The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Christianity and social justice? > Comments

Christianity and social justice? : Comments

By Richard Mulgan, published 2/3/2007

The charitable approach to social welfare, though providing a sense of self-worth to donors, remains demeaning to the recipient.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
I think that the health sector is partially responsible for taking us out of the enlightened self-interest/entitlement models, back into the charity models. Funding that would have otherwise been directed towards poverty relief, as an entitlement, is now headed straight to health clinics. Medical practisioners are emerging as the new social workers, determining who deserves and who does not deserve welfare, in accordance with their own ideas about what is deemed "healthy" and "unhealthy". Poor people are considered poor because they are ill (as drug, alcohol or mental "defectives"). Illness is related back to moral judgements relating to so called "life style" choices and those who are not deemed fit to compete in the capitalist market, are considered to have "only themselves to blame". The good news is, that some so called "illness" are defined as temporary whilste others are considered permanent and fixed. In other words, poor people can now fit in one of two catagories- either they have just temporarily hit bad times because of "lack of fortune", or are considered permanently disabled i.e "will remain unlucky for life". Medical students are not familiarised with concepts of social injustice as most of them went to private schools and grew up in the lap of luxioury..."luckily"!
Posted by vivy, Friday, 2 March 2007 11:07:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A reasonably penetrating article, without obvious assumptions of right and left which have become de riguer in modern political discussion.

I suppose I was only peripherally aware of the important distinction between charity and welfare - yes, on the face of it, it is obvious, but few consider the implications it can have for the future of both conservatism and liberalism.

Of particular significance is always realising the importance of distinguishing welfare rights from simple charity...

Interesting stuff.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 2 March 2007 11:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Author said:

[After all, any genuine belief in social justice, whether religious or secular, should be sufficient to withstand political setbacks]

eer..sure.. until ur in the trenches, and the bullets are zinging over your head and around your ears and you suddenly wake up to the reality that you know its 'just a belief'.... rather than a belief grounded in something as enduring and eternal as the resurrection of Christ.

'Beliefs' by themselves are just ideas. They may be positive or negative, and if implemented across society have very different outcomes.

The far more important point is to have a belief with a firm foundation.

[Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."] (Matth 7:24-27)

As with the mans house, so with society, and its politics, and with us individually.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 3 March 2007 7:23:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vivy, don't blame the medical profession for societies advocation of the victim mentality. Doctors, nurses or hospitals don't control social directions. One of the key reasons that there is an increase in charitable involvement is due to the heavy strain on the total system of social welfare. It's become it's own industry and a great deal of tax revenue is needed to simply keep the beast running, paying the millions in all worker salaries, rents and equipments and other perishables. Never mind the tax revenue necessary to maintain or treat existing community social needs, let alone manage a spike due to any environmental calamity or disease outbreak.

"Medical students are not familiarised with concepts of social injustice as most of them went to private schools and grew up in the lap of luxioury..."luckily"!"

Yes, one wouldn't want to depend on the destitute to provide for the needs of the community. If your willing to champion for an increase in welfare benefits and the taxation necessary to ensure that the poor get to medical school, I'll second it.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 3 March 2007 1:48:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is wrong to take what Christians say seriously. There are many cases where charity is used to subjegate poor communities by sending missionaries and embarking on stolen generation style programs. Many religious based charities are wracked with corruption and more still are too incompetant to deliver important needed aid. There are a few effective religious charities but those are rarer than hens teeth. Most of the most succesful have secularised. A good thing to because religion holds bias against many types of people. The purpose of Christian charity is to satisfy the ego of the believer this insincerity shows in the field.Many religion based charities are very selective in the kinds of people they will help. For many of the larger denominations charity has become a tax rort a good way to make profit. Many others are only responsive to 'hot' issues and so we see charity flooding away from the Sudan to Afghanistan to Indonesia to New Orleans. Anywhere where there are tv cameras. There are a minority of Christians who are sincere in helping others and often they will be starving along side orphans in places such as in South America. A close friend worked in such a place in Equador. Getting an Australian was a real boon for them to use his networks to get resources cheap for us. Many of the children and nuns had to work full time to feed the orphans. The orphanage faced famine in the past but the Catholic Churches input was to send them a lovely painted sign denoting it was a Catholic orphanage.

It doesnt matter what Christians claim. If Rudd is egalitarian it has nothing to do with the bible. Capitalism isnt secular , Costello is Christian and has no empathy at all for his fellow man and assesses everything to the value of the dollar. God does not exist, everybodies position is self relevant whatever spiritality they may attempt to claim.
Posted by West, Saturday, 3 March 2007 2:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West

Sure glad it isn't you we will be facing on judgement day. You certainly seem to have those 'evil Christians' motives summed up. Seems like a fixation for you.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 3 March 2007 3:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner you would be better off facing me at a mythological judgement day , I would be more interested in helping you than judging you.
Posted by West, Saturday, 3 March 2007 3:47:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could say that right-wing Christianity has made the US too sympathetic with Israel letting them go militarily nuclear to solve a political problem with other ME nations who are not nuclear.

The above is thus an example of faith in an extreme right-wing Christian cum Jewish realism rather than in the Socratic reasoning which has helped to form the laws and commonsense which has helped more to form our democracies rather than reliance on our religions.

