Yes, the Holodmor and the Holocaust are recognized as genocides by the UN. European, US and Canada treatment of indigenous are not, yet. Many scholars are working on that.
Yes, all of human history is filled with carnage, but the original comment was about "traditional Western values" so that is why my comment was restricted to that. Wa…
Yes, the Holodmor and the Holocaust are recognized as genocides by the UN. European, US and Canada treatment of indigenous are not, yet. Many scholars are working on that.
Yes, all of human history is filled with carnage, but the original comment was about "traditional Western values" so that is why my comment was restricted to that. War crimes are different. They were defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions which was ratified by all UN Member States.
And yet, it seems to be a traditional western value 9as exhibited in practice) to kill mass quantities of your enemies or people who are in the way of you getting your goal. We make a lot of noise about it and TALK about how bad it is.... but it still seems to happen.
Values don't mean much if they are only words. It's what we DO that matters. I would argue that what we have done is far more indicative and informative than what we say.
Values and whether they are "traditional" or not is a matter of perspective, often a very narrow perspective based upon personal prejudice.
By the same sources (scripture) that these people argue against certain things (like social welfare programs) you can argue that it IS in fact a traditional value, because scripture speaks directly to it. We pick and choose our traditions to please ourselves.
Arguing from tradition or on the basis of tradition for pretty much anything is a bad argument... which is one of the reasons many conservative arguments are bad arguments.
Just to clarify why conservatives oppose social welfare, it's not so much opposition to some people getting help - and much of conservative rhetoric is that most of them are "takers" - it's their paying for it. They believe the poor should be helped through private charity. The inadequecy of private charity helping the 25% unemployed in 1932 brought FDR and the New Deal to power. Only the Federal government had the means to help them. Is that still the case today? Don't know.
It is opposition to others getting help--particularly others who are not them or like them. Notice that most of the opposition to social welfare is generally couched in basically racist terms with the implication that these people are undeserving... because, of course, charity is conditional upon you being deserving of it. That's what makes it charity, right?
Private charity has always been inadequate and will always be so because people aren't really all that charitable unless the government is giving them a tax break for it or they are working of their personal guilt (like Andrew Carnegie) or they are basically forced to it by government or religious diktat.
And, as Charlie points out it used to be (in many cases) that Church = Government (or close enough). Remember that the United States was an outlier in that area after the revolution (not so much before).
Just want to add that some private Christian charity is motivated by evangelism. When the Irish Catholic immigrants first arrived in New York City and were poor, some Protestant charitable efforts included religious instruction, that is making them Protestants.
One of the aspects of these religious organizations helping you is that you were often obliged to listen to their spiel. You had to sit through the sermon before you got to eat your dinner.
Even more so today. The total amount of charitable contributions given by all Americans to all charities combined was $471.44 billion in 2020. Medicaid alone was $671.2 billion that year.
The Jerusalem Talmud and Maimonides mandate a rather strong and generous social safety net in terms of cash and food support -- and it is not voluntary but mandatory to pay the assessment for support of the poor. Other Jewish sources require community support for education and public works. George H. W. Bush's "thousand points of light" promotion of voluntarism is something the Rabbis of the Jewish tradition knew would not work.
To the Jewish religious authorities who had governmental power. Remember that in the days before separation of church and state, religious authorities could and punish you. For example, not paying your tax to support the poor meant you got flogged and had your property confiscated. Maimonides (12th century CE) wrote that he had never heard of a Jewish community that did not have this system.
There were no Jews in England in 1601 when the Elizabethan Poor Law was enacted, but it was the Anglican Wardens who were given the power to (forcibly) collect the taxes and distribute the funds. In fact, that was George Washington's first non-military executive position as a government official -- as Warden of his Anglican parish in Virginia. There was no separation of Church and State back then and the parishes fulfilled many governmental functions.
Yes, the Holodmor and the Holocaust are recognized as genocides by the UN. European, US and Canada treatment of indigenous are not, yet. Many scholars are working on that.
Yes, all of human history is filled with carnage, but the original comment was about "traditional Western values" so that is why my comment was restricted to that. War crimes are different. They were defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions which was ratified by all UN Member States.
And yet, it seems to be a traditional western value 9as exhibited in practice) to kill mass quantities of your enemies or people who are in the way of you getting your goal. We make a lot of noise about it and TALK about how bad it is.... but it still seems to happen.
Values don't mean much if they are only words. It's what we DO that matters. I would argue that what we have done is far more indicative and informative than what we say.
Values and whether they are "traditional" or not is a matter of perspective, often a very narrow perspective based upon personal prejudice.
By the same sources (scripture) that these people argue against certain things (like social welfare programs) you can argue that it IS in fact a traditional value, because scripture speaks directly to it. We pick and choose our traditions to please ourselves.
Arguing from tradition or on the basis of tradition for pretty much anything is a bad argument... which is one of the reasons many conservative arguments are bad arguments.
Just to clarify why conservatives oppose social welfare, it's not so much opposition to some people getting help - and much of conservative rhetoric is that most of them are "takers" - it's their paying for it. They believe the poor should be helped through private charity. The inadequecy of private charity helping the 25% unemployed in 1932 brought FDR and the New Deal to power. Only the Federal government had the means to help them. Is that still the case today? Don't know.
It is opposition to others getting help--particularly others who are not them or like them. Notice that most of the opposition to social welfare is generally couched in basically racist terms with the implication that these people are undeserving... because, of course, charity is conditional upon you being deserving of it. That's what makes it charity, right?
Private charity has always been inadequate and will always be so because people aren't really all that charitable unless the government is giving them a tax break for it or they are working of their personal guilt (like Andrew Carnegie) or they are basically forced to it by government or religious diktat.
And, as Charlie points out it used to be (in many cases) that Church = Government (or close enough). Remember that the United States was an outlier in that area after the revolution (not so much before).
Just want to add that some private Christian charity is motivated by evangelism. When the Irish Catholic immigrants first arrived in New York City and were poor, some Protestant charitable efforts included religious instruction, that is making them Protestants.
One of the aspects of these religious organizations helping you is that you were often obliged to listen to their spiel. You had to sit through the sermon before you got to eat your dinner.
"Is that still the case today?"
Even more so today. The total amount of charitable contributions given by all Americans to all charities combined was $471.44 billion in 2020. Medicaid alone was $671.2 billion that year.
The Jerusalem Talmud and Maimonides mandate a rather strong and generous social safety net in terms of cash and food support -- and it is not voluntary but mandatory to pay the assessment for support of the poor. Other Jewish sources require community support for education and public works. George H. W. Bush's "thousand points of light" promotion of voluntarism is something the Rabbis of the Jewish tradition knew would not work.
Who is the assessment paid to? Not the government, right?
To the Jewish religious authorities who had governmental power. Remember that in the days before separation of church and state, religious authorities could and punish you. For example, not paying your tax to support the poor meant you got flogged and had your property confiscated. Maimonides (12th century CE) wrote that he had never heard of a Jewish community that did not have this system.
There were no Jews in England in 1601 when the Elizabethan Poor Law was enacted, but it was the Anglican Wardens who were given the power to (forcibly) collect the taxes and distribute the funds. In fact, that was George Washington's first non-military executive position as a government official -- as Warden of his Anglican parish in Virginia. There was no separation of Church and State back then and the parishes fulfilled many governmental functions.
That's what I thought. Just wanted to clarify.