The difference between Charity and Welfare

							The difference between Charity and Welfare
cptcaveman.wordpress.com
March 19, 2012

I’ve had a bee in my bonnet for a while now
on this topic and I want to explore it a bit
further. With elections and what not coming
up it is important for us, as a nation, to take
stock periodically and decide for ourselves,
in a deliberate manner, where we, as a
nation, want to go. What sort of people do
we want to be? What values do we wish to
foster and what traits do we wish to
discourage?
I have in the last year fallen completely off
the Christian social agenda bandwagon. It
no longer makes any sense to me to try to
have the State govern in a way specifically
designed to favor Christian preferences.
There are a number of reasons for this. One,
who gets to define Christian preferences,
Catholics or Baptists? Two, how do we
equitable uphold our egalitarian principals
when other faiths make up a large
percentage of the population that falls under
the State? Three, do we really want the State
to define morality when who controls the
State can so easily change, changing the
definition of right morality with them? Four,
where in the Bible does it say the rules that
govern others behavior as dictated by the
State is something Christian’s are supposed
to give a damn about?
Take, for example, how the Catholic Church
got hoodwinked in the Depression era into
backing the whole litany of social
do-gooderism labeled the New Deal and it’s
follow-up programs. Convinced they were
helping provide for the very real needs of
the poor Catholics and many Protestants
backed government programs that used tax
money to provide for the basic needs of the
indigent and working poor.
But, what did they give up to get this greater
good? I would argue a whole damn lot. In order to lay this out in an understandable way I am going to
juxtapose how I see charity working with how I see welfare working in a number of areas.
                                                        1. Charity is voluntary, welfare is coerced. Charity
                                                        begins in the heart. We see a need, we have a
                                                        surplus and we feel led to give, of our time, our
                                                        money, or emotions, our goods, whatever to succor
                                                        those in need. We do this, perhaps for the hope of
                                                        heavenly rewards, but, if it is genuine charity, with
                                                        no expectation of any sort of payback. We do it
                                                        from the goodness of our souls. Welfare, on the
                                                        other hand, is taken from us at the point of a gun.
                                                        Don’t believe me? Try not paying your taxes.
                                                        Eventually, the law will come and remove you
                                                        from your home, confiscate by lien your paycheck
                                                        and every other thing you own. If you resist, you
will be imprisoned or shot. How is that not coercion? There is no opt out if you object to welfare or any
other use your taxed money may be put to. Some may make the argument that you benefit indirectly
because of the lower crime, etc that would otherwise occur if your neighbors went without their
welfare. Leaving aside for the moment the validity of the argument that welfare reduces crime and
otherwise benefits the general society, how does having the direct benefit of me having my money that
I earned taken away by force and then magically given back to me indirectly benefit me again? What if
that isn’t a trade I am willing to make? What gives my neighbors the right to vote to have their way
with me, regardless of my wishes?
2. Charity is commanded by most religions, but it was never intended by the Constitution. Most major
religions command their followers to conduct some sort of charity, alms giving, aid, etc. The exceptions
I can think of are Satanism, which is wholly consumed with self, and atheism which can only commend
charity if the individual senses some benefit in a rational manner. Even “neutral” religions such as the
Eastern philosophies and Wiccans believe in Karma or the rule of threefold return. On the other hand,
the U.S. Constitution is, as our current administration has lamented, a constitution of negative rights. It
is DESIGNED to keep the State from doing things to you, not to allow it to do things for you. If you
believe that it is the State’s job to do something for you, what is to keep them from doing something to
you at the behest of doing something for someone else?
3. Charity is direct, welfare is indirect. In the 25th chapter of the book of Matthew Jesus invites in
believers with these words: 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and
you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you
clothed me, I was sick and you
looked after me, I was in prison and
you came to visit me.’
Nowhere in the Bible of which I am
aware does He command us to give
money to another entity in order to
have them do these things for us. We
are not to hire these tasks out, we are
to go out and do them personally.
There are practical reasons for this.
Spending time rubbing elbows with
the hoi polloi brings us down a notch
or two and keeps us humble and
grateful for what we have. If I meet
someone and can do something for
them, that is direct and personal. Ican
                                                                      judge for myself whether their
                                                                      circumstances warrant my aid, be it
                                                                      time, money or goods. You can fool me
                                                                      for a while, but eventually I will stop
                                                                      giving to you if you refuse to learn and
                                                                      grow out of your situation. It is very
                                                                      hard to pull off an entitlement mentality
                                                                      if I see the life you are choosing over
                                                                      time. Likewise, for those receiving aid,
                                                                      there is a personal sense of
                                                                      responsibility to someone who has
                                                                      helped you to do what you can to get
                                                                      yourself in a position to no longer need
                                                                      their aid.
                                                                      But, in a welfare situation, none of that
                                                                      applies. There is no great motivation to
                                                                      improve one’s lot, just the need to fool
                                                                      the bureaucracy into believing you
remain in need. Likewise, those who have their wealth confiscated and used to provide are not
enlightened in any way by the giving.
4. Charity fosters relationship but welfare fosters isolation. As we noted above, charity involves at least
some involvement in people’s lives. To be affective one must spend at least some time with those one is
helping. Not so with welfare. As long as the check and food stamps keep coming in the recipient is free
to spend their time vegged out on the sofa in front of the idiot box. Neither the provider of welfare nor
the receiver are forced to have any sort of relationship which might encourage growth in the individuals
or partnership in improving the community more generally.
5. Charity is temporary but welfare is permanent. Look at how the well-meaning efforts of welfare
proponents have gutted the African-American family. Check THIS for an example. Anyone can need a
little charity, but you cant pull it off as a lifestyle because the giver of charity will run out of patience
and remember 2 Thes 3:10 “10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will
not work, he shall not eat.”
6. Charity can be passed on but welfare produces no excess. A man who has received true charity will,
when he can, pass on that charity to another who is walking in shoes he once filled. A recipient of State
sponsored welfare received what they got because they “deserved” it and so there is no moral
obligation to pay it forward.
7. Charity is humbling and motivating to accept but welfare breeds a sense of entitlement. Many would
point out the de-humanizing nature of charity as proof there needs to be anonymous State welfare. I
would contend that it is the bureaucracy bound welfare system that reduces people to numbers and that
the act of receiving charity both produces the beneficial affects of a humble spirit and motivates the
recipient to get out of their situation as soon as possible.
There is a place for charity in our society. We all need a helping hand from time to time. But, I refuse to
believe that the State is the rightful dispenser of that charity. The State should ensure that the playing
field is as level as can be and that it is adequately defended from outside influences. After that, for
those who simply can’t or don’t succeed, it is the place of the Church and other groups to bring succor
to the deserving and scorn to the slothful and willfully indigent.


http://www.infowars.com/