Peace in the Middle East will thus never be found by trying to abolish the hatred between two sides by battle tactics, but by sensible diplomatic reasoning.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 3 March 2007 4:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred,
You said:
"The above is thus an example of faith in an extreme right-wing Christian cum Jewish realism rather than in the Socratic reasoning which has helped to form the laws and commonsense which has helped more to form our democracies rather than reliance on our religions."

I beg to differ with you. I do not agree that Socratic reasoning has reached conclusions (i.e laws) that are any different from those reached by religious authorities. I do not think you will find a single secular law, in any nation state, that cannot be traced back to philosophical principles rooted in religious doctrine. The beauty (and complication) of religious beliefs is that they are not all the same i.e Christianity and Judaism differ significantly, as do the laws in their corresponding nation states
Posted by vivy, Saturday, 3 March 2007 8:29:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I do not think you will find a single secular law, in any nation state, that cannot be traced back to philosophical principles rooted in religious doctrine."

Perhaps, but maybe this is only true because historically (and prehistorically) religious doctrine came first. If so, I don't see that religious doctrine has any intellectual superiority, or that it can claim any causal effect on legal principles. Especially since many modern legal systems attempt to do without or at least minimize some notable religious doctrine (the vengeful eye-for-an-eye stuff).

In brief, though I admire a lot of what people call Christian principle, I think it is irrelevant that it may be Christian. And I cannot see any way that social principles can logically be defended or attacked because they do or do not agree with Christian teachings.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 4 March 2007 9:55:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well in that case bushbasher,
You should simply "turn the other cheek" !
Posted by vivy, Sunday, 4 March 2007 10:00:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DB: "eer..sure.. until ur in the trenches, and the bullets are zinging over your head and around your ears and you suddenly wake up to the reality that you know its 'just a belief'.... rather than a belief grounded in something as enduring and eternal as the resurrection of Christ."

And that is your "belief." Just like West's determination that there is absolutely. no god. Another "belief."

That's the problem with the god debate. It's all entirely based solely on belief. You can talk about your eternal christ bedrock all you want. But that's just your "belief."

In any case, we're getting somewhat sidetracked (and yes, I know the direction of threads is allowed to veer from topic, but really, the "my god is great, no your god is fake" discussion gets pretty old after a while) from what I suspect is a potentially more fruitful discussion - is welfare based on a preconception of charity wrong? Should it be viewed as an entitlement for all Australians, rather than an act of charity?

This really is a crucial issue, yet I suspect few are aware of its significance.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 4 March 2007 1:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Melbourne Philosopher Neil Levy put it nicely:

"Most people think that philanthropy, the donation of money to charities, is in need of no justification. I argue that this is not the case. I examine the arguments which are, or might be, advanced in favor of philanthropy, and show that they are less decisive than is usually thought. I then sketch a moral argument against certain kinds of philanthropic activity: those which aim to provide essential services to our fellow citizens. In these cases, I argue, large scale philanthropic activity carries with it serious risks, of changing the balance of funding from the public to the private sector, thereby exposing those most in need to the vicissitudes of the market. To the extent that private funding of essential services becomes the norm, the vulnerable become the recipients of (at best) uncertain aid, which is liable to fluctuations and constant reduction. Essential services should be provided to the needy as a right, not as a favor, and these services are most appropriately delivered by government."

Charity is uncertain aid. I will only support a rights based welfare system.
Posted by strayan, Sunday, 4 March 2007 2:37:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Private philanthropy is the excuse governments use to devolve their responsibilities. I agree with Strayan charity is not a an effective alternative for welfare and should not be used in place of welfare. Charity is inefficient as it takes great resources to seek out and much is bled through the administration process. A charity delivery system is also always under siege by market forces and resource capabilities of the recieving end.

As an example I will use the senario of a disaster such as drought in a foreign country. A government can transfer funds to the afflicted nation or to the U.N who can professionally and quickly administer aid over a protracted time frame. A charity has to get people in the source country to do its work which maybe reliant on the suffering community,or it may have to use resources to get somebody out there. It has to collect and process the funds, pay all sorts of middle men and buy resources at any price offered. This sort of thing happens on a smaller scale in Australia where small charities are inefficiently left to deal with social problems and despite the few dollars they scrounge here and there in their tins more is wasted on telemarketers , mail outs ect when in the end their very existence is dependent on public grants.
Posted by West, Sunday, 4 March 2007 5:05:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with strayan too, banged the nail on the head. Politics too often attacks welfare, cuts it, kicks it around, only to find that the consequence of this is throwing more money around to fix up the damage in a vicious cycle. It makes more economic sense to have efficient welfare systems without sloppy improvisations and overzealous welfare police.

They employ too many fat cats just to clean up the mess caused by so called "cut-backs". It is a waste of money and it is morally corrupt.

The charities are good for non essential causes, excellently put. Essential causes are the responsibility of Good management in Good Government, left right or indifferent.

Another interesting chapter David is the Book of Kings and the Story of Elijah and the Widdow. It was a test of humility. Elijah passed the test and so did the foreigners, in hospitality and tollerance, and the grain turned to harvest, oil returned, and rain returned after the drought. The book of Kings gives as some de-ja-vois. (spelt right?)

Blessings to you all.
Posted by saintfletcher, Sunday, 4 March 2007 6:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am reminded of George Orwell's account of Salvation Army run lodging houses in "Down and out in Paris and London". Orwell remarked that "the Salvation Army are so in the habit of thinking themselves a charitable body that they cannot even run a lodging-house without making it stink of charity."

