Plenty

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

How many billions?

How many do you spend on "defence" - half of that would do.

[Ted]

Personally I would say as many billions as is necessary. We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary.

Shalom
Ted

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Ted

Personally I would say as many billions as is necessary. We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary.

Shalom
Ted

And this is one main sticking point for me. "We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary." Forget that I disagree with this statement; write is off as us having different definitions of "whatever". When we send tax dollars to these poor countries, it is no longer Christians who are doing it. It is a secular government, in our case a government expressly separate from the Church. Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?

[Omni_Skittles]

I think people should give from the goodness of their heart. It's between God and them after that. I'm a missions major, and of course automatically i have given everything i ever get to missionaries to do things that i can't do, yet. But not everyone has that mindset and i think that's okay. Sad, but okay.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

And this is one main sticking point for me. "We as Christians are duty bound to do whatever is necessary." Forget that I disagree with this statement; write is off as us having different definitions of "whatever". When we send tax dollars to these poor countries, it is no longer Christians who are doing it. It is a secular government, in our case a government expressly separate from the Church. Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?

OK, call it enlightened self interest.

It is not in our countries interest to have superpoor countries acting as breeding grounds for resentment and recruiting grounds for terrorists - unless we want an external enemy to be the bogeymen

It is not in our countries interests to have people so poor that they fight amongst themselves for the scraps of useful land remaining after the infrastructure's collapsed - unless we see this as an outlet for our arms industry.

It is not in our countries interest to have countries with 80% of the population suffering from HIV / AIDS because they cannot afford the healthcare to prevent it, especially when these same countries hold the majority of the worlds mineral reserves - unless we want to pick up the pieces cheaply afterwards.

The world is a small place. The troubles of one country affect every other country. We should be working for the benefit of all because that is our long term interest - not taking the short term view of feeding ourselves and "the rest" can go to hell in a handbasket.

Why do you talk in terms of force when the question was put in terms of help?

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

OK, call it enlightened self interest.

It is not in our countries interest to have superpoor countries acting as breeding grounds for resentment and recruiting grounds for terrorists - unless we want an external enemy to be the bogeymen

Today's terrorist is upper middle class and college educated.

Originally Posted by My Buddy Bryn

It is not in our countries interests to have people so poor that they fight amongst themselves for the scraps of useful land remaining after the infrastructure's collapsed - unless we see this as an outlet for our arms industry.

I don't see how it works against our interests, either. It's a terrible thing that needs to be avoided/stopped, and that's enough. I think we can agree on that.

Originally Posted by My Buddy Bryn

It is not in our countries interest to have countries with 80% of the population suffering from HIV / AIDS because they cannot afford the healthcare to prevent it, especially when these same countries hold the majority of the worlds mineral reserves - unless we want to pick up the pieces cheaply afterwards.

Again, our governments send billions in aid to their governments, which don't use it as intended. We're not helping.

Originally Posted by My Buddy Bryn

The world is a small place. The troubles of one country affect every other country. We should be working for the benefit of all because that is our long term interest - not taking the short term view of feeding ourselves and "the rest" can go to hell in a handbasket.

Why do you talk in terms of force when the question was put in terms of help?

I don't think this applies to me specifically. Are you asking me to justify Bush's speeches or something? If you do mean it for me, can you clarify so we can iron this part out?

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Today's terrorist is upper middle class and college educated.

Some maybe, but by no means all. In truth I was thinking more of those who support the terrorists, give them shelter and supplies and do theri best to prevent their capture.

Originally Posted by Accountable

I don't see how it works against our interests, either. It's a terrible thing that needs to be avoided/stopped, and that's enough. I think we can agree on that.

I find we agree on more than we disagree on - just more fun to discuss the latter

Originally Posted by Accountable

Again, our governments send billions in aid to their governments, which don't use it as intended. We're not helping.

There are ways and means - giving billions to the government and saying "that should help" doesn't. Spending millions on training and infrastructure improvements in the villages and townships, setting up microcredit facilities to provide a start up, providing tools, equipment and seed crops directly to the people needing the help can and does.

Originally Posted by Accountable

I don't think this applies to me specifically. Are you asking me to justify Bush's speeches or something? If you do mean it for me, can you clarify so we can iron this part out?

The first part was a general comment, the second was in response to "Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?".

I truly believe that we should be helping those in impoverished countries - both at a personal and at a governmental level. I recognise that there are difficulties, often caused by the governments of those that we are trying to help, but that should not stop us from trying.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

There are ways and means - giving billions to the government and saying "that should help" doesn't. Spending millions on training and infrastructure improvements in the villages and townships, setting up microcredit facilities to provide a start up, providing tools, equipment and seed crops directly to the people needing the help can and does.

Take the 50% of the defense budget. Give it back to the taxpayers. Allow those who wish to help, help. I think you will be amazed at what people will do on their own without being compelled by law.

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

The first part was a general comment, the second was in response to "Does the phrase "whatever is necessary" include forcing non-Christians to participate in our largesse?".

Politicians think short-term. Don't try to get them to do things against their nature.

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

I truly believe that we should be helping those in impoverished countries - both at a personal and at a governmental level. I recognise that there are difficulties, often caused by the governments of those that we are trying to help, but that should not stop us from trying.

Isn't the definition of insanity to continually do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Forget the government when it comes to charitable endeavors. Let the experts handle it.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Take the 50% of the defense budget. Give it back to the taxpayers. Allow those who wish to help, help. I think you will be amazed at what people will do on their own without being compelled by law.

Politicians think short-term. Don't try to get them to do things against their nature.

Isn't the definition of insanity to continually do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Forget the government when it comes to charitable endeavors. Let the experts handle it.

The only problem with this is that individuals can only give help in byte sized chunks, even the big charities have their limitations. Some changes need policy changes at governmental level if they are to succeed - changes to trade agreements, dropping the third world debt burden, etc.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

The only problem with this is that individuals can only give help in byte sized chunks, even the big charities have their limitations. Some changes need policy changes at governmental level if they are to succeed - changes to trade agreements, dropping the third world debt burden, etc.

That doesn't cost a dime in taxes, save for the air fare for diplomatic meetings. See? We all win!