Religion and child poverty
A new study examines the impact of religion on disadvantaged children, finding that kids with religious parents experience less of the effects of child poverty.
Economics professors at Tufts, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Harvard surveyed 20,000 children, looking at the child’s characteristics, their family income, parents’ education, and parents’ religious involvement. Thirteen to 15 years later, researchers measured the outcome, looking at the child’s education, income, health, and psychological well-being.
They found that kids with religiously-involved parents are “less affected later in life by childhood disadvantage.” The good effects of religious involvement were especially high when researchers measured disadvantage by family resources and maternal education and looked at outcomes like high school graduation or non-smoking. Other social organizations didn’t have the same effect.
The study did not determine why religious involvement is good. It may be that religious organizations tutor disadvantaged kids or offer financial assistance, or it may be that they instill “motivation, values, or attitudes that lead to better outcomes.” It is also hard to say whether the good effects come from religious practice itself, or from the fact that religious parents tend to have other good traits like self-discipline, community involvement, and mentoring skills.
Christine Kim, domestic policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, told WoW she has seen religion have an immediate effect on educational outcomes: “Kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods actually benefit from participation in religious activities. … Those who participate do better in school, in achievement tests.” They are also less likely to smoke and engage in risky or delinquent behavior.
Religion does not have the same effect on children in affluent neighborhoods and the reasons for the good effects are still unclear, Kim said. Still, “there’s something about being in a faith community … that makes a difference.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top46 Comments to “Religion and child poverty”
In other words, poverty is not always (or even often) well explained in the USA by claims of oppression and exploitation. Morality and values may be a beeter explanation in many cases.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, #1.
Report comment to moderator
Joel — the conclusion should be stated positively ie A strong sense of community prevents poverty. Community foster morality and values — community standards. However, this does not negate the standard model of explaining the origins of modern poverty in capitalism. I would also argue that capitalism is, in part, responsible for the decline of strong community values. Capitalism has no morality only the market which is not moral.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
To the extent that capitalism is responsible for the decline of strong moral values, it is indirectly, through the prosperity that comes as a result of capitalism.
In one of Spurgeon’s sermons, he talks about the danger of prosperity:
Among the dangers to Christian men, the greatest, perhaps, is accumulating wealth—the danger of prosperity. Wesley used sometimes to fear that Christianity was self-destructive; for when a man becomes a Christian, the blessings of this life are his, too: he begins to rise in the world; he leaves his old position behind him; and, alas! too often, with increasing riches, forgets the God who gave him all. … Many a man who was an out-and-out Christian when he was lower down in life has, when prosperous, become much too great a gentleman to associate with those who were his honored brethren before.
Report comment to moderator
I have lived in poverty for several years. I was raised in an excellent family and community environment with abundant spirituality and christ-like leadership. Nonetheless, I was exploited and persecuted in both personal and professional settings that have dramatically impacted my life. In the name of Jesus, Amen.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline
Capitalism does/did a number of things.
First,it achieved a dramatic break between the individual and the community. The Romanticist of the 19thC popularized this critique which has more validity than most Marxist would admit. Both Freud and Weber offered similar ideas — man is separated from his “natural” or “cultural” self.
Second man is alienated from the product of his labour. This increases alienation and a sense of helplessness.
Third, centralization, a necessary component of capitalism, increases both of the above and further dehumanizes the worker and his/her relationships.
Fourth, capitalism demands labour mobility which separates the extended family.
Fifth, the market unless moderated by unions and government keeps the worker on the edge of existence leading to tension and economic problems at home.
Modern capitalism with its marketing wing has managed to create unlimited need, which has led to a constant working family especially in north america. This alone might explain the difference between European and American rates of family breakdown and crime. Spurgeon accurately points out the contradiction between capitalism and Chrisitianity (or any other moral system). Capitalism is fueled by greed which is rarely compatible with ethnics.
Report comment to moderator
Well, if nothing else, consider what any type of religious activity involves be in synagogue or church. Some things are worth getting cleaned up for and wearing Sunday best.
