Do we really need government-run social programs?
O.k., I realize that posting once every month or two isn’t exactly the way to maintain a faithful following. What can I say? Sometimes there’s nothing worth writing about and sometimes there is but we don’t have time to do it.
But this item from The Corner caught my eye today and I wanted to pass it along.
Many megachurches provide exactly the sort of facilities and programs you see progressives arguing should be provided by government, and they manage to do so largely without public funding. Progressive activists , however, tend to be suspicious of—if not outright hostile toward—religious groups that perform these services, which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
I don’t particularly care for megachurches, but my aversion stems mostly from my own personality, not because I distrust their motives or think they are any less Christian than the 200-300 member congregations sprinkled throughout small town America. To me our own congregations seems a little overwhelming at 900 or so. But a very large congregation is somewhat better equipped than a small one to handle some things such as numerous community outreach programs, multiple services, services in other languages and other activities that might keep members coming and draw new members in. It is also more likely to have the resources to operate a food pantry, counseling and other charitable services that provide a safety net for the poorest of our society.
I hadn’t realized that “liberals” cared less for these institutions than other private organizations but this article is one more example of why the government is not the only means to deal with the various and sundry needs of the citizenry.
related articles
- The Case Against Adolescence (June 12th, 2007)
- The Clash of Civilizations (June 9th, 2007)
- Feminist Anti-Americanism (May 14th, 2007)
- Getting Hitched: Who is? Who’s not? Who splits? Kay Hymowitz takes a look. (April 8th, 2007)
- Steve Irwin, RIP (September 4th, 2006)