A sizeable extract from this striking book is available here: http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/prose/DownandOut/downandout_29.html Read it and tell me you don't find Orwell's comments as relevant today as they were in the 1930s.
Posted by Johnj, Sunday, 4 March 2007 9:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you will find that much of the success of the Hezbollah in South Labanon is due to their acts of charity helping the disadvantaged. Compassion for the poor isn't only limited to the followers of Jesus.

Philanthropy is another story. The rich often engage in philanthropy just for taxation purposes or the kudos they receive. It has nothing to do with charity. Real charity involves the giver making a sacrifice, whether in time or money, for no return.
Posted by VK3AUU, Sunday, 4 March 2007 10:37:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is the nub of the article

“Secular progressives who placed their faith in historical evolution towards a socialist future, have been demoralised by the recent successes of global capitalism. Today, it is the right, not the left, that seems to have history on its side.”

Translated is history has observed that it is capitalism which is the generating system for wealth. Fetter or deny it and the ensuing collapse merely ensure greater poverty, as we see every time a socialist gains power, all great and noble intentions and speeches about the nobility of labour accompanied by an economic incompetence which leads to less wealth for all, not only the “wealthy”.

AS for Nobles-oblige. Compassion and charity can only be delivered by individuals, socialism does not embrace charity or compassion, economic leveling reduces the gap between rich and poor by ensuring the rish are no longer rich and the poor are poorer because the rich have less disposable income to indulge themselves in the products from the factories which employ the poor.

Dearest Margaret Famously said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state”

She here state what the author wrote – that “socialism” is a dead horse incapable of pulling the cart of state toward any destination. History has shown the failure of communism, failure of nationalized industry and failure of accountability in government sponsored welfare programmes.

Today it is the right, not the left, that not only seems to but certainly has, history on its side.

We (the right) always knew it, the idealist of the secular progressive were / are tossers who, like too many gullible folk, bought into the small minded, self righteous, envy politics of socialism and a misguided belief that by disabling the competent and capable, you improve the lot of the incompetent and incapable.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 5 March 2007 4:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,
You said:
We (the right) always knew it, the idealist of the secular progressive were / are tossers who, like too many gullible folk, bought into the small minded, self righteous, envy politics of socialism and a misguided belief that by disabling the competent and capable, you improve the lot of the incompetent and incapable.

As a former so called "idealist tosser" as you describe, I have to say that to a certain extent I agree with your summation. What I simply cannot understand, is that given that You (the right) are so competant and capable, why on earth haven't you come up with an alternative means of mass production by now? Why do you continue to build factories (albeit out of the kindness of your hearts in order to employ the disabled and incompetant)? Surely it would be a fun thing to try and come up with the technology to replace these human robots? Send the incompetant and incapable back to school rather than to factories. Teach them how to build robots to work in factories, so that human beings are freed up from tedious and mechanical labour. What do you reckon? Would there be a buck to be made in such a plan
Posted by vivy, Monday, 5 March 2007 4:34:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If everyone was competent and capable, there would be a lot of unemployment. Just think how many would be redundant in Centrelink alone if nobody was unemployed or poor. It would result in a crisis for industry as well if there was no pool of workers available to work for a pittance.

I was under the impression that charities, to receive funding from governments, have been pressured to act as quasi watchdogs to identify worthy recipients of government welfare. The last I heard, most would not sign up.

I wonder whether the move back to more charity involvement is just a means to not only control what organisations like St Vinnies and the Salvos do, but to give the appearance of less government intervention in social policy.

Of course, this takes away the notion of a right to a decent living standard and places the onus on the individual for his or her own situation. It also fits nicely into the ideology of an obligation rather than a right.
Posted by Lizzie4, Monday, 5 March 2007 6:45:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivy, It has already been done, but not quite in the way you suggest. The factory is actually called a university, the incompetent are students of Arts and Social Sciences who themselves become robots out in society as counsellors of the afflicted.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 5 March 2007 7:00:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnj I cant believe it I have never come accross anybody else who has read 'Down and out in Paris and London' a true master piece.

You are right and many religious based 'charities' and even services such as employment agencies employ the same agenda. I will drop the political correctness here and call it Christian fascism because thats what it is. I believe Christian fascist concepts have also corrupted our federal government because such concepts as welfare contracts are constructed of the same ideological contrivance. Not withstanding several ministers have publicly alligned themselves to Christian fascist movements such as Catholicism and Pentacostalism. I am not suggesting all these ministers are neccarsarily Christian fascists but we can saftely say that concepts such as welfare contracts indicates they have at least been duped by the fascist movement.

What Orwell descibes of the Salvation Army is neither real charity nor welfare. From what I have heard the Salvation Army is still selective about who it helps. It spends a lot of money on self admiring propaganda which is a reason why I never donate to their profit. The Salvation Army should take a lesson from a truley positive and successful organisation like the Red Cross. Local governments should be given the resources to address people in crisis. Local governments are accessible to everybody, being democratic they can not turn somebody away because they are not of the right religion ,or homosexual ,or of a culturally dubious marriage status.Local government can also employ professionals to offer real help to provide the needs of people.
Posted by West, Monday, 5 March 2007 8:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I relay back to the previous posting that basic welfare must be the responsibility of the Government. At the moment our Government is neglecting this field and the system leans on welfare agencies, usually religious agencies, sometimes other Government Funded NGOs.