The kids learn to interact respectfully towards adults. They might encounter role models who might not otherwise be present in the child’s life. I’ve often said that all our subsidized HUD public housing should have the bus equivalent of a Sunday morning “cab stand” to go pick up poor children and their parents.
No church worth its name would be unwelcoming towards poor kids. And while many parents search for activities to get their kids involved in, in church you normally find a great deal and for the most part the activities are either free or the church can make available “stipends” to pay for the activity. I know lotsa teens would never be taken snow skiing without the youth minister’s bus!
Report comment to moderator
Missionaries have long lamented the byproduct of “redemption and uplift,” the tendency of impoverished people living by Christian principles to first enjoy greater prosperity and later see succeeding generations drift from the simplicity of the Gospel after being seduced from their Christian principles by the comforts of their new lifestyle. The cycle of redemption, prosperity, decline, and revival is at least as old as the Book of Judges.
HRW’s overly reductionist critique of capitalism as a major force in modern alienation seems to be a tepid and poorly assimilated rewarming of thoroughly discredited Marxism, as well as a profound misunderstanding of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Treating man as a mere economic unit does more to alienate than division of labor and free markets could. Capitalism per se leads only to prosperity. The effects of that prosperity depend on other things.
I have been rereading Francis A. Schaeffer’s The God Who Is There and find its central thesis compelling. Alienation results from the sundering of man’s spiritual life and theological understanding from his everyday life. Relegating the theological and spiritual to an existential and incommunicable experience apart from an empirically observable physiological machine divides man from himself.
An economic theory that persists in regarding man as object, as an economic unit, intensifies that alienation. Recapturing the total and universal truth of human experience as creatures made in the image of God rather than biological machines with a vague spritual side is the key to overcoming the alienation of modern man.
Report comment to moderator
There are many paradoxes and contradictions apparent at worldmagblog.
One is that conservative Christians can embrace the greed of the capitalist system but maintain their spiritual integrity in the process. This was once known as the “Protestant ethic.” The oxymoron “wholesome greed” popped into my mind.
From Bloomberg:
Oral Roberts President Resigns Amid Allegations (Update1)
By William McQuillen and Jeff St.Onge
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts, son of the Christian school’s televangelist founder, resigned yesterday following accusations that he used school funds for personal use.
Roberts’s resignation was effective yesterday, according to a statement from George Pearsons, chairman of the Board of Regents, posted on the school’s Web site. The Tulsa, Oklahoma- based university’s regents will meet starting on Nov. 26 to discuss a replacement for Roberts, 59.
Three university professors filed a lawsuit last month against Richard Roberts. They allege that he used the school’s aircraft for a $29,411 trip to the Bahamas and spent school money to buy horses for his children, according to John Swails, one of the plaintiffs.
The university was founded in 1963 by Roberts’ father, evangelist Oral Roberts. The 5,700-student school emphasizes the Christian faith and encourages pupils to become “servant- learners,” according to a mission statement.
“I love the students, faculty, staff and administration, and I want to see God’s best for all of them,” Richard Roberts said in his resignation letter, according to the statement on the Web site.
Report comment to moderator
Nice anecdotal evidence, RN.
Report comment to moderator
The nature of a blog lends itself to an overly reductionist critique of just about anything. A blog’s immediate and fleeting nature also lends itself well to anecdotal evidence.
In my overly reductionist critique of capitalism, I also pointed out the Romantic critique which focused on the loss of community which occurred in the Industrial Revolution. The loss of community whether its be religious or social is what is being discussed as a contribution to poverty. A quick reading of Marx would see romanticism permeating through; more than latter-day Marxist would admit. Sprugeon points out the trap posed by Christianity and rise of wealth. This inherent contradiction of any aesthetic religion and wealth is on daily display in American Christian.
Finally I take issue with Ken’s claim that Capitalism per se leads only to prosperity.
On a global level, the modern form of capitalism has led to a decline in the standard of living in Africa and a huge setback in South and Central America which they are only now beginning to recover. Wealth is shared on a greater basis in Europe than elsewhere and they have greatly modified capitalism based on social democratic principles. Finally the very nature of capitalism is its boom and bust cycle. When left unchecked, a lowering of wealth will occasionally occur such as the depression of the thirties. Even today, the greatest fear of the American middle class is a lowering of their living standards.
