I would argue that food is not an entitlement, i.e. people should not expect to be fed. I am sure that the few readers of this blog would now question my Christian motivations. Let me explain. Food does not happen on a magical tree, it is the product of someones time and effort. If it is an entitlement, then the producer is morally obligated to produce and give it away. Put differently, the producer has no recourse if people take the crop because the takers are entitled to the food. Sounds like slavery to me. Sounds like oppression wrapped in good intentions.
I think the Christian way of charity solves the question of indigence better than the government way of entitlement. It is good that people eat and are satisfied, but you cannot subject people to oppression to meet this good end. Serving the community means being productive (that covers many things). If Christians are producing abundantly and abundantly giving to charity, it serve the community very well.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog of cynicism and satire aimed at critiquing political and religious social trends. Most articles will have an edge while a few articles will seem bland.
1 comment:
I am not sure of the context here but I think food is a basic human need. Wherever there is hunger in a society and/or insufficient resources to procure food, both the government and individuals should find a way to help people with the nourishment they need. Christians, certainly, should set the example in helping their neighbours near and far but good government should also take care of its citizens in need. There was a time in North American when the government did not do this and put people in very sad circumstances even through no fault of their own. So I am glad that nations established on Christian principles eventually took up this responsibility. I don't mind helping people with my taxes in this way although, today, churches and church ministries are also there helping the people because of the continuing need.
Post a Comment