tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post6347250898182197207..comments2024-01-27T06:40:41.709-05:00Comments on def shepherd: Welfare Myths, Christian Charity, And The Insanity Of Welfare Drug Screeningeshephttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03484081625693013559noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-58731196675370934412016-05-20T06:47:44.940-04:002016-05-20T06:47:44.940-04:00It is a great website.. The Design looks very good...It is a great website.. The Design looks very good.. Keep working like that!<a href="http://addictionrecoveryquotes.com/" rel="nofollow">click here now</a>BrendaPalmerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413601920483928620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-69362788876260996432013-07-31T20:47:27.446-04:002013-07-31T20:47:27.446-04:00"The Bible teaches us that it is the Churches..."The Bible teaches us that it is the Churches responsibility to help the needy."<br />This is not quite what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God has a concern for the oppressed and poor, and will one day bring about liberation for them in a new heavens and a new earth. As God's people in Jesus, we are to bear witness in every sphere of life to the fact that this reality has begun and that God claims all areas of life for himself. This includes how our laws, our society and our Government look upon the poor. By demanding that our social structures and laws and money works for justice and equality of all people, the church is aiming to look after the needy - just not quite in the way you are imagining.<br /><br />"I feel that if more people were involved with the Church we would be able to support the needy and the homeless more efficiently than the Government." - You are arguing from pragmatism. The point is not that we can actually achieve more than the Government; it is that the Government needs to listen to God's demand for justice. Poverty comes from all kinds of factors, many of which are embedded din power structures and laws. These structures don;t just disappear if we ignore them. So actually, telling the Government to look after the poor is actually a way for the church to tell the Government - you are not in charge, God is, and he wants this world to be one of justice and fairness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-40056488476743687932012-07-05T12:36:39.342-04:002012-07-05T12:36:39.342-04:00I am loving this website. Doing a project on Welf...I am loving this website. Doing a project on Welfare Myths and stumbled upon it. Def Shephard...amazing. Let's be friends.Jamiehttp://www.facebook.com/speakingtruthtostupidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-80628562731973422612011-11-01T17:24:51.319-04:002011-11-01T17:24:51.319-04:00Thank you for the kind words, ~N~. Thanks for drop...Thank you for the kind words, ~N~. Thanks for dropping by and for saying hello. - e.eshephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484081625693013559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-56144095402906458352011-11-01T14:48:13.205-04:002011-11-01T14:48:13.205-04:00Wonderfully thoughtful and well-researched article...Wonderfully thoughtful and well-researched article, Def. I was just having an discussion with a generally well-meaning, decent person who is pro-drug testing. He holds the very common, yet very erroneous, opinion that welfare cheats are an enormous problem in this country and that stricter rules for food stamp and other assistance are needed, and I was happy to point him here.<br /><br />On another note, I see your measured, calm, and respectful responses to Devin as a model for how I wish to communicate online. Graceful engagement with anyone with opposing views, let alone overtly hostile ones, is very challenging for most of us, and far too infrequently achieved. You've given me a wonderful model for future discussions. Thank you.~N~https://www.blogger.com/profile/06772556213898799386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-53040382466956719282011-09-16T11:59:08.875-04:002011-09-16T11:59:08.875-04:00Devin, you can't fault a writer for writing th...Devin, you can't fault a writer for writing the article he set out to write and not the article you wanted to read. Even if this blog's author (or any other commenter) wanted to engage with your "arguments," you made it difficult by expressing them incoherently. I'm not sure where you're coming from or where you're going with these statements:<br /><br />"-Each and every human being has inherent rights which essentially define them as a human being; money is not one these intrinsic freedoms that make up a human being."<br /><br />You're doing the same thing here you're accusing the blogger of doing: making assertions without really making an argument. Beginning with a statement that "every human being has inherent rights" is not as cut and dry as it seems; you're wading onto one of the vastest battlefields of post-Enlightenment thought. One might argue that the idea of "human rights" is historically determined, since what we define as a "human right" (and which humans are included as "human") has shifted over the past 300 years. <br /><br />"-Every individual owns his own body. The things which this body produces is owned by the individual."<br /><br />Ideally, this would be true, but we live in a world in which large numbers of people come together to make large numbers of things which are bought by large numbers of people those other people will never meet. Market relations have made our own relationship to or own body and what we produce with that body a lot more complicated. Some people own nothing but their body; some people own their body and much more. Those who own only their body and can't find anyone to rent it out to (that is, can't find a job) need some way to survive, right? Because they are human beings with inherent rights, right? Hence, welfare. It ain't perfect, but it beats the hell out of having to rely on charity, for instance, which might be there or might not.<br /><br />"-When a human being is born into a government not of his own choosing and the product of this human being is seized, a crime has been committed."