Report comment to moderator
#11
It’s not evidence. It’s an example.
Report comment to moderator
Lawyers call that anecdotal evidence all the time.
I am mindful of Christ’s admonition about attaining the kingdom of heaven — something about a camel and the eye of a needle. Those middle class Americans worried about losing their lifestyle aren’t focusing on Christ in the first place. They’ve put something ahead of Him.
If you think the housing crisis is bad, wait until the credit cards come due. People are keeping that lifestyle using credit cards, and it won’t work.
Report comment to moderator
We pay our credit card in full each month. That wasn’t always true. That’s called learning from painful experience, I think.
Report comment to moderator
HRW in condemning captitalism as the cause of poverty is quite mistaken. Capitalism is merely the result of valuing the dignity of individual’s work effort and respecting the private property that results. The best contemporary proof of this is the micro-capital lending tn poor nations that is far more effective in lifting people from poverty than any governmental or NGO efforts. Another proof is the social mobility data among western nations. Recent data from the Treasury Dept. shows that the percentage change 1996-2005 in the bottom fifth median income in the U.S. was 90.5% (in 2005 dollars). A free economy along with strong and good character is always the best path out of poverty.
It is true that among all too many of the middle-class and nouveau riche wealth becomes more important than character or morality.
However, the solution to this is hardly the sort of socialism or even social democracy. The solution is to get the materialists to realize the shallowness and despair that comes from over valuing wealth by rekindling their forbear’s appreciation of serious religion.
Report comment to moderator
capitalism doesn’t value dignity. Capitalism allows supply, demand and the free market to create value. Dignity is not inherent in the process of valuation unless Peter believes the all markets, including porn, illicit drugs,etc have dignity.
Private property and contract law predate capitalism. The state simply assigns and enforces, according to its own defined consensus, rights of one individual over an other and to arbitrate between disputed individuals. Without the state there are no property rights nor contract law both essential for capitalism to exist.
Report comment to moderator
Well, HRW, forms of prostitution, porn, drugs and other assorted evils have been a part of history for millenia, well before the advent of modern capitalism.
My main point is that in free economies where good, hard, and honest work is well rewarded and the resulting property is respected through law, individuals have there best chance of getting ahead economically. China in recent years through freeing its economy has lifted about 250 million people from abject poverty.
The dream of sharing wealth through governmentally enforced socialism has proven to be a nightmare for the people of nations including the Soviet Union, and just now Cuba and Venezuela.
In my view the best structure for all people is a combination of a free economy and the free exercise of serious religion that values the dignity and welfare of individuals. Religious people who who hold people to moral responsibility, tithe, and take care of disabled and worthy poor do a far better job of lifting people from poverty than ordinary bureaucratic and heartless government programs.
Report comment to moderator
It’s pretty tough to accurately assess economic cause and effect in the real world, both because there are always other factors besides economics at play, and there is generally a mix of different economic systems (i.e. no pure socialism and no pure capitalism, at least no place I’ve heard of).
What I think capitalism does promote, in contrast to other economic systems, is rewarding individual initiative. Inherited wealth, natural ability, and just “being in the right place at the right time” play some part, but individual initiative (or lack of it) plays a much larger role than in other systems. This is a mixed blessing, as it allows a person to achieve much greater prosperity, but often at the cost of family relationships (whether due to having to relocate, because one family member makes a lot more than another, or simply because they don’t have time for both business and each other). I don’t know whether greed actually increases when greater prosperity is possible, but it certainly becomes much more visible.
Given the worldwide movement of populations toward cities (where higher-paying jobs are likely to be found), it appears that most people prefer to give up a measure of stability for the sake of greater prosperity.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Capitalism is the best known and most proven cure for poverty the world has ever seen.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Capitalism has no morality only the market which is not moral.”
Only humans can have morality.
Still, capitalism does create a context wherein the words “May-I-Help-You” get said millions of times a day. And thus, a lot of people get helped on a win-win basis. Businesses that indeed help people effectively also tend to thrive.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Ccapitalism doesn’t value dignity.”
