Why are so many Fundies Social Darwins?

[cheewiee]

Is it just me, or is a large part of the Evangelical Church made up with Social Darwinistic People?

Example, Most Evangelical Christians in America belong to the Republican Party. Most Evangelical Christians in America belive that Abortion is an evil that needs to be eliminated through legislation..
However most Evangelical Christians do not belive in Social Medicine for children..

This seems like an oxymoron to me.. We uphold the concept of life before birth.. but once born, the Baby's health and life are subject to the financial ability of the parents?

I have a friend who believes in creation, but often times says that society will be hurt if we have 'survivial of the laziest'.. His logic escapes me!

[wbthornton]

The reason for that is the American government was not created to take on all the social projects we have today. In fact, the social welfare system is as product of the 20th century. Before that, the poor and invalid were taken care of by their own families, churches or neighbors. Welfare is not the governments role.

[cheewiee]

The reason for that is the American government was not created to take on all the social projects we have today. In fact, the social welfare system is as product of the 20th century. Before that, the poor and invalid were taken care of by their own families, churches or neighbors. Welfare is not the governments role.

Well I agree with that in principle.. but what happens when Families, Churches and Neighbors drop the ball..

Like I said.. I just have a hard time being Pro Life and at the same time be against public healthcare.. (Especialy for those who cannot afford the healthcare in this nation today)..

[wbthornton]

Well I agree with that in principle.. but what happens when Families, Churches and Neighbors drop the ball..

Like I said.. I just have a hard time being Pro Life and at the same time be against public healthcare.. (Especialy for those who cannot afford the healthcare in this nation today)..Families, churches and neighbors didn't drop the ball until the government stepped in. I'm not sure you have any idea what the social programs of the 1930s did to destroy the fabric of this country.

Believe it or not, the cost of healthcare is directly related to the government providing health care. Most families don't needs tons of coverage, just basic. But you can hardly buy basic anymore. People want insurance to pay for everything. Well that has a cost.

I really don't have the time to really get into this discussion at the moment, but I am strongly opposed to public healthcare. But then again, I'm opposed to any government transfer of wealth. But the clock can't be turned back.

[Gandalf]

Example, Most Evangelical Christians in America belong to the Republican Party. Most Evangelical Christians in America belive that Abortion is an evil that needs to be eliminated through legislation..
However most Evangelical Christians do not belive in Social Medicine for children..
IMO, It's not social darwinism at all. It's due to the view that it is a responsibility of the government to protect people from threats to their life or liberty, but that it's not within the government's rights to take resources from some people and directly redistribute them to others. Abortion is murder, and is morally wrong, and something the government has the duty to prevent. Paying for people to obtain services from a doctor or anyone else is not remotely comparable to passing legislation that makes immoral acts (such as murder, rape, etc.) criminal.

[cheewiee]

IMO, It's not social darwinism at all. It's due to the view that it is a responsibility of the government to protect people from threats to their life or liberty, but that it's not within the government's rights to take resources from some people and directly redistribute them to others. Abortion is murder, and is morally wrong, and something the government has the duty to prevent. Paying for people to obtain services from a doctor or anyone else is not remotely comparable to passing legislation that makes immoral acts (such as murder, rape, etc.) criminal.


Ok.. So the Government should pay to house a woman who is convicted of commiting abortion for an undisclosed number of years, however our society cannot pony up the dough so that a child can have a life saving surgery? Or Food, or Sustenance?

I agree.. the first responsiblity to care NEEDS to fall on the church.. The Church as a whole (Yes I am aware of congregations that do much good out there) has in the past 80 years become an empty voice.. Saying one thing and doing another..

I am not advocating for socialized medicine.. But Children are unable to care for themselves, so when those (Parents, Teachers, Neighbors, Pastors) are either unable or unwilling to care for them, it is ok to let them die.. or let them suffer?

I understand that Jesus was not here to start a social justice movement.. I understand that his kingdom was not of this world, but I am just having a hard time fitting the greed that can exhude from capitalisim compatible with Christianity... But on the flip side of the coin, I have a hard time fitting the lazyness that can exhude from socialisim with the tenats of christianity as well...