<br /><br />This doesn't make a lot of sense, especially in an anti-welfare context. As it stands it sounds like you're making a vaguely social-democratic argument for why we need welfare: a portion of the value created by human beings engaged in the production process is seized as surplus-value by the owners of the means of production, a process that leaves large numbers of laborers and potential laborers out in the cold. As a result we need a way to ameliorate the negative effects of this process. The winners in this system didn't choose to be born into it either, and since it is just an accident of history that they happened to become "winners" in this system, perhaps they should pay a greater portion of their "winnings" to ameliorate the negative effects of the economic and governmental system (as the two are inextricably linked) that created these winners and losers. <br /><br />The position your statement seems to be hinting at is even more extreme than this; the "winners," who "won" by seizing the product of the "losers," are criminals. So in the end, poverty is the product of a criminal system, and the creators of poverty are criminals who should be punished. Seems like you're trying to make an argument *in favor of* welfare!<br /><br />"You are not even dealing with your oppositions arguments. You are talking about religion and all kinds of other weird shit...Sophistry at its best."<br /><br />There is more than one opposition position; our blogger is tackling one of them. I'm sure there are other blogs that deal with the arguments you are trying to make.nomadologistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-20240685513845404252011-09-16T06:48:58.783-04:002011-09-16T06:48:58.783-04:00are you saying that the bible teaches that it is t...are you saying that the bible teaches that it is the Church's responsibility to help the needy?<br />Or are you saying hat the Bible teaches it is not the government's responsibility to help the needy?<br />Why shouldn't both help the needy. Why shouldn't every body that wants to help- help the needy?<br />I do not understand why you are writing this as if the two helping the needy are exclusive of one another. I think that it is a society's obligation to help the needy- hence tax all of us. If you feel that he bible teaches the church to help the needy then by all means help them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-22064813439082064132011-09-15T23:34:45.888-04:002011-09-15T23:34:45.888-04:00It really hurts when I read these types of post. ...It really hurts when I read these types of post. I can agree with you on a few of your points, for example not everyone on welfare abuses welfare. What I do not agree on is the slander to Christianity you are making. I am a Christian and the Bible teaches us that it is the Churches responsibility to help the needy, not the government. I feel that if more people were involved with the Church we would be able to support the needy and the homeless more efficiently than the Government. Welfare in this Country needs to be reformed- drastically. Another point that I can agree with you on is the drug testing, yes that is extreme since that is expensive to do BUT when I apply for a job, I have to take a drug test. All of the other employees have to take a drug test as well. Im not saying it should be a requirement, BUT there should be intensive screening before one should be allotted the money, and if one has had a problem with drug use then they should be tested.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-89091288687390894172011-09-14T17:00:28.044-04:002011-09-14T17:00:28.044-04:00The opposing ideas, as they relate to my premise, ...The opposing ideas, as they relate to my premise, would be that a) the myths about welfare and its recipients are not myths (they are, and I presented the data), b) Christian anti-welfare sentiment is not on the rise and is not at odds with Christianity (I provided evidence to support this), and c) welfare drug testing is sustainable and effective (it is not, and I provided the evidence in support of this).<br /><br />I'm not sure what you expect me to address. I would welcome an example of what you feel I left out of the post, which, as I mentioned, is only concerned with those three items, as is clearly defined in the title of the post. I would be happy to entertain it if it is within the confines of the subject matter that I deal with here. Again, if you are looking for me to philosophically address the inherent rights of human beings as they relate to welfare, that is outside of the scope of what I was addressing. This is not a philosophy blog (I readily admit that philosophy is not in my wheelhouse).<br /><br />If you're interested in me addressing welfare as it relates to religion or legislation, I would be open to entertaining those arguments. This is a blog. It is comprised of observations, commentary, and opinions. If you disagree with any of the statements I made in the post, I will be happy to re-evaluate them -- and I'm completely open to updating posts to correct any incorrect statements. But I am thinking you're looking for blog post that I never set out to write in the first place.eshephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484081625693013559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-66997427972435047092011-09-14T16:35:06.325-04:002011-09-14T16:35:06.325-04:00Point A: you are absolutely correct
Point C: yes, ...Point A: you are absolutely correct<br />Point C: yes, I agree.<br /><br />Point B is where I have issue.<br /><br />Never has the True, Historical, Catholic(universal), Apostolic Church said that stealing another individuals property is justifiable; which is the core issue with anyone who is anti-welfare.<br /><br />You have every right to create a blog/website about how science, culture, politics and religion impact our lives. This is a very interesting site and I do enjoy it, but based only on the first paragragh of this article it is clear you are an ideologue concerning these issues. Science, culture, politics, and religion all exist independent of one another within our reality. It is important to deal with all of the aforementioned fields of thought separately. What I have seen on this site is you asserting your worldview. You have taken your subjective interaction of each four categories mentioned and blended them to create your own ontology as we all do. To discuss things fairly, we must make strides to not assume things about others subjective reality which you have clearly done in this article.Devinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-12200173094782020772011-09-14T16:07:26.749-04:002011-09-14T16:07:26.749-04:00now. once again, if you do not address the central...now. once again, if you do not address the central issue of an opposing idea, you are guilty of commiting a logical fallacy.devinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-22391283828939110222011-09-14T16:02:45.133-04:002011-09-14T16:02:45.133-04:00thats fine.