To their credit, Christian agencies can do something Government funded NGOs could never do. They can operate through their principles of faith. They have armies of volunteers, who are quite happy to do it for no financial payment, as they believe that this is for the grace of God. You could see this as exploitation. They don't see it that way.

What would Dr Who, a BBC sci-fi icon say about this? Played by Chris Eccleston, Who said "Never trust cats, nurses or nuns". This was repeated by his regeneration: David Tenant. In episode 9 in “the Hollow Child” London was destroyed by the NAZIS, burning, and it was all doom and gloom. The girl leading the homeless orphins raided people’s houses: straight to the dinner tables, during bomb raids. Seeing the mess left by the bombings, they wept and said that it was all gone, there was no future. The Doctor replied assuring them how wonderful they were. Britain was the mouse that stood up to the giant and said “no”. They were survivors. More interesting this icon said, when you win, rebuild this mess and create a wonderful welfare state. The future depends on it.

Who could argue with a timelord?

I think you could say history could only repeat itself to rebuild. In the meantime, the food van in the inner city run by Sydney City Mission feeds the homeless, they never talk of religion, most don't know who they are. The Sisters of Mercy and Charity have many projects for homeless and health projects, most don't know that it is the Church.

This is not an outcome, this is what they do in the third world when Governments are too interested in war and not interested in managing the social security of their own people.
Posted by saintfletcher, Monday, 5 March 2007 4:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, so much to disagree with, and so little time.

The entire article seems to be rudderless (sorry!) in that it doesn't bother to set down any parameters for "social justice" (one of those magnificently meaningless phrases that has me reaching for a gun), leaving us to fill in our own gaps as to what constitutes "welfare" and what constitutes "charity".

While it makes passing reference to welfare being "justified more in terms of compassionate help for the long-term disadvantaged rather than as “social security”", we are left in the dark as to what we should understand by "disadvantaged".

Disabled? Sick? Uneducated? Unable to afford a plasma TV? Unemployed? Homeless? All of the above?

As a result, we get notions such as "welfare must be the responsibility of the Government" being accepted at face value, rather than examined.

As has been proven many times over in the past sixty years, every time something becomes "the responsibility of the Government" we get a raft of overfed, over-superannuated public servants hanging off the public teat, justifying their existence by referring to the services they provide to the apparently needy.

The amount of our money that actually reaches the sick in hospital or the student in the classroom is a fraction of what we contribute, so it might be time to look again at the concept of society looking after its own.

Incidentally, of all the charities I have found that the Salvos are the most efficient, caring and non-discriminatory bunch of folk I have ever come across
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 5 March 2007 5:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welfare is one of those institutions for which those who honestly need it's services are hamstrung by the rules to do better than welfare and those who don't truly need it are free to make good use of it by those same rules. There is nothing benign about welfare. It may give the impoverished a hand out from those better off in society. But it isn't given magnanimously. It's a very embarrassing and demeaning process and from what I've seen from going along as an advocate. There are those welfare staff that exact a hefty price in pride and self-worth for their attention. More than once I been given the "these people" attitude by those who are paid very well for the sole purpose of helping "those people". My personal observation is that long term dependency on welfare destroys both mind, body and spirit. Many are trapped in a cycle of being on welfare and being working poor. Their educational, nutritional and medical needs never really get seen to. To the extent that they are propelled out of that cycle. Churches. Whatever their denomination contribute greatly to the food and shelter needs of those on the very bottom of the social ladder. As well for those times of natural and unnatural calamities.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 5 March 2007 6:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would seem that Richard Mulgan's point is amply proved. "Christian compassion for the vulnerable can easily slide into patronising assumptions of social and moral distance between those who give and those who receive." Some of the ranters on this thread don't even bother starting with charity, simply launching into invective and judgmental spite without pious preamble. Nice work fellas.

I can agree with you West on Orwell, in my view he was the sharpest political thinker of the 20th century (not to mention the finest English prose stylist since Jane Austen). I'm afraid I cannot share your view of the Salvos, who have done much good work. Mind you I deplore their moralising and rigid hierarchical structure. My wife's grandparents were both Colonels in the Salvation Army and her grandfather worked himself to death for the Salvos. He confided to a son (just before he died) that he felt the Army had exploited many of the officers, while the rich benefactors of the Army enjoyed the kudos. He didn't regret joining the Salvos, but felt he had stayed to long.

Charity has its place, but its place is not replacing government.
Posted by Johnj, Monday, 5 March 2007 8:47:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivy “As a former so called "idealist tosser" ……. “Teach them how to build robots to work in factories, so that human beings are freed up from tedious and mechanical labour.”

Oh you are game in your admissions vivy and you look to the Right to fix what you cannot resolve yourself. Check out any factory compared to the factory of 100 years ago and look at the productivity of every employee and you will see that what you have sought has been provided. Just go into any supermarket, consider the array of different goods and yes, yes we do have a better range of products to choose from than our grand parents and great grand parents. You might no have one yourself but the consumer society allows you choice to buy your own plasma screen.
What preceded our consumer society was a something closer to a subsistence society where people lived hand-to-mouth, week to week, fewer goods and services to indulge in.

