Corey: I just don't think it's in the constitution that the government (especially federal) ought to be in the business of involuntary (tax-supported) charity in the first place. about all I think the fed was chartered to do is foreign policy stuff, not domestic.

Brandon: So you don’t think the government should be in the business of education, social services, like welfare and health care? Here’s the thing. Government has worked with charitable organizations for many years. Those organizations don’t HAVE TO accept funding. But the bigger question is not whether an organization accepts funding or not. It is not the distribution pattern of government funds (whether the government gives more money to faith-based social-service organizations or not), as important as government spending is. Rather the big question is how well government respects the religious character and independence of such organizations as they serve their neighbours.

There is a little history here about how government got into the business of welfare or social assistance, but for good or ill, government programs were established to end or alleviate, poverty, joblessness, drug abuse and other poverty-inducing or poverty aggravating problems. What is problematic is that these programs were put forth as “secular” programs and since the 60’s almost all discussion of poverty and welfare focused on GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS TOWARD SECULAR CITIZENS with the consequence that most nongovernmental programs of poverty relief fell from public view despite the fact that those nongovernmental programs and services made a huge difference. The same could be said for “public schools.” Regardless, what faith-based initiatives says is that government must honour the multiple confessions held by the citizens and embodied in the institutions they create, neither imposing secularism on all nor selecting one of the religious confessions as the standard required of everyone. Conviction must be free of government coercion--the government is not empowered to determine the right faith. What this means is that IF an organization seeks government funding to help the needy, government, in its own actions must respect and work with, not OVERLOOK (as if those organizations are just an extension or arm of the government and have all kinds of strings attached--namely keeping religion out of it) or SUPPRESS (as stated earlier and namely…keeping religion out of it), the diverse organizations of civil society with their varied religious and philosophical convictions. Government action in areas such as education, social services, and health care is appropriate to overcome economic injustices and promote the common good, however, such action should support and utilize, where possible, the institutions of civil society. Government should not support a sweeping secularism nor a renewed Christian or “Judeo-Christian America.” Instead government should support and move ahead toward principled pluralism. Principled pluralism is a framework for the government’s relations with private organizations that respects those organizations’ appropriate independence and honours the religious and secular beliefs that they embody. This is something that Obama DOESN’T do. McCain isn’t much better.

Corey: Government is simply less efficient than the private sector. Name one program that government runs better than private industry would. Nothing comes to mind for me. That's why I'm quite pessimistic about talk of universal health care, for example.

Brandon: Again, faith based initiatives and Charitable choice are not asking government “to do” anything. What is being sought is that government does not discriminate against and show equal treatment to all charitable organizations secular or not. Now, officials are required to give equal opportunity to all applicants for support, whether they are secular, religious, or even very religious. Officials are not supposed to screen out religious groups, but instead to ask: Who can provide the services most effectively while respecting the necessary rules? This is why I find views like Greg’s and Zach’s sooooo problematic. Because here is where government can contribute to human flourishing not just incidentally (as Greg says), or coercively (as Zach says) but as it’s proper role. Do you see the role AND the LIMITS here?

By the way, have you ever read Alan Storkey’s book, “Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers”? In there, Storkey connects the “healing ministry” of Jesus with politics. As a part of Jesus’ RULE he preaches, heals, teaches, relates and talks. “How can this be political rule?” Storkey asks. Every other kind of political rule has “position, power, party or purse that needs defending.” And so, Storkey asks, “Can this be political rule in its proper character?” Later on down he says, “It is clearly his prior concern: Jesus seeks out people who are ill and receives those who come to him. No one at that time or throughout most of human history has seen healing as a part of politics. Wars? Yes. Taxation? Yes. Healings? No. That position is still resolutely held in the United States today. Yet, if care of our neighbour is part of just and righteous living, health and healing need to be a concern of the state, as they are now throughout much of the world. In Britain’s 2001 election, the National Health Service was the DOMINANT issue. So, we have this man walking around, lifting people up, giving them relief in mind and body, exhibiting what God’s rule is like, and it includes healing.” Somehow or another, when I hear of Jesus’ rule it certainly seems to leave out political dimensions.

Corey: I know for a fact that I personally don't have much money to give to charity after the government is done taking their big chunk. Interesting thought... since most of money the government takes from me goes to charity should I consider my tax to be my tithe? I'm giving WAY more than 10%, then. Somehow, it just doesn't feel like charity when it's done involuntarily. And it's certainly not as accountable.

Brandon: Interesting that you should bring this up. Storkey addresses this too. Much of Western society has absorbed Christian principles such that it can’t see that it depends sooo much on Christian principles. Modern taxes are often FOR US Storkey says. They fund health, education, welfare and other compassionate provisions. This is slightly different than the colonial extortion which was self-serving in the early days of the founding of America. Storkey says, that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a paradigm for the meaning of taxation. Three people come by: a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan. The first two are from the taxing classes but they don’t care. The Samaritan cares for the victim and ultimately funds his recovery and so we are to do likewise. Storkey says this:

“Taxation can be an expression of the nation’s system of care and neighbourly love. Through taxes, we are true neighbours to our neighbours. Here Jesus, in speaking with the expert in the law, lays out the motive that can drive a positive view of taxation. It can be an expression of love, not just a process of state imposition. Now, through our choice of governments, paying taxes is largely a democratic voluntary act. In 2001, the British electorate voted parties proposing higher taxation; previously they had don’t the opposite. Jesus’ appeal in the parable of the Good Samaritan is to obey God’s command to love our neighbour as ourselves: “Go and do likewise” establishes the principle of providing for the sick and injured, meeting their needs.” Later on further down Storkey says:

“Even where health provision is done through individual insurance, other forms of welfare and communal provision provide the main meaning of the taxation system. This is great parable acts as a sign-post for societal organization. Indeed, it could be said that a nation is defined as a unit where a decent level of neighbourly care is reflected in the political structures. Here, therefore, is a positive communal sense of provision through taxation.”