[Gandalf]

Ok.. So the Government should pay to house a woman who is convicted of commiting abortion for an undisclosed number of years, however our society cannot pony up the dough so that a child can have a life saving surgery? Or Food, or Sustenance?
It's not a question of whether children should be able to eat. It's a question of whether the government has any right whatsoever (Constitutionally, ours does not) to take money from some people and give it to others. And, such a question is in no way related to the question of whether the government should criminalize murder. It's not all about money.

None of us, though, is advocating a cold turkey approach to social welfare programs. What I would advocate is a weening of people off handouts, and implementation of programs (educational/work programs, etc) that are more likely to help people in the long term, rather than trapping them in poverty. We can't force people to choose to succeed, but we can do what's possible to give them the opportunity to do so.

[Gandalf]

I should also point out that it is true that taking care of the poor is a Scriptural priority. It's just not something that is within the realm of authority, or even the rights, of our government. God does care about the poor, and we need to be generous to them. But, the federal government of the United States of America has no right to force its citizens to use their money in such a fashion, which is effectively what social programs are - it's the Robin Hood approach, which is an immoral means to a plausibly just end. The ends do not justify the means.

[ICarlson99]

I understand that Jesus was not here to start a social justice movement.. I understand that his kingdom was not of this world, but I am just having a hard time fitting the greed that can exhude from capitalisim compatible with Christianity... But on the flip side of the coin, I have a hard time fitting the lazyness that can exhude from socialisim with the tenats of christianity as well...

As a disclaimer, yes, greed can exist in capitalism, however....

Capitalism is the greatest economic system - not for how it treats the rich, but for how it treats the poor. In every economic system, the rich will be fine (look at any communist or socialist country), but only capitalism improves the quality of life for the poor.

Just look at our definition of "poverty" in America - most people in poverty here would be considered middle-class almost everywhere else in the world, and even in this country during the last generation. And thanks to capitalism and free markets, the quality of life for those in poverty in the United States is amazingly high. Here's what the 2003 poverty survey says ('poor' here is defined by those 'in poverty' - around 12%, which is based SOLELY on income):

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

-46% of poor households OWN their own home
-The average poor home is 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, a garage, a porch, and a patio (exactly what my house growing up in the 80s was - and we weren't in poverty)
-More than two-thirds of poor homes have more than 2 rooms per person (i.e. not over-crowded)
-The average POOR American has more living space than the average MIDDLE-CLASS person in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, etc
-Three-fourths of poor households OWN their own car, and 30% have 2 cars or more
-97% have color TV, over 50% have 2 or more color TVs
-78% have a VCR/DVD player, 62% have cable or satellite
-73% own microwaves, more than 50% have a stereo, and more than 33% have a dishwasher

There's more if you go to the link above (including data showing that 'poor' and 'middle class' children have equivalent levels of medical treatment and nourishment - also that 88% of those in poverty say they never worry about their next meal).

Those of you over 40, how much of that did you have when you were growing up? Like I said, our definition of poverty is quite wealthy compared to the rest of the world.

Capitalism is the system that allows quality of life "improvers" (cars, computers, microwaves, air conditioners etc) to become affordable to even the lower class. Is there ANYTHING from a socialist or communist system that has improved the quality of life among the lower class? None that I can think of....

Like I said, every economic system has rich and poor. Only capitalism has the levers to improve the quality of life for the poor (which is really what matters). And only capitalism allows the possiblity of dramatic improvement within a generation (for example, in the US, the majority of those in the lower 20% of incomes at any time in life are also in the highest 20% of incomes at another time in life - try finding that in any other economic system).

Economic systems work depending on how efficiently they use their resources, capitalism maximizes that - and the result is the best opportunity for the poor.

[Pouye]

Real poverty in the USA does exist, but I like what this study by the Heritage foundation said was the way to eliminate it:

"But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world.

Perhaps the best news is that the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work and high numbers of single-parent families. By increasing work and marriage, our nation can virtually eliminate remaining child poverty." (underline mine)
Source (www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm)

Rock