tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291828614359932852.post5482240771075088085..comments2023-10-24T01:16:52.599-07:00Comments on Matt Zemek's Archives: My Story - The Sharing Begins HereMatt Zemekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11549151766426130779noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291828614359932852.post-76693204789869302532010-04-21T09:36:33.370-07:002010-04-21T09:36:33.370-07:00To very (very) briefly weigh in, I tweeted this mo...To very (very) briefly weigh in, I tweeted this morning (April 21) that as I see American political life unfold, the USA needs 50 percent of Ron Paul and 50 percent of Harry Emerson Fosdick.<br /><br />If Walter Rauschenbusch was substituted for Fosdick, no complaints at all.<br /><br />I could also substitute Richard Rohr, John Dear, Joan Chittister, or other Catholics I admire, too; it's just that Fosdick and Rauschenbusch spent more of their ministries talking in (somewhat) more political and social terms. Rohr/Dear/Chittister remain mostly in the spiritual realm, at least from my vantage point.Matt Zemekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11549151766426130779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291828614359932852.post-63865076319321020052010-04-21T00:44:45.036-07:002010-04-21T00:44:45.036-07:00I totally agree about time, & most people coul...I totally agree about time, & most people could surely do more, including me.<br /><br />One thing that always amuses me is that it seems that so many conservatives and liberals actually want the same thing - a happy society - we just prefer different ways of getting there. I am a bit surprised by how savage the wars can be between the two tribes at the time, and how each side can demonise the other. (I am not excepting myself from this, I am as prone to do it as anyone else.)<br /><br />My main trouble with relying on personal charity is that it is so likely to be patchy and partial when looked at across society as a whole. Some groups are easier to raise money for than others, but they are not necessarily less "deserving". <br /><br />FWIW I do agree that government coverage & help, paid for by people's contributions, should not allow us to sit back and think that our job is done. <br /><br />My faith in the role of government in helping to build a happy society might be naive, but on the other hand - I don't think it's any more naive than faith in individual charity. <br /><br />I feel that we tried to move more that way in the UK in the 1980s, and, because of other strands in society around selfishness and ideas of hard work & meritocracy meaning that those in lack were so often seen to be undeserving, allied to some deep recessions - it had some pretty awful consequences.<br /><br />I don't think either way is perfect - but couldn't there be some way of compromising and combining both ways? Does it have to be one or the other or could both individual responsibility and charity, and some form of government or government backed coverage, have roles to play?Jewellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291828614359932852.post-80223233651889053992010-04-19T15:16:22.380-07:002010-04-19T15:16:22.380-07:00Matt,
You're a good man. I've always tri...Matt,<br /><br />You're a good man. I've always tried to set aside money every month to give to charity. Rarely do we miss a month. Sometimes the amount is more than other months, but we always try to give at least $30 to worthy orginazations that feed the poor and/or aleviate suffering, and I try to give up to $300 a month, though I haven't been hitting that goal lately, I'm afraid. <br /><br />That said, I've been much more stingy with my time. Much more. You're a great example to me. I can always come up with excuses, and with a 50-60+ an hour a week job plus a family of four (soon to be five), I've always got excuses, but the reality is that I've always got time on Saturday afternoons after kids' sports is over and Sunday afternoons after church. Sigh. <br /><br />I would like to make one small quibble with your first view: You said, "If a family or individual has undergone certain unchosen hardships, and the Catholic parish (or SVDP center) in that person's (blighted, underdeveloped, underserved) neighborhood is underfunded, and the shelters are full at night, and the county government lacks funding, and the city is similarly hamstrung, society has a moral obligation to help that particular kind of family or person. To not do so would be immoral."<br /><br />Personal charity should come REGARDLESS of whether the church or city or county or state or federal government spend a dime on these programs. (And, the federal government SHOULD NOT spend a dime because it has no constitutional authority to do so, but that's another discussion.) One of the problems with the government taking over the charity business is that it conditions people to think that they have no obligation to do so. After all, they pay their taxes, right? (Joe Biden is a particularly egregious example of a person who has been blessed with so much but given so little back from his personal wealth.) Europeans, who have been fully conditioned to accept a cradle to grave welfare state, give MUCH, MUCH less per capita than Americans. Liberal Americans, who are thrilled with the notion of spending other peoples' money on charity, give less than conservative Americans. Conservative Americans give less than they should. We all have a personal responsibility to give our money (and our time!) to help others and should not expect governments to take on that responsibility. This is one of the biggest pitfalls of modern progressivism, in my opinion.<br /><br />JohnJohn Caryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06166825891427295121noreply@blogger.com