Dignity is a virtue, period. One should seek it regardless of what economic system you advocate.
But capitalism is the economic system that is most compatible with liberty and we rather like our liberty here in the USA. A free market allows for an economy wherein every transaction potentially meets the needs of both parties in that transaction and that tends to boost the whole economy better than controled or centralized systems.
Report comment to moderator
My main point is that in free economies where good, hard, and honest work is well rewarded
This imaginary model is not borne out by reality where the largest financial rewards go to companies with insider knowledge and friends in high places. Crony capitalism has come to America where no-bid contracts have become the norm in the federal gov’t, policies are designed by corporations in secret, and a politician “accidently” forget his brother works for a company under investigation by his committee.
the best structure for all people is a combination of a free economy and the free exercise of serious religion that values the dignity and welfare of individuals. Religious people who hold people to moral responsibility,
to combine free economics with serious religion (as opposed to a not so serious religion?) is nearly impossible since a seriously religious person would demand to intervene and construct the economic system according to his/her values. A free market is a theortical construct; in reality market distortions are a daily norm. Banks, NGOs, governments, corporations, churches all change the balance of supply and demand to suit them.
Discriminatory charity may be appropriate for religious institutions but on a large scale its far more effecient to just give the poor the money. Failure to keep the poor sufficiently fed and entertained with bread and circuses has historically proven to be a serious law and order problem.
Report comment to moderator
Joel:
Capitalism is the best known and most proven cure for poverty the world has ever seen.
and
But capitalism is the economic system that is most compatible with liberty and we rather like our liberty here in the USA. A free market allows for an economy wherein every transaction potentially meets the needs of both parties in that transaction and that tends to boost the whole economy better than controled or centralized systems.
needs to be contrasted by Pauline;
’s pretty tough to accurately assess economic cause and effect in the real world, both because there are always other factors besides economics at play, and there is generally a mix of different economic systems (i.e. no pure socialism and no pure capitalism, at least no place I’ve heard of).
Pauline, you are far too sensible for this blog. Of course, its been a manged capitalist economy which has overseen the largest modern rise in prosperity — not to mention gov’t support of technological research. Our economies are managed; its just a question of who manages it and for whom its managed.
Report comment to moderator
And the majority of U.S. citizens (so far, at least) believe private enterprise is best managed by the governed, HRW, and not the government. After all, the common people (the governed) know better than the elitists (the government) what is best for them.
Report comment to moderator
The elites are not the government rather they are the economically powerful who help determine the government. They, the elites, dictate to the government on how to manage capitalism. Thus we have the energy policy decided by oil companies and senior drug plan written to favour the drug companies. Major corporations donated thousands to both democrats and republicans not because they want to keep the democratic structure solvent but rather because they want influence.
The common people could use their numerical strength to become the government and thus help manage capitalism for their benefit but that has yet to happen. As it is the governed in no way manage capitalism. The tax structure, transportation and communication, contract law, property rights, subsidies, trade policies, tariffs are all instruments of the government not the governed and its these instruments that determine the management of capitalism. Thus, its the economic elite who tell the American people whats good for them.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve said before that the proper goal of discussion between people with immense differences (such as the regular participants at this web site) is to make each other uneasy.
For example, I don’t particularly expect most people here to stop being Christians or to eschew their political conservatism.
Some people here are willing to let themselves be uneasy. However, for many, their religious belief means never letting themselves be uneasy. Debaters act as if there is a clear winner and loser in every discussion, that to admit a point is ambiguous or uncertain is to “give up a point” in a ping pong game where might lose the whole match if one concedes a point.
I think there is a tension between the values of free enterprise and the values of Christianity. To admit that such a tension exists does not mean that Christianity is valueless. It does not mean that free enterprise is bad.
However, I think the example of Oral Roberts University and the behavior of the Oral Roberts family should make people here uneasy. I didn’t draw grandiose conclusions or generalizations about it. I realize that many people here do not think Oral Roberts is a particularly exemplary representative of conservative Christianity at its best. But the need to defend against my point as if you are defending the citadel of the faith is typical and tiresome.
