Secular Welfare vs. Religious Based Welfare (Part III)

Secular Welfare vs. Religious Based Welfare

Part III

This is the concluding discussion on the topic of the role of Government in providing for the poor and needy vs. that of churches, other religious organizations and community groups (non-profits).  The rationale for the Government disengaging to a great extent is many:

  • The Governments – State, and Federal – would be dealing with fewer dollars, less staff, and little to no administration. (Government spending is not charity)
  • The tax-payers would not be burdened with a tax, a requirement, to subsidize the poor and needy.  (the obligatory redistribution of tax-revenues)
  • Tax-payers would be free to fund area needs, and preferential needs, for those most wanting, directed in part by volunteer organizations – community and religious affiliations.
  • The People would be able to become more involved in Giving and Helping, knowing, and being closer to, the activity of supporting others.
  • A greater opportunity to reform personal behaviors – hygiene, attitudes towards education, gang behavior (energy redirected to helping) – would arise.
  • The cause of many welfare problems – the breakdown of the family – would be addressed directly, with compassion by a caring, loving support group.
  • Dollars being used to provide for those in need would go further – meaning, each dollar spent would have a larger percentage going directly to serve others and less spent on administrative layers. 
  • Governments role becomes more patriarchal, more the encourager than the enforcer – present to assist in times of Emergency needs.
  • The Volunteer army of persons would grow and not require Government pay or incentives to participate (and not become a body of persons under the guide of the government) – lower the Governments payroll.
  • Government would become smaller; the suspicions of Big Government would abate.
  • The poor and needy would retain greater dignity, would be more willing to come forth, be recognized more readily for hidden talents, and find local support most important to the community and its future. 
  • Communities would become more cohesive and less dependent on a thrid-party for helping their downtrodden constituency. 
  • Obstacles (and paperwork) to receive care and attention would be lowered.
  • Government regulation, concerns, and internal preferences (Executive Office and Representatives desires) would be less obvious or intrusive or self-directed.
  • The speed of the delivery of services would be enhanced – faster, offering greater prevention and less frustration.
  • Trust would be more evident.
  • Hope would grow.
  • America would become stronger and less divisive – as all would be engaged directly in caring for those in their communities.

There is merit, I believe in this proposition, not only to achieve less government, but more of an engaged America where neighbors help neighbors (and get to know them) with the diversity of our Country would finding closer ties and associations through a common goal – caring for others less fortunate than themselves. 

[You comments, concerns, additions, are welcome and encouraged]

God Bless America.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s