It will also show that they are generally there as the result of choices made.
I disagree. While it is true we do not enforce a caste system, it is also true that the most reliable predictor of a person's socio-economic status in adult life is the socio-economic status of the family they were born into. The choices one can make are strongly influenced by one's family situation. Children in affluent homes have many more choices than children in poverty-stricken homes.
Children in affluent homes have access to good nutritious meals. They may choose to eat junk food instead, thus harming their health, but it is a choice. Children in poverty-stricken homes do not have the choice to refuse nutritious meals, as they do not have access to them in the first place. And this has the further effect of making them more prone to health problems and less able to perform well in school, thus circumscribing their opportunities well into adult life.
The examples could be multiplied many times over. While upward mobility is possible, its probability is low. More children born into poverty will remain in poverty all their life than will escape from poverty. And more children born in affluence will remain affluent all their life than fall into poverty.
We should help those we can as Christians but I don't think the government should dictate that to us.
It is rather we who should dictate to the government what it ought to do to help. That is what the prophets did. And that is the privilege of democracy, that we can influence the actions of government.
The social welfare programs you are advocating do exactly that-give a hand out, not a hand up. They simply make people less self-sufficient, more dependent on the government, and remove the motivation for people to truly excell and contribute to society.
True. This is part of the connivance of the government with the wealthy. The economic leaders of society do not want the poor to be able to fend for themselves. They want the poor to remain dependent and desperate, so that they have a docile and easily threatened labour force that will accede to their demands for higher productivity at lower wages and with little or no security. Hence they use their overpowering influence with government to design social welfare plans that increase dependency rather than reward self-sufficiency.
We can also use our voice in a democracy to change these useless social welfare schemes into programs that provide genuine help.
No because society does not 'oppress' people, people live with the consequences of life choices just like at any other time in history and there is more opportunity now than ever before for people to raise above whatever economic class they were born into-not because of government involvement but because of more widely available education and job opportunities.
Any society that tolerates poverty is an oppressive society. And you contradict yourself. Why is education more widely available today? Is it not because free education is mandated for all? What is that if it is not government involvement?
As for job opportunities, check your statistics. The export of jobs from North America to Asia proceeds apace leaving many with fewer and poorer job opportunities in America.
The poor have just as many rights as anyone else but are not entitled to any more simply because they are misfortunate or are suffering from life decisions.
You remind me of the 19th century Parisian judge who noted that the law permits the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges along the Seine. That may be, but the rich seldom need or desire to take advantage of that right. The rich as well as the poor may have the right to eat from a dumpster, but that doesn't mean that the poor would not prefer not to have to rely on that food source. Or on a food bank either.
But I am glad to see that you at least agree the poor have rights. What we need are ways to assure that the poor are not impeded in the exercise of their rights.
Most of the homeless are either alcoholics, drug addicts, or mentally ill.
But are most alcoholics homeless? Are most drug addicts homeless? You know very well that those who can afford both alcohol and homes have both. Those who can afford both cocaine and homes have both. Homelessness should not be excused as a "just" punishment for medical problems, even when the medical problems were originally brought on by life-style choices. Or, if it is to be a punishment, it should be inflicted on all alcoholics and all drug addicts, not just the ones who are poor.
Furthermore, having a stable home situation makes it easier to treat the mental illness and the addiction problems with greater assurance of success.
My older sister has been homeless as the result of bad decisions in life,
And what makes "bad decisions" a reason to tolerate homelessness?
When scripture admonishes us to aid the poor it makes no exceptions such as "unless they are alcoholic, or drug addicts, or made foolish decisions."
I've no problem with social programs who help those who CANNOT help themselves because of a genuine disability.
The problem comes in the social definition of a "genuine disability". Refusal to recognize a disability as "genuine" becomes grounds for tolerating the mistreatment of the disabled person. As I see it, alcoholism is just as genuine a disability as schizophrenia.
Inadequate nutrition, especially in childhood, creates a genuine disability of being unable to learn, as the brain development is permanently damaged.
Lack of affordable, quality child care is a genuine impediment to mothers seeking employment.
So when you say you support help for those with genuine disabilities, be sure you are identifying all genuine disabilities.
It has been said that a democracy cannot survive as a continuing form of government because eventually the people learn they can simply elect politicans who will give them entitlements from the treasury,
Actually, no government will long endure that does not grant people what they are entitled to. That is the basis of God's judgment of the nations. People can and should elect governments that will acknowledge their entitlements and honour their obligations to their citizens.
Look at the countries where socialism has historically be used-you still have the poor there and they gradually grow in numbers as society becomes more and more dependent on government hand outs.
Actually, I would advise you to check out your statistics again. Countries with strong social welfare policies generally have lower levels of poverty. It is the US among industrialized countries that has the highest rate of poverty, coming dead last or next to last on most social indicators among the OECD countries.
Even undemocratic Cuba has lower levels of poverty than many parts of the US. It has more doctors per capita than any other country in the Western Hemisphere and a more extensive (and free) health care system.
I don't defend its lack of democracy. I do believe socialism should never be forced on a society by undemocratic means.
But strangely enough, I think your earlier comment on democracy is partially right. I do think democracy moves society in a socialist direction, but I see that as a plus, not a reason to put limits on democracy. I do not agree that this bodes for economic disaster. We have no historical data that supports that thesis. And while some may support socialist measures because of what is in it for them personally, many will also support them for the fairness they bring to society.
Assuring that the hungry are fed, the homeless sheltered, the sick provided with essential care, and those who have fallen on hard times are given the boost they need to become self-supporting again are all things any fair-minded and compassionate person wants from society. And all very much sanctioned in scripture as well.