Some hanker for simpler time but what we see is the “wealth” which the Capitalist Right have generated in action and through a consumer society, being distributed through the participants in society be they capable and competent or otherwise.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 12:29:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've always wanted to go to sea but, never have. I could never find a incompetent boat builder with out the resources or tools to build a boat for me. Alas, I shall always be with out.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 12:41:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, as a teenager in the fifties, our family had very little in the way of material posessions, but I would suggest that we were happier and less stressed than the families of today with every possession known to man. The "wealth" that we currently have doesn't seem to be doing us a lot of good. The poor seem to be poorer and the rich are certainly richer and the world is getting more polluted.

Perhaps the underdeveloped countries should learn a lesson from this.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 8:00:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU Im sure underpaid and unprotected workers in asbestos factories in Thailand will be comforted to hear that. We must get it out to all those prostitutes and slaves in the human traffic trade to count their blessings.

For those of us with real blessings to count it is easy to become blind to the real needs and the right to have pride in themselves and their lives. Aqvarvis is right people need to be given the tools (given, not lent) to survive. But welfare is not simply teaching somebody to shovel muck out of the gutters. A saftey net has to include minimum wages and conditions and assitance to those who leave work to care for children or for ill relatives, those who become temporarily sick or become disbaled those people make up much of tomorrows poor. Work , life balance must be high on any agenda because parenting hours are shrinking effectively de-social skilling future generations. Children are increasingly become emotionally isolated something childcare and schools will never be able to bridge. Job progression is also needed to be included and job life policies also need to be introduced. Boredom or hating a job is unsustainable creating more need for fiscal welfare and essentially a waste of life.

Needed regulation wont come in this 19th century economic era it will be a long time before we can dispense with mass fiscal welfare benefits.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 10:21:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whether charity is demeaning to the recipient or not is not an argument against charity. Nor is it in favour of social welfare either. Being a welfare recipient may also be demeaning to some. It's really a subjective thing.

I don't think we can totally do without some sort of welfare system. A purely charity model would probably be deficient, not because "man is basically selfish!", or any arguments of impractability, but rather because capitalism is not a perfect system as it tends to benefit the cunning and the lucky, and the "have's" are often the ones that are least likely to be charitable, while the "have some's", who may be more likely to give to charity, don't have enough to give.
Our existing capitalist economical system is not entirely compatible with the egalitarian ideal therefore it needs some social welfare to offset it, if that is an ideal we want still want to attain that is.
However social welfare can become too much of a burden and therefore more detrimental to a society than beneficial. So it comes down to a balancing act between the two i think.
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 2:38:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the risk of idealising the poor, I must say that I have rarely met one I didn't like. I think that poverty is an occupational hazard if you want to be a nice person. Our current economic system encourages characteristics such as ruthlessness and nastiness. People who are too kind to others will end up poor, wether they are clever or not.
Posted by vivy, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 3:02:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The one thing that bothers me though is the continuing automatic assumption that we need the welfare state.

Sure, it would take a great deal of political courage to unwind it, but I am convinced that it has outlived its usefulness.

The poor and needy still exist- somewhat surprisingly, given the billions of dollars that are spent on them each year. Government departments associated with welfare have become vast employment machines, which instead of adding value to the economy simply divide the fruits of others' labour between itself and its "customers".

If we think simplistically for a moment, and add back into the productive part of the economy (real businesses that produce and sell products and services) the amount that is wasted on these middle-man drones, we would have a more productive country, better able to compete in the world economy.

The school I went to in the UK was founded in 1532 by two brothers. The scholarship that enabled me to attend that school was from a charitable foundation established in the nineteenth century by a local businessman, keen to give children from less well-off families an opportunity for a better education. The hospital my sister was born in was founded by a Victorian philanthropist. There are many, many similar examples.

There is no fundamental reason why we can't transfer the responsibility back to the private sector, only a lack of will and a crippling taxation system. I am sure that given the opportunity, those better-off in business would see fit to take over the finances of their local school or hospital, and make a damn sight better fist of running them into the bargain.

At the macro level, our society is substantially better able to do this than any previous generation. The key is to make a virtue out of "using" wealth in this manner, rather than simply "having" wealth.

After all, there are only so many yachts/Lamborghinis/villas that you can enjoy in one lifetime - and previous generations realized this.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 3:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post Pericles.

"The key is to make a virtue out of "using" wealth in this manner, rather than simply "having" wealth."

I also think that would be a key additional element required if we were to pull the rug out on welfare, it would require some sort of shift in the existing capitalist construct.
Posted by Donnie, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 3:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The welfare state in the UK was dismantled and watered down in the Thatcher years. It started to be watered down in Australia in the Keating years, but more so in the Howard years.

Most of the unwinding of the welfare state has already been done.

The problem is, fiscal monetry theory didn't work for the poor. The working poor are miserbable, their families are breaking up, and people are wondering why.

Fiscal monetry policy is an outdated failure as our standards of a functioning society crumble. Oh yeah, some have choices. Shop all woolworths and rip off the farmers. That is just great.

How much more do you want to cut back? So you want to trust the wealthy businesses with doing the right thing by cutting taxes. They will look after the poor from the goodness of their heart?

Give me a break! They don't in the third world, and they wont as we become third world: without social security and civil infrastructure. They didn't get rich by being angels.

