and frailty. Because we cannot save everyone, doesn't mean that we should not do what we can to save as many as we can. Those of us who ARE in a position to help, have, I believe, a moral obligation to do so. I believe, in addition, that "The Golden Rule," a rule which precedes the advent of Cristianity is one which we can and should all accept. For, who knows, I or you could be the next one who will be in need of help!

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l13.html
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l14.html
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l15.html

We need look no further than the existence of SOUTHERN Baptists and SOUTHERN Methodists for evidence that it makes no sense whatsoever to rely on the Bible for guidance in public affairs. Those 2 denominations split off from their mainstream churches because the national churches opposed slavery (quoting the Bible as justification) while their southern co-religionists favored slavery (quoting the Bible as justification). In fact, the Bible does indeed say BOTH things, which is what makes it useless in modern life.

The Bible is the world's longest-running, most widely respected, and least reliable Rorschach Test. You can look in it and see anything you want to see, find anything you want to find, justify any pre-ordained conclusion you prefer — because the Bible has it all! Answers for every question, most of them wrong.

I'll give Mr. Silverman this: he gets the historical point which almost everybody else misses ...

Charity did not require the Industrial Revolution and the justification requires absolutely no Modern Economic Theory. Charity is not the faith of the Shakers, destined to die out for a lack of procreation.

Mr. Silverman doesn't care what any god would think about tax cuts. I don't care what Mr. Silverman thinks about the importance of what any god thinks about the tax cuts.

As a believer in Jesus, I do care what Jesus might have thought or done. I suppose other people (believers or not) also care what Jueus would have said or done. But that is not the same thing as caring what someone else says about what Jesus would have said or done.

Remember the WWJD (What would Jesus do?) rings of about 10 years ago? They were comforting to their wearers, who convinced themselves that most of what they did or wanted to do was what Jesus would have done or tried to do. I'll bet most theo-ecconomists advocating one position or another on the tax cuts on the basis of what they think Jesus would have done, project their own views upon Jesus. I might actually care what some of those theo-ecconomists think ought to be done; but I would do do because of their ecconomic insights, not because of their insight into Jesus' psyche.

I might be interested in what I think Jesus would do. You might be interested in what you think Jesus would do. I see no reason for either of us to be interested in what the other thinks Jesus would do.

Nor do I see any reason why either one of us should care whether the other cares about what he or she thinks about what Jesus would do.

It is ludicrous to promote tax cuts when you consider the national debt.

I guess I'm too jaded and cynical, but I feel that most politicians go to the "God talk" to pander to the religious fervor in this country. The reality is that they're usually caving in to the special interest groups that put money in their campaign coffers. We really do have the best democracy that money can buy. Unfortunately it's a democracy that only serves those with the money.

I want to pick on the question that “Should faith influence politicians in their decision making?” If anyone thinks “YES,” then instead of the present two-party nonfunctional congress be prepared for greater chaos caused by zealous followers of different religious sects.

The US was founded by people who were doing something that had never been done before, and part of that included creating a working society of people who helped one another. These procedures became laws in time. The founding fathers were progressive; otherwise, they would have simply started another monarchy here. Unfortunately, we have many in this country who support a theocratic oligarchy and somehow believe they have buttressing arguments in the Constitution. What we have now was not exactly envisioned by the founding fathers, but what was started was a framework around which improvements could be made for the betterment and enrichment of that society. To casually cast aside those unable and, yes, unwilling to pull their weight brings a society down and leads to revolutions between the haves and the have nots. The frontier mentality does not work in this country, in the world or in this time. This country needs to move beyond it as well, or the implosion that we see now will simply continue. Looking backward to find solutions for what is coming at us is irresponsible, irrational and unproductive. Fear of moving forward is not a reason for remaining entrenched in attitudes that do not work anymore and most likely never did. Professor Silverman's remarks are right on point to the serious issues facing us.

"You don't have to be religious to believe that government has a fundamental obligation to help those who can't help themselves. "

But the pioneering democratic (as in Democracy, not as in the political party) political philosophers such as Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferston, etc. disagreed with your belief.

On the other hand, socialist/communist political philosophers would agree with your belief.

If you believe in a constitutional Republic, then you disagree with the idea that helping those who cannot help themselves is a fundamental governmental obligation. If you believe in a government not created by the masses, but rather in a government created by the ruling class to rule over the masses without the approval of the masses (even if your intentions are benevolent), then it can be possible to believe in this being a fundamental obligation.

You wrote: "government has a fundamental obligation to help those who can't help themselves". Since when? Is that a universal verity or your personal wish?

Seems to me no one owes you anything unless and until you have done something for somebody. You can start with this as a plain secular principle, and deal with exceptions later (e.g.. someone born deformed). Or you can start with the principle of taking from those who have and forcing them to give to those who don't.

In first case you must take care of yourself. In the second you wait for someone to take care of you. Tell me, which approach leads to a more stable society?