Thursday, January 03, 2008
I have long held that the last thing we need to do as a nation is to continue to create more and more "entitlement programs" that tend to keep people in poverty rather than give them the skills and education required to get out of their situations. One of several radio talk shows I listen to is a local show called The Pulse with Leland Conway. He has written an excellent editorial for our local paper (which requires money to access archives, so I linked to the article from another source) on this very subject. I can remember some time ago visiting with some church friends from another city, who were lamenting the fact that some tax levy or other was voted down. I told them then what Conway says in his editorial--basically, that if the church (and by that I don't necessarily mean the institutions of the church, but its members severally) was doing what it should be in the way of helping those in need, whether materially or spiritually, then government would not need to get involved, and that it really isn't the government's purview to be involved in helping the poor in any case. Read the Constitution, and you will find nothing about the government's requirement to "take care of" the poor. The closest thing you might find is the bit about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm cool with government being involved with education, although these days they are apparently not doing as good a job with it as they once did, if you go by the verbal competence of some of the students I have come into contact with in my recent return to the college scene. The student who could complete a sentence without once saying "like" or "you know" was rare, indeed. Anyway, I'm straying from my point. Read Conway's editorial, and tell me what you think.
Hey, Gledwood! Thanks for coming by. Yes, a scriptorium is a room or building in a monastery where manuscripts were copied. Since I have been a calligrapher and am now a graphic designer with a love of history (esp. Irish and Scottish history), I thought it would be an appropriate name for this space. I'm glad you like it here--you are welcome anytime.
> Don't just meet the need; also see whether you can inspire the person to change
That's the key. Sometimes, poverty is just the "lumps in life". The refrigerator dies, the transmission needs a rebuild ... And it's just enough to send someone into poverty. But, most people are willing (maybe not able) to (at least partially) financially help in these cases.
Mostly, it's bad choices. This kind of poverty needs relationships and education. Few people want to help the poor buy beer and cigarettes, although most don't want them to starve, or freeze to death. So, people prefer agencise with "tough love" - shelters that provide food and shelter (not cash), and require the poor to abstain from expensive habits (at least while in the shelter).
Two of the many drawbacks of megachurches is that they magnify poverty. Megachurches have less of a relationship component, so fewer poor people are truly helped. The "entertainment" mindset of megachurches tends to gravitate toward the "dramatic poor" - the homeless guy dressed as an emperor, living in a Studebaker. But the large number of single moms, living in drab motels, wearing earth-tone hand-me-downs get ignored. No entertainment value for the stage of a megachurch.
Hi, I'm Debi. Once in a while I have a thought and I like to write it down before it goes away. This is where I write it.