Another example of this grim grip on the paddle is when I point out that a logical outgrowth of free enterprise is that sex becomes a commodity. As if Hollywood were not an example of free enterprise.
I don’t offer solutions. I do suggest that people stop trying to redefine themselves out of problems .
Report comment to moderator
I love the way you guys make these stretch connections. Well, since girls that sign the religion based “abstinance” contract have a higher rate of pregnancy and STDs, it’s obvious that the “morals” and “values” promoted by religion lead to “down and dirty” sex.
OR
could it be that the more responsible adults in a childs life, raising that child, the less likely that child will live in poverty. Bingo!
Report comment to moderator
Outkast
two videos for you both rather humorous, the latter has some use of the f – word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5i_BUA49RI
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN,
Your claim about girls who sign religion based “abstinance” contracts having a “higher” rate of pregnancy and STDs sounds like unproven nonsense to me.
But one thing is sure, girls who KEEP their abstinance commitents are actually FAITHFUL to the future husbands have a much much lower rate of unwanted pregnancies, STDs and they face much less poverty in their futures. They also are able to form healthier relaqtionships with their husbands when they marry and they raise more stable children.
Those who do not keep ther pledges also have hope. Those who are unfaithful to the future mates can look to the love and grace of God when they repent and turn their lives back to Him. But they must live gracefully and honestly with the consequences of their choices.
Report comment to moderator
Hrw — A strong sense of community prevents poverty.
Roger — I don’t know if a strong sense of community prevents poverty. You could be right. I suspect that a strong sense of community also helps alleviate the negative stigma that comes with being poor. After all, if all your neighbors are poor, and at the same time, they all feel a love for neighbor, that would make poverty more bearable.
I would add to that, a strong sense of hope helps an individual out of poverty, if society allows that individual the freedom to live according to his or her choices. What the American experience offers is the hope that the individual can rise out of poverty if he or she works hard and makes wise choices.
HRW — However, this does not negate the standard model of explaining the origins of modern poverty in capitalism.
Roger — I read comments here charging you will Marxist beliefs. They may be true, I don’t know. But I would ask my fellow believers to give your comment a fair hearing. Marxism may be dead. But greed is here to stay.
Here is one thing that my fellow believers ought to consider. First, capitalism can only survive in expanding markets. Unless a capitalist takes market share from another capitalist, or finds new markets, he or she will not survive.
For the sake of argument, I want to eliminate the Mom-and-Pop store from the term capitalist. Capitalism is applying labor to capital to make a profit. But for the sake of my next comment, let’s not include one’s own labor. Let’s say a capitalist is a person who applies someone else’s labor to capital to make a profit.
I believe what HRW is getting at is this. As capitalists search for new and expanding markets, they compete directly with the Mom-and-Pop store for customers. Sadly, in many cases, the capitalist puts the Mom-and-Pop store out of business because the larger company can leverage its other interests and offer lower prices.
When this happens, the individual loses hope that he or she, up against the large company, can compete and gives up. Now multiply this thousands of times all across the world, in small communities and in large cities where capitalists have expanded their markets.
HRW — Capitalism has no morality only the market which is not moral.
Roger — I agree with you here. We tend to compare capitalism with communism as if to say “capitalism – good, communism – bad”. In general, I agree that capitalism has defeated communism as an economic system and partly because capitalism works well in a democratic and free society. But if we want to talk about cause and effect, I wonder if liberty is what made capitalism possible and not the other way around.
Anyway, it seems to me that we have good capitalists and evil capitalists and each of them can flourish in a free society, and that’s why we say capitalism is a-moral. Morality lies in the hearts and minds of the owners of companies, not the “ideal” capitalist.
One more thing for my fellow believers to consider. Look out over the world and ask yourself what is TRULY going on. Are we promoting liberty and democracy because we value these for their own sake, or are we merely trying to find expanding markets? I know you and I love liberty and freedom. But what about our leaders?
#
4. Gravatar by Pauline 11.24.07 at 11:48 pm
HRW,
To the extent that capitalism is responsible for the decline of strong moral values, it is indirectly, through the prosperity that comes as a result of capitalism.
