I remember reading somewhere that the LDS church refuses to apply for faith-based initiative grants from the US government for fear that the government will begin to have too much influence on the church. I couldn't find the reference now, so if someone can confirm this I'd appreciate it.
While watching the psuedo-debate put on by Pastor (or Reverend? I've seen it reported both ways) Rick Warren over the weekend, I began to ponder the concept of government funding of faith-based initiatives, and came to this question:
If the charitable cause cannot be funded by the efforts of the people sitting in the pews, and instead needs to be funded by tax payers, can it really be called "faith-based?"
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Limits of Parental Rights
No, this is not another post about the FLDS situation. There are plenty of those already, including my own. It's true that the issue I want to discuss was brought to my mind because of the FLDS situation, but it really is a much broader issue: parental rights.
Generally I'm a supporter of protecting parental rights, but everyone must admit that there are limits. Clearly, no one has the right to inflict abuse of any kind on children. Child neglect also warrants intervention. But the FLDS situation has raised our awareness to some shades of gray that our society is struggling to come to terms with.
I don't know if the number of children who have been victims of abuse or gross neglect in the FLDS compound is 0 or 400. I'll leave that for the court to decide based on the evidence, and I hope that they make the right decisions in each individual case. But the media isn't satisfied to report on the evidence (whether real or imagined) and allegations of abuse. In addition, they have launched into a full-scale assault on their lifestyle. The implication of many media commentators, and talk show hosts such as Dr. Phil, is that even without specific abuse, the compound is destructive to children, and therefore the removal of the children is justified. This is based on the opinion, which I agree with, that the world-view and culture of the FLDS are misguided and socially destructive.
Now I've already focused too much on the FLDS in this post. As I said, I want to talk about a broader issue. To bring this closer to home to the mainstream LDS church, to which I belong, let's consider this quote from The Family: A Proclamation to the World:
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
Mainstream LDS accept this as truth. But the feminist movement would generally disagree. They would see this statement as old-fashioned, discriminatory, and destructive. They might even go so far as to say that it is irresponsible to teach such a distorted world-view to children. Why should women feel any guilt for making the same decisions that men often make: to work instead of staying home with family? This view that used to be limited to extreme feminists is now generally accepted by our society. The distinction between the roles of men and women is diminishing, and is likely to continue to diminish as times goes on, causing the position of the church to become even more radical.
So how long will it be before they come for our children? How long will it be before Dr. Phil interviews an ex-LDS about what life is like growing up believing that women have the primary responsibility to nurture children, and the audience gasps. After all, says Dr. Phil, parents at least need to have a basic understanding of right and wrong.
Perhaps I'm being too sensational, but I hope you get my point. Here's the question: Where do we draw the line? How wrong is too wrong to be parents? How many lies do you need to tell your children about the world before you become an unfit parent? And who gets to decide if what you are saying is lie or truth?
In short, where do the rights of parents end?
Generally I'm a supporter of protecting parental rights, but everyone must admit that there are limits. Clearly, no one has the right to inflict abuse of any kind on children. Child neglect also warrants intervention. But the FLDS situation has raised our awareness to some shades of gray that our society is struggling to come to terms with.
I don't know if the number of children who have been victims of abuse or gross neglect in the FLDS compound is 0 or 400. I'll leave that for the court to decide based on the evidence, and I hope that they make the right decisions in each individual case. But the media isn't satisfied to report on the evidence (whether real or imagined) and allegations of abuse. In addition, they have launched into a full-scale assault on their lifestyle. The implication of many media commentators, and talk show hosts such as Dr. Phil, is that even without specific abuse, the compound is destructive to children, and therefore the removal of the children is justified. This is based on the opinion, which I agree with, that the world-view and culture of the FLDS are misguided and socially destructive.
Now I've already focused too much on the FLDS in this post. As I said, I want to talk about a broader issue. To bring this closer to home to the mainstream LDS church, to which I belong, let's consider this quote from The Family: A Proclamation to the World:
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."
Mainstream LDS accept this as truth. But the feminist movement would generally disagree. They would see this statement as old-fashioned, discriminatory, and destructive. They might even go so far as to say that it is irresponsible to teach such a distorted world-view to children. Why should women feel any guilt for making the same decisions that men often make: to work instead of staying home with family? This view that used to be limited to extreme feminists is now generally accepted by our society. The distinction between the roles of men and women is diminishing, and is likely to continue to diminish as times goes on, causing the position of the church to become even more radical.
So how long will it be before they come for our children? How long will it be before Dr. Phil interviews an ex-LDS about what life is like growing up believing that women have the primary responsibility to nurture children, and the audience gasps. After all, says Dr. Phil, parents at least need to have a basic understanding of right and wrong.
Perhaps I'm being too sensational, but I hope you get my point. Here's the question: Where do we draw the line? How wrong is too wrong to be parents? How many lies do you need to tell your children about the world before you become an unfit parent? And who gets to decide if what you are saying is lie or truth?
In short, where do the rights of parents end?
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Book of Mormon and the Free Market
Shortly after Christ taught the people of the Americas in the first century, The Book of Mormon says "And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor."
I'm a believer in the free market system. An important aspect of the free market is that people are motivated to be productive both by the dream of being rich, and the fear of being poor. Therefore, rich people and poor people are essential to the free market system.
But we must be careful to not assume that because roses come with thorns, thorns are good. Economic inequality is a necessary evil of the free market system. In general, people who work hard will be richer than those that don't, but this is not necessarily true at an individual level, which clearly isn't fair. If there were a way to eliminate this inequality, but still motivate people to contribute to society, that clearly that would be better.
So the question is, how did the people in the Book of Mormon achieve this state? I think this is an important question. The motivation is clear: they were wholly converted to the gospel and loved God and their neighbors. But motivation alone doesn't accomplish things. So the question remains, how did they do it? Here are some possible answers:
1) The government imposed laws that required a fair distribution of wealth. This is what some might call "The Welfare State".
2) The church instituted policies that facilitated a fair distribution of wealth.
3) The people voluntarily made sure the poor were taken care of to the point were they where no longer poor. Anyone who acquired wealth would immediately distribute it to those who were in need.
Some Mormons support funding various social programs on the basis that we, as followers of Christ, should help those less fortunate than ourselves. I wonder if people with such a view believe that The Book of Mormon people achieved a state of economic equality the same way.
On the other hand, some Mormons might assume it was entirely voluntary and personally-driven on the basis that the text does not mention government or church programs. However, just because it doesn't mention them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Mormon is summarizing several hundred years of history here.
So I'm left to wonder why Mormon included this and left out the means by which it was accomplished. Perhaps the means is not all that important. Perhaps it is the motivation--the pure love of Christ--that is important. Still, knowing the means would be very useful right now as I try to figure out who I'm going to vote for this Tuesday. I guess I'll actually have to think about it for myself.
I'm a believer in the free market system. An important aspect of the free market is that people are motivated to be productive both by the dream of being rich, and the fear of being poor. Therefore, rich people and poor people are essential to the free market system.
But we must be careful to not assume that because roses come with thorns, thorns are good. Economic inequality is a necessary evil of the free market system. In general, people who work hard will be richer than those that don't, but this is not necessarily true at an individual level, which clearly isn't fair. If there were a way to eliminate this inequality, but still motivate people to contribute to society, that clearly that would be better.
So the question is, how did the people in the Book of Mormon achieve this state? I think this is an important question. The motivation is clear: they were wholly converted to the gospel and loved God and their neighbors. But motivation alone doesn't accomplish things. So the question remains, how did they do it? Here are some possible answers:
1) The government imposed laws that required a fair distribution of wealth. This is what some might call "The Welfare State".
2) The church instituted policies that facilitated a fair distribution of wealth.
3) The people voluntarily made sure the poor were taken care of to the point were they where no longer poor. Anyone who acquired wealth would immediately distribute it to those who were in need.
Some Mormons support funding various social programs on the basis that we, as followers of Christ, should help those less fortunate than ourselves. I wonder if people with such a view believe that The Book of Mormon people achieved a state of economic equality the same way.
On the other hand, some Mormons might assume it was entirely voluntary and personally-driven on the basis that the text does not mention government or church programs. However, just because it doesn't mention them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Mormon is summarizing several hundred years of history here.
So I'm left to wonder why Mormon included this and left out the means by which it was accomplished. Perhaps the means is not all that important. Perhaps it is the motivation--the pure love of Christ--that is important. Still, knowing the means would be very useful right now as I try to figure out who I'm going to vote for this Tuesday. I guess I'll actually have to think about it for myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