You expect the poor to have a leap of faith in the church, or a leap of faith in the wealthy. Their situation in the firstplace is an outcome of a dysfunction.

The only way to remedy this is Government, that is we have Government in the first place. This keeps a security in society to stop them from revolting if too many get too poor. That is why they call it social security.
Posted by saintfletcher, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 5:04:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The truth is the less advantaged pay welfare to the economy. People are selling their families to their employers. Sounds funny but the family is becoming dysfunctional because parents have no time for their kids (I include teenagers here) and time spent as a family unit.

The trouble is this society only judges everything on short term economy and runs on blind faith of the work ethic and has no concept of externalities and social health.

How much carbon savings can we achieve by dumping the 24 hour economy and running a four day week? Including television telecasting time?

How much can we save on crime and youth road toll by giving children and parents a decent amount of time to spend with each other?

How better would regional economy be stimulated if spouses were able to have the same time off for holidays and perhaps more holidays.

We are stuck in a 19th century greed pit and we complain about the few cents welfare costs each of us when we subsidise the very companies that over charge us.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 9:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think your ideological slip is showing, saintfletcher.

>>The welfare state in the UK was dismantled and watered down in the Thatcher years<<

The facts are against you, I'm afraid.

As reported last month, figures from the UK Department for Work and Pensions show that "One in three households across Britain is now dependent on the state for at least half its income... more than seven million households are getting most of their income from government handouts"

So much for the welfare state having been "dismantled".

Frank Field, a UK (Labour!) parliamentarian is prominent in the battle for welfare reform, showing how it can morph rapidly from "help to the battler" into a cushy pit of hand-out dependency. In a 2002 essay he cited an example:

"A single mother... earning £4.10 [A$10.50] an hour over a 30 hour week will see her net weekly income of £106.22 [A$272] more than quadruple to £447.34 [A$1,150] once the child care tax credit and the basic working families tax credit are added in. A yearly net income of £5,523.44 [A$14,162] once the tax credits are added in is equivalent to an annual salary of £23,261.68 [A$59,645]. Even more staggering is the level of earnings a single mother would have to achieve to give her an income equal to, let alone a penny more, than her current entitlement. Gross earnings in excess of £31,500 [A$80,770] a year are now required to put the person on an income equal to an individual earning £4.10 [A$10.50] an hour and claiming all the tax credit help available." (Welfare Titans: Frank Field, Civitas Institute 2002)

Is that a good deal or what? Thirty hours at ten and a half bucks an hour is the equivalent of an honestly-earned and taxed salary of eighty grand a year.

The welfare state in the UK dismantled? I don't think so.

I know lots of folk who would love to be "demeaned" to the tune of eighty grand a year.

The problem is compounded, needless to say, by the cost of the armies of public servants required to administer such a scheme.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:15:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Have you ever had the experience of been woken up every night, at 3am from the sound of baby screeching (for about 4 years)? Have you ever spent any amount of time wiping warm gooey stinky vomit off your clothing? Have you ever had the pleasure of caring for a snotty diarea dripping child? Although none of this is quite as demeaning as working on a factory floor, in my book, I assure you there is no amount of money that could compensate for the experience. It requires love to motivate.
Posted by vivy, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles I think its fair what saintfletcher put foward. Civil welfare in Britain did take a beating. Such things need to be assessed taking in support services as well and Thatcher did devolve British government responsibility to painful thresholds. Still it was for a good cause to pay off India for debt accumulated over the Second World War although perhaps Thatchers Government could have been more clever about it certainly many lives were destroyed through her policies. It could be theorised that India's current boom in part owes a debt to Thatchers desire to rid Britain of its debts. If so Thatcher could not be judged the total failure as at least she contributed to the prosperity of Indians
Posted by West, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:58:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Admittedly, the Sermon on the Mount is a good example of the love and compassion that Jesus, later, the Christ, is purported to bring to humanity.

Yet the two greatest Christian philosophers, St Thomas Aqunas and Immanuel Kant, did give doctrinal proof to the benefits of using Golden Greek reasoning to prove that we do need the love as expressed by the early Jesus, but to use Socratic commonsense to Snsense to make it worldly.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 6:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivy “People who are too kind to others will end up poor, wether they are clever or not.”

Now maybe you could back up that statement of gross judgemntalist generalization with some statistic to show any correlation between “kindness” and “poverty” or negative correlation between wealth and kindness.

Until you do, I would suggest your claim is a complete nonsense and would suspect that even if you did find anything close to a correlations it would be completely spurious

Saintfletcher “The working poor are miserbable, their families are breaking up, and people are wondering why.”

Their families always have broken up, their poverty would not be absolved by giving them monetary support. The poverty they suffer is an attitudinal thing and hence all notions of welfare are merely crutches to help them get along.
It is fixing the attitude which needs doing and that is not a monetary or fiscal issue.
It would take dictatorial intervention to get close to fixing it and the problem with that is – a dictatorial interventionist authority would not stop at dictating simply to the poor who might need it but to those of us who don’t.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 8 March 2007 8:47:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that it is individual attitude that is the reason people are poor is the prevailing ideology, that is behavioural poverty. This idea suggests, for one thing. that it is indulging in risk behaviours that make people poor.