Report comment to moderator
opps, that artifact at the end of my last post should have been erased. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
Roger: Here is one thing that my fellow believers ought to consider. First, capitalism can only survive in expanding markets. Unless a capitalist takes market share from another capitalist, or finds new markets, he or she will not survive.
Well, modern markets do to a great degree both change and expand, so that investment is far from being a zero-sum game. Of course, competition between business enterprises is on balance very favorable in the long run for smart investors and consumers.
Hayek, in his wonderful book The Road to Serfdom explains how the dream of socialism and government economic planning leads inevitably to sluggish bureaucracy and the serfdom of most people. Decisions on supply and demand need to be made at ground level in the context of real and often fast changing in the marketplace.
Greed is a universal phenomenon that affects some Communists and socialists as well as some capitalists, though greedy businessmen as a rule don’t last for very long in business markets, since competitors will sooner or later find a way to take advantage of this.
There is no good reason to suppose that a free economy is antithetical to Christianity. A brilliant recent statement of this thesis is Centesimus Annus by John Paul II, who had long experience with state controlled socialism during WW II and the Cold War, writes:
Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of production, which would reduce every citizen to being a “cog” in the State machine. It is no less forceful in criticizing a concept of the State which completely excludes the economic sector from the State’s range of interest and action. There is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy in economic life which the State should not enter. The State, however, has the task of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience.
Report comment to moderator
I heard yesterday that 80% of children living in homes led by a man result in their children having successful marriages themselves, and that 20% of children living in home led by a single mother (bless their hearts) result in their children having unsuccessful marriages themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Some good economic analysis going on here.
One thing that occurs to me, to follow up on Peter’s quotation from Rerum Novarum is this statement:
“…which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience.”
I think many of us on the left side of the political spectrum, while agreeing in principal that capitalism is an efficient economic system, with generally better results than a statist system, would take issue with this presumption being valid.
Where we see extreme concentrations of wealth, power, or information, the presumption of a “certain equality” does indeed seem to break down, and one party can easily become “subservient” to the other in the transaction. There is, and should be, a role for government in mitigating gross inequities.
When I took a pair of undergraduate courses in Marxist economics, I came away concluding that there were fundamental errors in his attitude and worldview that made it unworkable as the foundation for an economy.
But, it also made me uncomfortable, and ought to make us capitalists uncomfortable. Marx did wrestle in very fundamental ways, as also did Smith, Ricardo, and others, with the question of value, and it’s relation to human labour. It raise, in big RED letters, if you will, the question of “What is Fair? What is Equitable?”
We all, conservative and liberal, want a system that is both free and fair. Even if we disagree with their conclusions, it would be good to at least listen to those who disagree with us, and become more self-reflective capitalists.
To quote from #26 (RN),
“… the proper goal of discussion between people with immense differences … is to make each other uneasy.”
Report comment to moderator
I heard yesterday that 80% of children living in homes led by a man result in their children having successful marriages themselves, and that 20% of children living in home led by a single mother (bless their hearts) result in their children having unsuccessful marriages themselves.
So they both have a 80% success rate?
Peter;
Both the Christian and civic republican traditions that are the basis of western thought were anti-commerce. Usury was thought a sin, avarice or greed was a cardinal sin. Merchants, bankers and trader were not allowed Athenian citizenship. Only by the 17th Century did the church and political theorist attempt to make banking and commerce an acceptable activity. Even then political theorists sought an alternative to classical liberalism being developed at this time. Although the ideological winners are well known (Smith, Riccardo etc), the eventually losers had their own following. Many attempted to repress the new economy and fought a rear guard action protecting the medieval ideal of community others sought a way to include commerce under the guidance of the state and formed proto-fascist ideas. The Catholic church continued its rigid opposition to capitalism especailly in the south which made fascism more successful in the 20th century there (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Vichy France)
In Protestant Europe, capitalism was allowed to flourish and commerce encouraged for it increase the wealth of the nation. Note Protestantism itself is not entirely responsible for successful commerce rather the lack of a state church in places like the Netherlands allowed merchants to operate without the restrictions of the church.
