Why The Left Hates Faith-Based Initiatives

     The recent struggle that a Cincinnati, Ohio faith-based homeless shelter has been made to endure by the Housing and Urban Development cabal, is illustrative of the Lefts distaste for persons of faith, especially, it seems, the Christian faith. The desire on the part of Democrats and others on the Left to mitigate or even eliminate Christianity from daily participation in the charitable works that have been a part of this country since its founding, has been obvious and forcefully imposed in recent years. The reason for the Lefts unyielding attempt to beat down the necessary growth of faith in this country is twofold.
     First, the Lefts entire being, spiritually, physically, and intellectually (to the extent that they have an intellect) is fully dedicated to growing both the size and authority of government, and the number and intensity of dependence by the American public. Religious charities are widely known to be more efficient in helping the poor and disadvantaged, with a majority of them being in the ninety percentile of efficiency. The government-run charities like welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and others are only about twenty percent efficient. That means that someone participating in a program run by a faith-based organization has a 70% greater chance of actually being helped.
     The second reason for the Lefts malice towards faith-based charity is that it actually has the goal of empowering participants to stand on their own. The exact opposite goal is in effect with government programs. Their purpose is to keep participants weak so that the need for government in their lives never shrinks, but only grows. Leftists see the efficaciously administered faith-based programs that make participants stronger as competition to their ubiquitous government programs that only enrich the bureaucrats who administer them, and create a permanent voting block for the politicians who support them.
     The Democrat party and others on the Left are disingenuous when they claim that faith-based initiatives violate the manufactured concept of separation of church and state. The Leftists who have actually taken the time to read the Constitution of the United States realize that the First Amendment guarantees the "free exercise of religion." And restricts the federal government from "establishing" a national faith to be adhered to by all citizens. The Left seems hell bent on ignoring the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
     But the smoke screen of separation of church and state, which no one will ever find in the Constitution, obscures and obfuscates the fact that there is no constitutional basis for the government conducting charity with taxpayers' money. Of the specific enumerated powers that the Constitution grants the federal government, not one can be construed to sanction the forcible redistribution of funds by government from one citizen to another. I have always found it to be the height of hypocrisy that the Democrats who support these redistributive programs give the least amount of money and time to charity themselves. This according to Arthur Brooks' book Who Really Cares?
     The outcome of government charity is the death of the individuals self-worth, initiative, and hope. These things are all outcomes of deliberation rather than ignorance by the big government Democrats who continually feed the beast of government dependence. But the core reason that faith-based charity works, and government charity does not, is because those who operate the faith-based organizations acknowledge that they are simply being the hands of God on earth. The politicians who profit from government charity think of themselves as gods, with no higher power existing on earth than their model of government that confiscates wealth from some, redistributes it to others, and skims a healthy percentage directly into the pockets of the political class. 
    

The Devastation Of Low Expectations

     The destructive force of low expectations not only results in the bad behavior of those who are the target of the low expectations, but it also inculcates in them the sense that since nothing is expected of them, they are exempt from delivering anything in return. And thus an entire generation of people has been instructed in dependency by Leftist policies, which require no quid pro quo as payment for their dependence. President George W. Bush framed the problem succinctly when he talked about the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
     The safety net, which is just another name for charity, has become for many a hammock. Support is given and there are no requirements placed upon the recipients of that support. Most traditional sources of charity always required some action from those being helped, whether it was a few hours of volunteerism or enrollment in a self-help training program. When charity was localized, the recipient felt more of a responsibility to their fellow citizens to work towards supporting themselves. The local charity system is morally superior to the welfare state created by a Leftist central government because it is funded voluntarily. If a man sees another man who is hungry and gives him a sandwich, the benefactor feels good about helping out a fellow human being and the beneficiary feels grateful for being helped. This necessarily creates a moral act out of charity. But when government confiscates the sandwich from the man who has it and gives it to the man who doesn't, the benefactor feels bitter for having his sandwich taken from him and the beneficiary feels entitled to the sandwich because he sees it as coming from government, not the man who is actually providing the support.
     I have always felt that if we can't eliminate the government involvement in buying food, housing, clothing, air conditioners and cell phones for the poor, then at the very least we should expect their children to graduate high school and stay out jail. It seems that the overwhelming majority of parents who work and/or are involved in other productive pursuits, have children who are educated and felony-free. Why is it that parents who are completely supported by taxpayer money can't assure that their kids go to school daily, do their homework and stay out of trouble? My suggestion would be to take away benefits from anyone whose children don't meet a minimum academic requirement and can't stay on the right side of the law.
     As a compassionate society, we should require anyone receiving assistance to work as a volunteer in addition to raising children who become productive members of society. Studies have shown that people feel worse about themselves and are much less happy when they feel that they haven't worked for what they receive. And this is the real tragedy of Leftist policies, they destroy the human spirit and create a soulless culture.