The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSilk Takes on Krauthammer
by Michael Sean Winters on Feb. 13, 2012
Mark Silk has posted a brilliant takedown of a recent column by Charles Krauthammer in which Krauthammer argued that the Judeo-Christian tradition calls all to private charity but not to government programs to help the poor. As Silk points out, when Moses laid down the Law, it was a solemn, legal obligation, with all the force we associate with a state mandate or program today because, of course, back then, the separation of Church and State would have struck the Israelites as a very odd thing.
The Krauthammer meme is one we hear often on the right and all of us who support government anti-poverty programs should have Silk's argument at the ready.
Mr. Winters, in your column
Mr. Winters, in your column today you talk about how liberal and conservatives Catholic perhaps might come together more often to have a united voice in the public square. Mark Silk starts his brilliant takedown with these words, "Lest there be any doubt that Charles Krauthammer has lost his brain, consider today's column." Don't you think that part of the problem between liberal and conservative is the terrible tendency to couch every argument in a personal attack?
Ad hominem attacks are
Ad hominem attacks are standard fare for both right and left groups. As a conservative, I hear the attacks on the right far more than I do on the left. But that is probably because I agree with the ad hominem attacks on the left, and disagree with them on the right (mostly; still think Newt is a philandering jerk). If you agree with Mr Silk's analysis, you would probably agree with his opening remarks.
Good Luck changing that: this has been the American tradition since the beginning days under Washington, and has never stopped.
Entitlements are not charity,
Entitlements are not charity, they are justice, and can therefore be mandated by the government with tax funds. Even if charitable contributions are the preferred vehicle for helping the poor - low tax rates do not yield more charity, they yield less because the deduction is smaller. If low taxes brought about more charity, the food pantries would all be full to overflowing and scholarship funds for poor children would be bursting at the seems.
yeah, and the government has
yeah, and the government has no business whatsoever in the highway and sewer industries
let it all go private, right, Krauhammer?
If individuals, families,
If individuals, families, churches and communities took seriously our God-given obligation to the poor, struggling and underserved, then we would not have to employ Mr. Silk’s argument, which not only overlooks the fact that the U.S. is not a theocracy but also tries to justify the outsourcing of our Christian duty to a godless secular State.
Throughout the history of the Church, the faithful proclamation of the Gospel has been accompanied by works of compassion and love toward the needy. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the infirmed - this is all central to the sharing of the Gospel. But the modern State has successfully cleaved the two, and with the assistance of Christians no less.
And then we wonder why as they welfare state grows, communities and families are diminished and replaced with a permanent underclass dependant upon the government’s table scraps. It is because government poverty programs exist more for the health of the State than for the health of the whole man, woman and child.
Post new comment