However, it may be argued that poverty is a crucial factor that affects the attitudes and opportunities of those experiencing it, therefore limiting not only their own future prospects but also those of their families. That is, there is validity in the idea that poor people cannot change their attitudes and behaviours while they remain poor.

People and governments often blame the indulgence in risk behaviour as one reason while people are poor, and this is definitely a significant factor in increasing stress and it also contributes to ill health. However, poverty cannot be wholly explained by the indulgence in risky behaviour because alcohol, drug and tobacco dependencies have been identified as products of poverty.

Personally, I think that action does start at sufficient income and access to adequate services that enable people to build up their confidence and self worth. How many people are embarassed to go for job interviews because of shabby clothing and poor teeth or they cannot afford a haircut? It would be an interesting study.

I think that we need basic welfare for some who will never compete in our market society, and more for people who are trying to better themselves. It is very hard. Have a look at how much welfare is cut when people try to take on part time work. I had an increase of $10 pf income, my little bit of RA was cut by $6pf. On an income of less than $20,000pa. Why would I bother?
Posted by Lizzie4, Thursday, 8 March 2007 9:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,
I did not say that all wealthy people are nasty. Nor did I intend to suggest that all poor people are kind. I just think that if you inherit a house from your mum and dad it makes it a bit harder to understand the plight of the homeless. If you can take for granted the fact that your education will be paid for by your family and that your networks will always provide employment for you, it will be just a tad more difficult to get why people who were not born with these associations are resentful and desperate. Methinks, Col Rouge that thou protest too much!
Posted by vivy, Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:36:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vivy... you raise an interesting point.

What is the chief criticism of capitalism? Why world wealth accumulating into the hands of a few.
Welfare can be seen as a form of socialism if you subscribe to the notion that it partly alleviates this issue.

Here's an interesting idea - capitalism is based on the desire to accumulate. It's problem is that it can create a lot of poor people, and a few very rich ones.

The thing is, it is better than the alternatives, and who is to say that those who have fought their way to the top do not deserve their riches?

There are however, plenty of people who haven't worked for their success - they are those who have inherited their wealth, and live in aristocratic circles of wealth.

Here's an idea - work toward abolishing inheritances.

The problem is, that many people work their whole lives to ensure a stable life for their children - but who's to say the children are better off having everything handed to them on a platter?

Many would cry foul over having their riches seized by the state upon their death, but this idea of having wealth transfer over... this is what creates many of our problems.

It wouldn't necessarily be a huge impact - assets would be the main issue.
Shareholders would have the opportunity to buy out shares owned by deceased owners, with legislation to allow boards the opportunity to consolidate purchases in line with current ownership proportions.

I'm sure other arrangements can be made for the purchase of general assets, instead of a simple handover. There would have to be strict controls over the process however and this would have the free market idealists furious.

But really - it would be a way of making the free market system sustainable.

Just a thought anyhow.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 8 March 2007 3:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article: Christianity and social justice. Certainly makes one think. I wonder how many of us have had much personal experience being a recipient of charity or welfare?

As far as I can ascertain, capitalism as inherited from the richest nation on this planet (with a very large number of citizens living in dire poverty from which there is no way out) is based on the Puritan Christian belief that God will reward those with riches who deserve it.
Ergo, those who do not have riches are not deserving and it is not necessary to feel uncomfortable about it, but because we are Christian we'll set up some charities so some can do good works and it will probably earn some brownie points as well with the big Man upstairs. If those poor people just tried a bit harder God would reward them too with wealth (which of course is monetary). Don't come up with any possible reasons for not being wealthy, because then you're taking on a 'victim' role or are just Lazy.

Why is it so hard to have a philosophy that every human being has a right to reasonable personal safety, food and shelter? It is nigh impossible to climb out of any hole if those fundamental self (and one's children) preservation issues are not addressed. How can you look to develop talents, grow and become productive if you barely have a tenuous hold on the basics?

As a tax payer I expect my taxes to be used by the government to provide social justice. Social INsecurity breeds fragmentation of a society. Look at the US. Rabid patriotism is the only thing that keeps Americans stick together. Anyone who has spent any time there will soon tell you what a terribly fragmented society that is! The children of the wealthy are pretty secure in their future, merit is increasingly irrelevant, but the ability to pay is.
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 8 March 2007 5:27:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vivy, we have a system of accepted minimums. From minimum education to minimum wage to a minimal code of behavior. In all instances there can be found a portion of society unwilling to put the necessary effort into reaching those lofty heights. There is, simply put, a portion of society unwilling to participate and therefore do not reap any significant portion of the available reward for that inclusion. There are as many reasons for people not being comfortable in life as there are people living an uncomfortable existence.
I will give you a "fer-instance". I have a friend. A man who is a very personable individual and well educated. Comes from a well to do "upper middle class" family of professionals. Can't keep a job. Mooches from his family for support. And lives a very uncomfortable life. Why? Cuz he can't keep his mouth shut and get on with the job at hand. He is forever trying to tell those who hire him how to go about their business. I've known him for 30 years and nothing has changed.
And his parents have spent more years believing they have personally failed him and will die feeling guilty for their sons choices.
I always like to see how lotto winners behave and how they have faired after a couple of years. You can't even give some people everything, millions, and their poor before you know it.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 8 March 2007 5:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, don't know how old you are, but 86 in June, am old enough to remember the Roaring Twenties which is now said by social scientists to be the foreunner of what is happening now, even companies like Bunge and Dreyfus back to dominating the grain trade.

