And Jesus Said Unto Paul of Ryan ...

[annabenedetti]

I imagine there are recipients who have family that would be capable of providing more. I know for my own family, I have a sick uncle that is getting government support. Could we gather more of our own resources to help, even if not 100%? Probably. But the gov't program is there. I wonder how many people use gov't programs without really seeking family help. There will always be people that fall through the cracks and need support but I'm sympathetic to the view that families should/could do more. Especially as caring for your family is a major Christian value. It isn't easy to define true need though. Especially without the gov't getting intrusive.

You know who does it well? The Mormons. When hurricane Katrina hit, the rapid response of Mormons was impressive.

So yes, family, for the most part, is best. Except when it isn't, which happens a lot. Sometimes families could do better, sometimes, it's just not possible, either because of the givers or because of the recipients.

Here's where that sort of rugged individualism comes in: many elders would rather die than have to depend on their kids. They won't tell their kids when they're struggling, they don't want to admit to their increasing frailty and they don't want to be a burden on their families. I know from experience from working with elders in my own family, and because I know just how difficult it can be, I already know when I get to that point I don't want to be a burden on my own kids. It's tough for the elderly in our society. We're not collectivized, we're an individualistic society, and this is one of the drawbacks.

[annabenedetti]

A much better solution to this is found in the third world and the preindustrial age. The house hold should consist of the elderly and even the very productive young who are just starting out in life. Multi family.

Because of the Puritan Protestant history of this country, our country is strongly individualistic. Remember how conservatives castigated Hillary Clinton for "it takes a village?"

[ClimateSanity]

You know who does it well? The Mormons. When hurricane Katrina hit, the rapid response of Mormons was impressive.

So yes, family, for the most part, is best. Except when it isn't, which happens a lot. Sometimes families could do better, sometimes, it's just not possible, either because of the givers or because of the recipients.

Here's where that sort of rugged individualism comes in: many elders would rather die than have to depend on their kids. They won't tell their kids when they're struggling, they don't want to admit to their increasing frailty and they don't want to be a burden on their families. I know that from experience, from working with elders in my own family, and because I know just how difficult it can be in our society, I already know I don't want to be a burden on my own kids. It's tough, being elderly in our society. We're not a collectivized society, we're an individualistic society, and this is one of the drawbacks.

The elderly should be made to feel welcome and not a burden. Family that extends to the elderly should be a norm in our society so that they would not feel ashamed.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[ClimateSanity]

Because of the Puritan Protestant history of this country, our country is strongly individualistic. Remember how conservatives castigated Hillary Clinton for "it takes a village?"

A large genetically related family is not what she was talking about even if the phrase had its origins in that idea.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[annabenedetti]

The elderly should be made to feel welcome and not a burden. Family that extends to the elderly should be a norm in our society so that they would not feel ashamed.

That's not the point I'm making. The elderly want to stay independent, they don't want to be a burden on their children, and I expect the baby boomers to be even more independent when they get to that point.

And our society isn't a collectivized society. Multi-generational families are likely to be immigrant families, bringing their collectivized culture with them. The average native-born American isn't culturally inclined to share living quarters with other generations.

[annabenedetti]

A large genetically related family is not what she was talking about even if the phrase had its origins in that idea.

I highly doubt most conservatives gave her the time of day long enough to know what she was talking about.

[ClimateSanity]

That's not the point I'm making. The elderly want to stay independent, they don't want to be a burden on their children, and I expect the baby boomers to be even more independent when they get to that point.

And our society isn't a collectivized society. Multi-generational families are likely to be immigrant families, bringing their collectivized culture with them. The average native-born American isn't culturally inclined to share living quarters with other generations.

Large intergenerational families is not collectivist in my mind. Collectivists want all of society to be responsible for everyone. They feel the betterment of society cannot be done through individual effort.

The fact that native born people arent culturally inclined to share living quarters with other generations is a tragic change in social norms that are partially responsible for todays social ills that should not be part of such a wealthy nation such as ours.

If they truly care about the future of this country, they should rethink what their culture is all about.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[annabenedetti]

Large intergenerational families is not collectivist in my mind. Collectivists want all of society to be responsible for everyone. They feel the betterment of society cannot be done through individual effort.

You may be thinking collectivistic is a negative term, as in communist collective. But it's actually social sciences terminology for comparing differences between highly individualistic cultures (The U.S.) and highly collectivized cultures (Mexico, Italy, Japan, Korea, too many to list). Individualistic cultures put an emphasis on rugged independence, initiative, self-reliance, etc. and collectivistic cultures put family first, cooperative group effort first, before the individual. Both types of cultures have advantages and drawbacks.

You can see how someone raised to be strongly self-reliant would feel shame in having to ask for help from anyone, even family - even family willing and able to help.

[Angel4Truth]

What?!

You've reduced yourself to the absurd.

Its absurd to compare apples with apples?

[ok doser]

You know who does it well? The Mormons. When hurricane Katrina hit, the rapid response of Mormons was impressive.

this was on the (canadian) news today:

A group of Canadian church volunteers hoping to carry out relief work in New Jersey said they were denied entry to the US over fears that they would be “stealing” American jobs. The Rehoboth United Reformed church, based in Hamilton, Ontario, had spent months organising its March break trip. The plan was to spend the week helping a central New Jersey church in its ongoing efforts to rebuild homes hit by Hurricane Sandy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...urricane-sandy

[Jonahdog]

this was on the (canadian) news today:

A group of Canadian church volunteers hoping to carry out relief work in New Jersey said they were denied entry to the US over fears that they would be “stealing” American jobs. The Rehoboth United Reformed church, based in Hamilton, Ontario, had spent months organising its March break trip. The plan was to spend the week helping a central New Jersey church in its ongoing efforts to rebuild homes hit by Hurricane Sandy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...urricane-sandy

well, according to the head cheese doodle, America First.

[Nihilo]

What's the point of being a Christian NATION? There is certainly enough pressure from the right for such things they want but they seem to side with greed most everywhere else even though they probably won't benefit from it.

The rich get richer and the poor get the picture. Isn't there some principal about the love of money and the love of fellow man that might play some part in our government. Why is a welfare state for the rich OK?

Social welfare just seems to me like a violation of the separation between Church and state, because charity is a religious activity. IOW, it seems to me to violate the First Amendment to force people on pain of incarceration to contribute to a religious activity. But I admit that I don't know the SCOTUS case law on the matter, or even if there is any.

[Nihilo]

Ryan is Catholic. Christ does not know Him.

Don't respond when you don't understand what was written. I said Ryan is not known by Christ. He can't be: Rome put an official curse on Paul's saving Gospel centuries ago and that curse is still in force. Rome replaced the Gospel with a false one. That false gospel is the one Ryan believes. Therefore Christ does not know him.

<Snicker.>

[exminister]

Social welfare just seems to me like a violation of the separation between Church and state, because charity is a religious activity. IOW, it seems to me to violate the First Amendment to force people on pain of incarceration to contribute to a religious activity. But I admit that I don't know the SCOTUS case law on the matter, or even if there is any.

Charity is a human activity

[Nihilo]

Charity is a human activity

I'm unconvinced, but I can become convinced.