Corey: In the context of this thread I'm talking about FEDERAL involvement in these domestic issues. And so "No", I really don't think this is the proper purvue of the federal government. Domestic issues should be left to the states (Yes, I believe there is a proper role for some taxpayer-suppported domestic programs at the state or local level.)

Brandon: Well, I don’t have to work so I can respond right away.    I’m not denying that state levels of government should be involved, but I don’t think the gravity of what I’m saying is being fully appreciated here. Remember, I said that many of these social programs were put in place to alleviate “poverty-inducing” and “poverty-aggravating” problems. What I mean by that is a poverty that is “intractable.” What is intractable poverty? It is the kind that would keep a whole society, or a significant part of it, from developing. It would probably mean that some people simply cannot get access to jobs, or that they lack basic education or access to health care, or that for racial or other reasons they are systematically discriminated against. Historically speaking, intractable poverty is usually associated with failed states, or fundamentally unjust governments that discriminate in favor of a ruling elite or in favor of one racial or religious group, or governments that deny basic social goods such as education to one or more classes or groups. All of these are examples of fundamental injustice, and that is the kind of injustice that government MUST address. Yet fundamental injustices of these kinds cannot be dealt with merely by welfare assistance for those who suffer the negative consequences, but that doesn’t mean that government should not be involved. That is, a nation's welfare obligations do not rest with NGOs (non-governmental organizations) alone, because people in dire poverty need help even when their neighbors are not generous or when economic conditions restrict private charity. Moreover, need and wealth are often found in different places. For these reasons, government will at times have to act in ways that go beyond preventive measures and the support of NGOs, for it must address critical conditions that endanger the welfare of society as a whole. Think of it like this--government's emergency response to a sudden natural catastrophe. Few of us have any objection to the idea that it is government's responsibility to act quickly in response to a disaster by flying in food, water, and medical assistance to people who have endured a flood or an earthquake or a tornado. The National Guard may suddenly take over security for a whole town. State and even federal governments may fly in nurses and doctors from far away to help. This is because the emergency has so disrupted the ordinary patterns of life that people cannot cope. But as soon as the emergency conditions have been dealt with, government's special measures can be pulled back and people can return to their normal responsibilities.

The situation is different, however, where people have suffered under unjust conditions that have developed over time, particularly if those conditions have been upheld by the law. Think of slavery, or of a tax code that gives advantages to one group in society, or of low-quality schools for those who do not have the resources to move to a better location or purchase private education. The consequences of these injustices may not show up suddenly like those resulting from a tornado, but human lives and communities may have become severely twisted and degraded over several generations. These are conditions to which government MUST respond by doing more than merely helping NGOs minister to people in special need. Laws—perhaps even the Constitution—may have to be changed and the institutional framework of society or the economy that has helped to produce the degradation will have to be transformed. By the way, see how this cannot be restricted to just one level of government?

Corey: Greg gave a sermon a couple weeks ago basically rehashing his Repenting of Religion book. In it he mentioned the socio-pathic nature of "religionists": these folk only understand the form, not the substance, of righteous living. He mentioned that this sort person necessarily judges others and may urge that laws be passed to force compliance. Greg commented how silly this is since laws don't bring love and if you love you don't need laws. Applied here, I suggest that most of the domestic social programs are sociopathic in nature. We're so concerned that others won't act lovingly toward their neighbor properly that we pass laws to attempt to force them to behave as if they did.

The fact is, we have not loved our neighbors properly, and so that void was filled instead by government programs. But, this ultimately is a form of institutionalized idolatry: "the government will supply all my needs, according to its riches in power." Government social programs sprang out of a legitimate void that had to be filled. But I still say we made a sort of pact with the devil in doing so through the government. Today we've become so enmeshed in the Matrix that we can hardly imagine anything else.

Brandon: That’s good as far as that goes (though Greg‘s anti-institutionalism is just mind-boggling at times). Meaning, if all we are doing is relying on government to do the job thereby making ourselves feel better that “we’ve done something,” what Greg says is important. That is essentially no different than Christians relying on big television to spread the Gaaaaaspel. But again, I’m not talking about this. I’m AM talking about charities getting involved on the ground in all their distinctiveness. Government run amuck is that it discriminates against charitable organizations through the process of secularization. The laws I’m speaking of that should be passed is not about forcing someone to pay taxes to help their neighbour ie. welfare. I’m speaking of government recognizing that there exists OUTSIDE of government, organizations and institutions, ie. Churches, food banks, charities, etc, that make a HUGE difference. They exist FOR this. This is THEIR PURPOSE. I’m saying that government CAN stand in the way of them fulfilling their responsibility. Government does bear responsibility to help those in need (as stated earlier), but government is not the only institution or organization to bear such responsibility. As a matter of principle, government must do justice to the real diversity of human social responsibilities.

Corey: I've not read Alan Storkey’s book, “Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers”. I'll try to do that. But it still seems that even if taxes are "for us", that this is nonetheless sociopathic in nature. At the bottom of it all is the notion that we can't trust people to make the right choice without coercion.

I gotta run to work, I'll try to reflect on this further and better engage with your ideas and get back to you later.

Brandon: No, no, no…   the whole point IS trusting people to fulfill their GOD-GIVEN RESPONSIBILITIES.