Vegas-Rex
29-03-2006, 00:21
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46451
An accusation that I've heard several times against conservatives is that they should, as christians, be more concerned with helping the poor than with opposing gays, etc. The usual response to this argument is that free market policies actually do help the poor, and that welfare is futile/harmful. This onion article takes this last argument and puts it in a different context, which raises an interesting point. We can in general agree that the point of view espoused by this article is ridiculous (well, most of us, anyway), but what differentiates it from the argument about welfare? Is the article actually right, or is the conservative argument wrong? I realize that there are substantial differences in the contexts of the two arguments, but it still provides an interesting comparison.
An accusation that I've heard several times against conservatives is that they should, as christians, be more concerned with helping the poor than with opposing gays, etc. The usual response to this argument is that free market policies actually do help the poor, and that welfare is futile/harmful. This onion article takes this last argument and puts it in a different context, which raises an interesting point. We can in general agree that the point of view espoused by this article is ridiculous (well, most of us, anyway), but what differentiates it from the argument about welfare? Is the article actually right, or is the conservative argument wrong? I realize that there are substantial differences in the contexts of the two arguments, but it still provides an interesting comparison.