I find this concept curious. It implies certain things. 1) I rely on my government. 2) I expected something from it.
The following stream of thought was initiated by certain complaints heard following Katrina about what the government should have done, and needed to do, and some of the things that were done by the government. Most of the statements that I intend to make are extreme and should not be applied directly to Katrina.
Let's look back to why this country started: We were betrayed by our country. Taxed without representation, made to trade only with Britain, occupied by the forces of our own king. Why would a people who broke free of a government that oppressed and betrayed us fall into a belief that we were owed something by a government? Or even worse, get to a place where we expect/require/need something from a government? Especially seeing as there was a large debate during the infancy of our nation as to how much power a federal government should have. Now it's the federal government's fault if there is a tragedy?! How did it come to this?
Here is my belief: The great depression. More specifically: The New Deal. The New Deal softly guided us into a place where we were reliant on the federal government. I won't go so far as to say that the federal government caused the depression, but their solution of how to get the nation out of it caused people to expect certain things from that ruling body.
This, of course, was brilliant. I'm sure we've heard that the end goal of those in power is to stay in power (Caesar Augustus and George Washington being the only two people that I can think of who don't fit that mold). So here was an opportunity for the government to create a mindset of need, of perceived indispensability of the federal government: We can't live without it!
This mindset has existed for so long that it is considered a right. My government failed me because I deserve a fresh start from my government. I am owed money from my government because this unstoppable tragedy has affected me.
I believe it is time to move away from that mindset. To stop relying on our government whose end goal is self preservation, and being relying on our brother. Let us forcibly take back the responsibility that our government has stolen from us by caring for one another.
This, of course, is just my opinion.
11 comments:
nice idea. any thoughts in how to implement it short of a revolution?
Does the government not have a responsibility to care for it's people, much less the poor?
I'll answer your question with a question: Does the church? Is it possible that the American Christian is so lackadaisical in their care for their fellow man due to the perceived notion that the government takes care of that sort of thing?
I don't think that approaches answering his question. Of course, both have duties. But if a government isn't responsible for caring for its people, what is it responsible for? Why even have a gov't? Think carefully before lambasting me. I mean "care" in every sense.
Marc,
Since you chose to answer with a question, i will do the same but not before answering yours.
"Does the church?" - Absolutely.
Do you really think if the Government stops helping the poor the church will running to the rescue?
Anon is right. You didn't answer my question.
yeah slut (libertarian? marc?), you're pretty well outnumbered here.
James, I am not certain that the church as a whole would run to the rescue in order to fill the void created were the government to cease it's programs. I feel that the church has proven itself in other places in the world by filling that position. But I think that the majority of the American church feels that it isn't necessary because those who are less fortunate are "being cared for" by the government.
So, my final answer to your question is: Yes, a portion of the church would run to the rescue followed by those who have been lulled into complacency by the actions of our government some time later.
Jaywood, 1)pick a better name next time. 2) If the sheer majority of opinion makes something correct then there were werewolves roaming the earth at one time.
Which name would suit you better?
I never said that you were wrong just because you're outnumbered. I just think this post is a radical notion and that you ought to defend your reasoning better.
And all this talk of the Christian American and church, no "The American Church," bah! Now you're mucking it up worse than before. Fundamentalism of the worst sort.
But, what do I know? It's not as if confusing the (a) church with government could be dangerous.
yeah, what is everyone on here Christian or something? Christ.
"There are WEREWOLVES!!!" Nah, okay, I think that churches of all denominations in and surrounding the areas effected by Katrina and Rita have been doing a phenomenal job practicing radical hospitality, so much so that many newspapers have taken notice. At the same time, we live in an era in which the church is not anti-government, but has influence in government. Therefore, we enjoy a government which is influenced by Christian ideas. What is the purpose of government if not to promote peace and seek for the general welfare of its citizens. In this case, government at all levels, the local and state moreso than the federal, is to blame. Indeed, "there's plenty of blame to go around." Everyone is very aware that the Left completely misreads the Constitution along with the exaltation of the private opinion of Thomas Jefferson to the status of federal law so that there should be a radical divide between church and state. This is an extreme position of political dualism. We shouldn't take such dualism over in our own political thinking.
"Everyone is very aware that the Left completely misreads the Constitution"
everyone? I'm not. please elaborate.
Post a Comment