For the sake of clarity, there must be...thats fine.<br />For the sake of clarity, there must be distinctions. You are more than allowed to create a blog or website concerning the way Religion, culture, politics and science interact; by doing so you immediately distort the issues you are discussing. Science, culture, politics and religion all exist independently of one another. By blending them you are asserting your world view and no longer dealing with the issues at hand. In other words: you are not actually doing anything but bitching about things you do not like; all the while believing you are actually impacting these issues. That was the point of my comment. based soley on the first paragragph of your article you expose yourself as an ideologue rather than an individual who sincerely is concerned with how culture, science, politics and religion impact our daily lives.<br /><br />Concerning Point A:you are absolutely correct.<br /> C: yes, i agree.<br />Point B however is absurd. True, Historic, Catholic(Universal), Apostolic Christianity would never say stealing another persons property is justifiable; which is the point of anyone who opposses welfare.Devinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-7306274988561579652011-09-14T14:26:48.898-04:002011-09-14T14:26:48.898-04:00Hi Devin. This blog deals with religion, culture, ...Hi Devin. This blog deals with religion, culture, politics and science, and as such I am mostly concerned with the way these four particular areas influence each other, and how they influence our daily lives. <br /><br />In this particular post, I was not interested in addressing the philosophical arguments for or against welfare. What I was interested in addressing, as the title suggests is the following: a) the myths surrounding welfare and its recipients, b) the increase in Christian circles of anti-welfare sentiment which is arguably at odds with the Christian belief system, and c) the unsustainability and ineffectiveness of welfare drug testing.<br /><br />The article you describe above is an entirely different article, and not the one that I set out to write.eshephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03484081625693013559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-73975948560107647412011-09-14T13:31:38.331-04:002011-09-14T13:31:38.331-04:00I'm sorry, but your arguments are filled with ...I'm sorry, but your arguments are filled with presuppositiion. You are either not understanding or intentionaly misrepresenting the argument to end welfare.<br />Here it is: <br />-Each and every human being has inherent rights which essentially define them as a human being; money is not one these intrinsic freedoms that make up a human being. <br /><br />-Every individual owns his own body. The things which this body produces is owned by the individual.<br /><br />-When a human being is born into a government not of his own choosing and the product of this human being is seized, a crime has been committed.<br /><br />You are not even dealing with your oppositions arguments. You are talking about religion and all kinds of other weird shit...Sophistry at its best.Devin Matchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-46495473198783045032011-09-09T14:38:30.883-04:002011-09-09T14:38:30.883-04:00It's frustrating that the people who claim som...It's frustrating that the people who claim some kind of higher morality because their faith makes them behave well, when a scant look at the way many religious people behave tells the opposite tale. Ignoring, obviously, that morality dependent on a threat of punishment or promise of reward is utterly bankrupt, the people who seem to follow some benevolent religious figure most closely are the ones who practice their teachings regarding the less well-off the worst.<br /><br />There are, as you say, genuine cases of people abusing the system, but the majority are truly in need of such systems (my partner for one) - and it's those "haves" who want to tar everyone with same brush and punish those really in need. Not very "christian", is it?Rant In A-Minorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01195240480169539608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1055871156862762353.post-29636066947766225412011-09-09T13:16:05.916-04:002011-09-09T13:16:05.916-04:00But this is what Jesus wants.But this is what Jesus wants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com