The civic tradition still today works on an acceptable way to allow for free enterprise and virtue to coexist (Socrates in the Republic says its impossible). Various amounts and types of state management have been proposed with most settling on a state that promotes the equity of opportunity and the health and welfare of its inhabitants which isn’t too different from the Greek city states.
You correctly cite JP II approval for his criticism of state totalitarianism (he also critized liberation theology) but the second half of your quote makes it clear he sees a role for the state to manage the economy for the benefit of the people.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Musing: makes it clear he sees a role for the state to manage the economy for the benefit of the people.
John Paul II doesn’t give the state control tp manage the economy; he wants the state to provide the judicial framework for the economy, viz. The State, however, has the task of determining the juridical framework within which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy,
It is one thing for free men and women to manage an economy with various business enterprises; another for the state to provide a judicial framework to ensure that the business enterprises are regulated within a judicial framework.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, in the above I meant HRW, not Musing. I get these leftist sages confused sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, HRW, I mistyped that. The stats say that only 20% of children raised in homes led by single mothers have successful marriages later in life.
Report comment to moderator
Managing the economy may but does not necessarily imply control. The watchkeeper state protects property rights and contract law but JP implies more with his “judicial framework” as the following demonstrates;
safeguarding the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as practically to reduce the other to subservience.
hence, JP II does admit the necessity of state intervention to ensure at the very least equity of opportunity and the social-welfare of its inhabitants. Not too much different from what I advocate we just begin with a different starting point.
Report comment to moderator
make that the night watchman state
Report comment to moderator
HRW, anyone involved in a truly free economy knows well that rather few people are reduced to subservience. Smart people who hazard their savings in capital investment are hardly subservient to anyone. If you want to find a bevy of subservient economic players, take a look at any socialist country; Cuba would be a fine local venue.
The truth is that being a player in a free economy is a rough game requires a combination of the classic virtues of prudence, temperance, courage, and justice.
Meanwhile, the harpies on the sidelines, many of whom have never put in an eighteen hour day during which little goes right, wring their hands, read the daily papers, and bayonet the wounded.
Report comment to moderator
#33: I heard yesterday that 80% of children living in homes led by a man result in their children having successful marriages themselves
Where did you read that? I heard that a two parent home has a higher success rate, and that includes homes with two mommies and no daddies at all. You guys place too much emphasis on sex and not enough on the power of nurturing adults.
Report comment to moderator
anyone involved in a truly free economy knows well that rather few people are reduced to subservience.
19th C England was the closest society has come to a completely free economy. I dare say you and Mr. Dickens may have a disagreement about subservience.
Is Cuba better under Batista or Castro??
As for the rest of your post, my violin is gently weeping for the hardworking capitalist.
Report comment to moderator
A strong sense of community can indeed mitigate against poverty. That’s why I believe so much in the church.
One resourse that cannot easily offer a strong sense of community is the federal government. It can take money from us as individuals and from our community organizations and businesses, and it can force its will on us and our communities, but it cannot create a strong sense of community nearly as well as a local church can or other private sector institutions.
If the federal gov’t did not have healthy communities, businesses and income producers to live off of, it would have nothing to offer any of us at all.
Government can protect a community and reflect its values, but we are responsible for creating healthy communities and living in them responsibly.
Report comment to moderator
Capitalism does not create this sense of community, in fact, it breaks up the sense of community and despite Peter’s claims of prudence etc the essential feature of capitalism is avarice or greed. In capitalism, greed is good.
The federal gov’t does not create this sense of community either. Its role in creating community is to mitigate the harmful effects of capitalism thus giving citizens a sense of worth. Its the citizens who create the community through public schools, sports programmes, churches, service clubs and even the local pub.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: A strong sense of community can indeed mitigate against poverty. That’s why I believe so much in the church.
I agree. In most American communities the most charitable and community minded people are church members. Arthur Brooks, a scholar at Syracuse, has written in Who Really Cares that church members give much more of their time and money to charitable causes than secular people who tend to rely more on governmental programs.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!