Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Poverty
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.” – Benjamin Franklin
Oliver Anthony‘s “Rich Men North of Richmond” has sparked a lot of discussion and even more criticism, mostly by those online rich men (and women) north of Richmond. The folks whose definition of hard work was an all-nighter in college. It is a heartfelt cry, however.
The latest to pile onto the online blanket party for Anthony is Christianity Today, which is criticizing him for being too mean in his attitude toward the poor. The man doesn’t like his hard-earned pay going to pay for fudge rounds of the morbidly obese on welfare. According to Christianity Today, that is an unchristian thought and Anthony is guilty of wrongthink. (Others disagree.)
Yet despite my being morbidly obese I cannot criticize Anthony for resenting having to pay for the food of the morbidly obese. I have never asked anyone to pay for my fudge rounds. I pay for the food I eat through my labors and have never expected the public at large to pay for them. (Although I am also proof it is just as easy to get fat on healthy food as junk food. I avoid fudge rounds and generally eat healthy food. It’s the quantity rather than the quality that counts.)
Moreover, it is not in the American tradition to feel an obligation to support those able to but unwilling to work. Benjamin Franklin’s quote illustrates that. Nor is it in the Christian tradition. (The Not The Bee article linked earlier provides plenty of Bible verses underscoring that point.
What makes the criticism more grotesque is Anthony himself is just above poor. He works hard and rightfully wants to keep enough of his own labors to better himself. He is one of those who Franklin can lead out of poverty. More correctly, Anthony will lead himself out of poverty if his “betters” simply get out of his way, and stop hindering him. And stop criticizing him for being uppity. No wonder he is frustrated and depressed. As are millions of others. Like the Langston Hughes poem “Harlem,” Anthony’s song has universal applicability.
Published in Group Writing
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat – 2 Thess 3:10
Great quote
There are many dismissible sources of moral authority on the web these days. It’s a pity that one of them identifies itself as Christianity Today.
I don’t know what Anthony’s charitable endeavors might be. I don’t think Christianity Today knows either. He expresses dissatisfaction with people who have more than he does being charitable with his money.
Maybe the rich men north of Richmond could hold a bake sale.
And, of course…
The Benjamin Franklin quote should be required posting in every elementary school and high school classroom in the country.
I honestly think the song’s lyrics were even better than the Walter E. Williams quote. Hopefully, I will write an essay about it later.
A parish my husband and I attended for many years used to have an annual clothing and household goods drive to help poor families in Appalachia. The parish had been doing it for years, mostly through the efforts of the Altar and Rosary Society, a women’s group within the parish. They would hand out lists of what was needed – school supplies, bedding, toys, and clothes, for the most part. I couldn’t help but notice that the sizes most needed were extra-extra large and extra-extra-extra large. These people were obviously not starving. Our parish priest must have had similar thoughts, as he directed them to shift their charity work to missionaries in Africa where starvation actually existed.
Yes, but… (NSFW)
Just one nit to pick in your post, @seawriter: “ betters”should be in quotation marks.🤔
Good catch.
Until this song came along, I don’t think I’d ever heard of “fudge rounds.”
Likewise. Had to look it up to understand the lyric.
Christian Socialism is a cancer. It’s all over our southern border, and policy about it.
Stomach-turning.
Betcha can’t eat just one!
Some of us would suggest this is an oxymoron.
But less-intelligent people, such as my mother, believe it when someone tells them “Jesus was the first socialist.”
Yes, socialism and sharing are two different things.
Go right ahead. Whether by definition it is an oxymoron depends upon the variable part; the definition of Christianity. That’s not in my wheelhouse.
I do know that there is a school of thought and policy which may accurately be described as “Christian Socialism.” It exists, and it sounds like housecleaning for Christians to take care of if external criticism is not welcome.
The left is working on capturing Christianity . Christianity Today has been captured . So have many churches and the list is growing . The left is the Borg .
Isn’t it unChristian to berate someone for not being charitable? Is it any the magazine’s business where Anthony decides his charity dollars should go?
It is unchristian, but that is why Christianity Today has to go there. The publication has been assimilated by Moloch, and must therefore undermine Christianity while pretending to support it. It is the magazine that endorsed the highly materialistic Barbie movie.
The reason we should not send food is that when we do, local farmers cannot make a living, and they stop farming.
The unintended consequences of doing good are horrific.
That’s why I tried to be careful with the wording.
I thought it was an artillery round packed with chocolatey goodness (along with the appropriate proportion of explosive).
This do-gooder-ism stopped several regional African economies in their tracks. Capital leaked out of dying businesses, bankrupt expertise hauled butt for the food lines, untended fields fell fallow, seed and live stock dissipated, and the whole thing went back to subsistence or dependency in what had been a weak but functioning specialized economy of surplus.
Then I presume that you do not take issue with my use of the term to describe a very real thing.
National Review and Christianity today have a “let them eat cake” mentality.
This attitude of, “Whatever you do, don’t be mean,” where “mean” is defined in the most superficial way, is simply another part of the feminization of our culture. For a supposed patriarchy, we sure are feminine.
I’m not a reader of Christianity Today. But a journalistic enterprise is supposed to note what is going on in their area of coverage. And the more robust Christian denominations, the ones that keep their members, are those that hold their parishioners to higher standards. That means criticizing conduct. And that’s the basic problem of a Christian publication criticizing someone for criticizing conduct.
Well said!
This is also the point made by Jimmy Dore in @franco’s most recent post — different context, same message.