You might not know it, Col, but we've got dairy farmers over here in the West only saving their futures by selling out because their properties close to the city are bringing high prices.

Our world is fast becoming a haven for the new business mafia, the corporate racketeers. Most now believe they are putting it over the Chinese economically, but forget that the Chinese did not come down in the last shower, and possibly only finally doing what Karl Marx advised, to make good use of Western capitalism to make way for a happier future, not one of capitalistic greed, but a future that benefits all.
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 8 March 2007 6:04:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vivy, I'm not entirely sure I understand the question about "wiping warm gooey stinky vomit off your clothing?", but I guess it has something to do with money not being particularly important. And I have done my share of vomit-wiping, by the way.

My issue was with saintfletcher and his assertion that the welfare state in the uk had been dismantled, when it so obviously has not. The fact that it doesn't actually alleviate misery is one of the lessons we should learn - throwing money indiscriminately at a problem is never the most effective means to solve it.

How much more sensible is the "programmed charity" of a Bill and Melinda Gates, who make sure that money is used to achieve a specific outcome, not just to recycle it into the economy via the pockets of the poor.

As has been achieved in the past, the philanthropic establishment of a school, hospital, hospice, orphanage etc. has a specific outcome that provides direct value. This concept has been lost, and replaced by the likes of the UK welfare state - pointless, directionless, meaningless charity that isn't properly used or appreciated.

West, I didn't understand a word of your post, except that you don't like Baroness Thatcher. The simple fact is that the welfare state in every developed country is consuming an ever-increasing share of the national wealth, and it still isn't performing the function for which it was devised.

It's time to try something else.

Unfortunately, the politicians whose task it should be to effect change are themselves programmed to avoid rocking the boat, for fear of losing their job.

So, no chance there, then.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 8 March 2007 6:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles a capitalist state is only sustainable when it is also a welfare state. For one to become wealthy one has to extract those resources from a multiple of other actors. Money doesnt grow on trees , first you have to get a lot of people to cut them down , grind them up , turn it to paper, print the money , keep accounts have it stored. Those people get a small percentage from you. When they degrade ones fiscal baseline degrades and then comes recession and one faces bankrupcy. The cycle is quick in the developing world where lower and also undervalued skills, lower product quality and health undercut capital survival. Many Parts of inland United States have been in perpetual recession since the Reagan years because 12 months unemployment translate to life unemployment or working poor. Charity or low wages cannot support a declining circle and so the only choice for many is homelessness, crime or existing in trailer parks.
Posted by West, Friday, 9 March 2007 9:18:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a link: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2048
Posted by strayan, Friday, 9 March 2007 5:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cute link, strayan.

Unfortunately, like everything based on a Mark Steyn piece, it doesn't stand up in a light wind.

(I love the guy, by the way, and read everything of his I can get my hands on - he's a brilliant writer and a highly intelligent commentator)

Here's just one example of where the "facts" are stretched:

>>The fact is there just isn’t enough work to go around. For every Susan Moore who sponges off the system apparently contentedly, there are at least two other people desperately struggling to find meaningful work.<<

Since that was written in 2004 there have been some half a million legal immigrants into the UK from the enlarged EU, plus a few more that they don't know about.

But the unemployment rate has decreased over the same period.

Please explain?

West, I hear your words, but struggle with their meaning.

>>Pericles a capitalist state is only sustainable when it is also a welfare state... Charity or low wages cannot support a declining circle and so the only choice for many is homelessness, crime or existing in trailer parks.<<

Isn't that what is happening right now?

Doesn't that mean that the system has failed, not that it makes the "capitalist state sustainable".

In fact, I'd say it was proof that it was broken.

When welfare is inbuilt, it will constantly overspend, and it will inevitably direct resources to where they are not needed as well as to where they are.

Add the ever-multiplying administrative overhead (ever heard of a public servant voluntarily decreasing staff levels through increasing efficiency?) and you have a recipe for appalling resource usage.

That is what is happening now, and until it changes there will - as you point out - be less and less to go round.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 9 March 2007 6:26:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The obviously right wing author has not heard today's news, 20,000 children still live on the street, in the wealthiest nation on Earth.

His attempts at justifying the need for social welfare, that should be cut, is merely another move by the wealthy to screw the ordinary working man and his family into the dirt. We have very little now, could Australia justify its poor dying of starvation, while retaining a budget of $800billion to provide for 20 million people, I think not.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 10 March 2007 2:04:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congrats, Shonga, you win the prize for just plain commonsense.
It is a fact that in this world we simply need a distribution or a balance of wealth, which economic philosophers like Maynard Keynes warned so much about when he spoke of extreme right-wing capitalism.

He would never have believed that the young ones are now taught to admire the multi-billionares and to look down on whom they term the no-hopers - like ready to kick a sheep that can't keep up with the flock.

Also please remember you admirers of the Puritan Pilgrim Fathers that they were not true Christians, but forsakers of the Sermon on the Mount to become followers of the doctrine of the Ancient Promised Land in their occupation of America, with similar merciliness enough in their minds to have pathways run with blood.

Unfortunately, it can be noted in the gaze of many of George Dubya's henchmen, matching that of any a well-drilled Nazi stormtrooper
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 10 March 2007 5:12:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy