.png){kind=logo}
Query by El Duderino: Do we as Americans have a “social responsibility” to our fellow Americans?
I am not debating welfare here – that’s not the point of this query. I am talking about what we as a society do to support our fellow citizens – fewer unemployed and homeless makes for a much better economic climate and society.
Do you feel we have a responsibility, implied or other sensible to our fellow citizens or is it every man for himself, and as well poor for those that fall?
Greatest answer:
Answer by Chi Guy
Christians are suppose to desire to feed the hungry, and shelter the homeless. Any person with empathy feels a sense of responsibility to all human beings.
There is a biblical passage about storing for oneself treasure in heaven where the robber cannot steal it away. The treasure God is referring to is forgiveness, compassion, generosity, and really like.
There is 1 like it exactly where Jesus admonishes people by saying “When I was hungry, you did not feed me. When I was naked, you did not clothe me…” “Whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me”
Give your answer to this query beneath!
Comments are closed.
Bumblebee711 May 23 2012 - 10:21 am
I think in certain situations, helping out another AMERICAN who is in need is completely justifiable. I only take issue when state-sponsored support becomes a career for people and then the “lifestyle” is passed down from generation to generation. That helps no one, and it’s an indisputable FACT it does little more but KEEP people in poverty.
delphi May 23 2012 - 10:43 am
Not just American to American but human to humanity. If someone needs a legitiment helping hand, you bet.
Paul May 23 2012 - 11:43 am
yes, it’s what makes us a country and not just a group of people living in the same region
truthisback May 23 2012 - 11:43 am
“fewer unemployed and homeless makes for a better economy and society.”
Yes – and when we were growing the New Deal and Great Society programs, for those who fell through the cracks, the tax burden associated with them came at the direct expense of the economy’s ability to reinvest that capital, which is how it creates jobs. – - – - – The cost of programs for those who fall through the cracks causes more people to fall through the cracks – - it’s a big game of musical chairs that the government plays with jobs.
This is a question of moral duty – - – either morality is to be legislated or it isn’t. If it is, then there are no absolutes – there is no objectivity. Whatever a majority believes to be one’s moral duty becomes everyone’s moral duty. If a majority is anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-Black……… It IS a slippery slope and we’ve slipped down it in the past.
This is an issue that highlights the shortcomings of the Left. (1) The inability to see the bigger picture in terms of economics and to see how it’s all interrelated – to see how it plays out over time. This is the same myopia that prevents them from recognizing income and wealth mobility. (2) The inability to see the big picture politically and to distinguish between feeling and fact – - the assumption that if they feel something strongly it must be right – - the inability to recognize that increasing government involvement in society in order to achieve their ends is also increasing its involvement in society to achieve the ends of anyone who now or in the future gets control of government. If they can take our money to spend on what those presently in charge consider a moral obligation, then they can take our money to spend on what whoever controls the government 25 years from now will consider a moral obligation. And you have no way of knowing who will control the government 25 years from now.
T-Minus-10 May 23 2012 - 11:51 am
Here’s the thing about helping people, they have to want, appreciate and use the help. No one can be helped who doesn’t want to help him or herself. You can’t force a person to be what you concider a productive member of society if they are unwilling to do it. That is why social programs don’t work. Any change in a person has to start as a desire in that person to change.
Look at all the people on the tabloids who become rich and famous at whatever it is they happen to do. They have “made it,” and their lives are still in the crapper. It’s just a much nicer crapper.
beardog4314 May 23 2012 - 12:43 pm
You can’t legislate against people being selfish, but the “moral majority” should certainly feel a moral obligation towards those in need. They don’t.
BRYAN H May 23 2012 - 1:01 pm
less than 4.5% unemployment means anyone who wants to work can. those that fall have some responsibility to bear. this excludes the mentally challenged. we do but it has to start with the family and those peoples desire to improve their lives. every homeless person in the USA who wants can stay at a shelter as long as they live within the rules.i think there are too many charities and the services are diluted because of it.
who cares what you think May 23 2012 - 1:08 pm
Grab what you can. Screw the other guy before he can screw you.
gracilism May 23 2012 - 1:45 pm
Yes we do, but it should not be mandated by the government. That’s not the function of a capitalist government.
Helping your neighbors doesn’t include the redistribution of wealth.
Butterbar Bob May 23 2012 - 2:07 pm
Yes, not as “Americans”, but as human beings.
It is a personal responsibility, rather than a goverment enforced one.
azred_tx May 23 2012 - 3:04 pm
I wouldn’t say that we have a personal social responsibility, but collectively it is always a good thing to put in place systems to help those who have, for whatever reason, “fallen through the cracks”.
Job training and homeless shelters can be done cost-effectively, especially if those trying to cheat the system can be identified within a reasonable amount of time.
heavysarcasm May 23 2012 - 4:00 pm
I have no problem with helping those who need help as the result of a disability, or as a temporary life line during difficult times.
Our current system, however, provides MUCH more than that.
I have a problem with the lack of personal responsibility in our society. There is no reason a capable person should contribute nothing to society while being a constant burden on it.
cvq3842 May 23 2012 - 4:03 pm
Yes – to not create offspring unless we’re prepared to take care of them, among other things.