They learn they need only TAKE.

Progressivism, consequences, Altruism, humanitarianism Charity enforced isn’t charity It’s interesting; the way people decide they’d rather expand social programs supporting indigent people rather than helping the indigent escape their status by working to better them personally. Charity is defined in Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary as the greatest of the three Christian Graces. (1 Cor. 12:31-13:13) Alternatively charity is defined by Dictionary.com as the voluntary giving, typically of money, to those in need. What does charity really mean? Essentially, it means to reach beyond self. It is to give what a person needs both in the sense of things but going beyond the material and give a person what’s best for them; not merely expedient and comfortable. Definitions are all well and good because of the concise manner they explain a thought and direct a person toward the completion of the thought. The problem comes about when we fail to truly understand the results of our thinking. We fail to recognize the consequences of actions taken and how they can become relied upon long after the need for the charity. We can destroy the elemental ambition a person needs to express and experience for them to survive and progress through life. Charity should be a short-term gift we extend from the goodness of the heart. It should be a matter of sharing willingly done because of the rightness of the act: not the enforcement of law. Originally charity was individuals expressing their caring for those less well-off. The individual gave of his abundance so another could live in a state better than the one noted when the giver first came into contact with the recipient. It was a matter of conscience or scruples (ethical principles) showing what the giver feels is right and proper; not a command by a “beneficent” state keeping itself in power. Now, we enforce charity and call it Welfare and Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). They’ve become organizationally and structurally deficient when it comes to the operative principle of conscience. The concept of conscience is gone from the act of charity. It’s been replaced with ideas of “social justice” and “moral imperative “defined by people using the largesse and conscience of the people they hold sway over to assure they remain in power. This is called progressivism. This is called the development of the socialized state; a nation where the “egalite’, fraternite’ and liberte’” supersede truth, justice and survival of the fittest. Everybody’s provided for so there’s no need for excellence. This is NOT to do away with charity and the altruistic nature of the individual. It’s not to pass judgment on those needing a helping hand to survive in this world; as long as they understand they’re responsible for the way and manner they walk through this world. They’re responsible for their own destinies, not the state and taxpayers footing a bill for an indefinite period of time. Altruism and humanitarianism are elements of personal character. They can’t be experienced by the state. The state is an inarticulate and mute entity having its character defined by the frailties and shortcomings of individuals speaking for the state. The voice of the state is directed from those having ideologies and agendas. There’s no sense of endless altruism and charity to be derived from the state. The state wants to have people who are malleable and moldable into the form and nature of a society they can control and direct so as to keep itself fluidly moving toward the goals of the state; and nothing else. Conscience is the internalized essence of ethics and morality resident in a human being. If those morals and ideals and ethics are defined by the family, and that family has a concept of a higher power, then there may be control and understanding of charity and beneficence. If the ethical, moral structure of the individual is developed from abstract concepts shifting and changing regularly as theories and ideologies do, then there is a resident confusion developed in the person allowing them to believe they’re entitled to support and direction from the state. They accept they need not extend charity to others. They learn they need only TAKE. Thanks for listening