When Glenn Beck announced he would deliver food and toys to immigrant children, the attacks were blistering — and profoundly unchristian. (via theweekmagazine)
I wrote about Beck’s decision to help the immigrant children regardless of their legal status, an even more admirable decision given the grief he must have known he’d get. I did not, however, read until today about the backlash his charitable activities did indeed produce.
It’s sad. I don’t know that it’s shocking—I want to be shocked, but I’m not sure I am. This inability to disconnect a political/legal opinion from very real human needs is troubling to me. It’s a major reason why I’ve long since ceased to allow myself to be grouped under the broad “conservative” label.
When it comes to social welfare broadly speaking, I think admitting that—as things currently stand—there is a real need for these programs is not a strike against the cause of private charity and the free market. Sure, welfare programs are abused (as any government program will be), but there are people who legitimately need outside help to meet their basic needs and those of their children.
To acknowledge these needs is not to say that government should be the entity meeting those needs or that private organizations couldn’t do it way more efficiently, effectively, and morally. It’s just to say that, regardless of political opinions, these needs are real, and it’s good to help people.
To the extent that any political movement cannot make this distinction, I suggest it will tend to be inhumane and unappealing both.(via hipsterlibertarian)