Entitlement for Fun and Profit

Posted on November 25, 2006 by me

I know what I want
I know what I need
I want a miracle
I know what I need
I know what I want, I know what I need, give me
(A new car!)

I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I’m one of the king’s kids (He wants a blessing)
I do deserve the best (Keep on confessing)
The very, very, very, very Best
I’m one of the king’s kids
I deserve the best, I want
(A new car!)
– Terry Taylor, “New Car!”

In my line of work (which I shall only make vagues references to) I have, for 20 years, had to deal with those under the spell of the Entitlement Myth. If something goes wrong, these people immediately start looking for someone, not only to blame, but to give them what they feel they are “entitled” to. In fact, blame is not usually as important as the “deep pocket,” whoever that might be. “Somebody owes me something,” is the general premise.

The Christian side of entitlement thinking is not much different than the secular side, except for the focus: ultimately, it is God’s responsibility. However, most entitlement-oriented Christians will never say that, because it sounds sinful and selfish, and because religious people can’t get mad at God for anything. Instead, usually the target is shifted from God to the church. The church, after all, is made up of sinful people, so as sinners, they’re more easy to blame.

I’ve seen it over and over – those with terrible work habits, various lifestyle issues, horrendous money-management skills and just generally unwise will look to those around them who are industrious (and therefore more “blessed”) for handouts. Some unskilled individuals actually want to learn “to fish.” However, the entitlement crowd would rather have you give them the fish. Since you already know how to fish enough to share, why should they learn, too?

The sin of the Entitlement Myth is named in the 10 Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet …” Obviously this is nothing new. Whether they spiritualize the issue or not, the issue is still the belief that they deserve what someone else has. This is a totally different issue than the command to “give to anyone who asks of you,” although these folks don’t see it that way. Paul clarified the issue somewhat when he said plainly, “he who won’t work shouldn’t eat.” Feeding widows and orphans is one thing; feeding lazy slobs is another thing altogether.

There are those who have legitimate needs, due to work layoffs, illness, disaster, etc. Then there are those who are simply stupid, who overspend, under-work and in general live a lot like the Prodigal Son. However, notice that in the story, the Prodigal didn’t expect his father to give him anything- he had repented enough to have learned the value of work. Often, I think we enable prodigals to continue in their sin by letting our misplaced sympathies and guilts move us to bail them out, before they have had opportunity to repent. In effect, by not listening carefully to God, we can thwart God’s plans by being generous when generosity is not called for.

We tend to try to balance out issues in our minds, by thinking that the command to feed the poor somehow relates to an entitlement by the poor to what the rich have. However, I think this is a grave error in reasoning; the call of God on the rich to be generous is simply that. The poor are not told to look to the wealthy, or to the establishment (the church or the government) – they are to ask God directly. How God works that out is His business.

Now (to go back to the song quoted above), the concept of being entitled to a blessing seems to me to be a contradiction. If you’re entitled to something, it’s not a blessing. However, there are those who believe that they are entitled to be blessed, which is a fair segue into the next post …

Posted in My Own Personal Religion, The Daniel Amos Chronicles | Leave a comment

The Entitlement Myth and Liberal Logic

Posted on November 13, 2006 by me

I love it when my themes come together. That is, except when it’s in response to negative situations, as unfortunately is the case at present.

I’ve been writing on the issue of “The Entitlement Myth” and will continue the theme for a couple of more posts. I’ve also started a “Liberal Logic” theme, and will no doubt continue with that. Today, I’m hitting 2 birds with one stone.

The Entitlement Myth exists on many levels, the most common being the belief by a large number of Americans that by nature of their particular “disadvantage,” whether it may be race, age, location, profession, economic situation, education level or [lack of] motivation, they are owed something by the rest of the us. “Us” could be us normal working-class individuals, rich people, corporations or, more than likely, the government (as if the government is something other than “us”). Okay, so you can probably guess how I feel about this way of thinking. It is the “give a man a fish” thinking, as opposed to the “teach a man to fish” approach. The Entitlement Myth also completely ignores the fact that someone actually has to pay for this.

Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t help people. I’d rather give to the poor than to most people who ask me for money. But, this entitlement thinking is wrong; it has been shown to undermine people’s self-worth, demotivates people, leads to dependence on the system and requires higher taxes to pay for all of the entitlement programs. The band Ten Years After summed it up nicely in their song of years past, I’d Love to Change the World: “Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.” It is the second cousin of socialism.

Now, consider last week’s elections. You’ve probably heard many wild interpretations on why the Democrats now have the majority in both the House and the Senate, most of which are mostly wrong. I won’t go into detail about this (today, anyway), but keep in mind that many of the Democrats who were voted in ran as conservatives. The election many have been a Republican loss, but not necessarily a Conservative loss.

The problem is, however, that the Democratic Party is not run by moderates or conservatives, but by liberal extremists, and the newcomers will have very little power to do anything. They will be pressured to follow along, as they always are, and chances are they will follow, no matter what they said during their campaigns (it happens to both parties).

So, guess what? We are already hearing the plans of the far left, echoing the pre-election warnings by the conservatives, including raising taxes and funneling more cash into “gimme” programs. This, in spite of the fact that the economy is booming. Why? Because liberal logic says that since there are poor people (regardless of the reason), we should raise taxes so we can give them money.

I admit that at first glance, it seems to make sense; it even seems like the compassionate thing to do; except when you start to think about it logically. “Give a man a fish” and he’ll learn to become dependent on the handouts. Some liberals may actually want to encourage this dependent thinking – as it also makes them dependent upon the liberals to keep the programs going. That’s how “pushing” works, isn’t it?

Conservative logic also says that we should help the poor – but by doing things like growing the economy to provide job opportunities, or even by being one the “thousand points of light.” It says that the government should encourage faith-based programs (people who already care about their communities) rather than have government create ill-managed programs. Conservative logic, in this case, also tends to be more Biblical: “if you don’t work, you shouldn’t eat.” Compassion doesn’t create dependency, compassion enables responsibility and independence.

But, the true conservatives failed to actually be conservative, and for the most part they deserved to be kicked out of office. The downside, however, is that now we have another opportunity to become too familiar with liberal logic, and you and I will end up paying for it, one way or another.

Posted in Liberal Logic, Politics/Current Events, The Daniel Amos Chronicles | 3 Comments

Today, I voted (plus, Orson Scott Card and Liberal Logic)

Posted on November 7, 2006 by me

As many of you know, Oregon is the “mail-in voting” state. In a country where people yell and scream over dangling chads, stolen ballot boxes and voter disenfranchisement, we Oregonians trust the U.S. Postal Service to send us our ballots and then return them. Of course, to use the mail-in option, you actually have to vote several days before the election, which I find highly suspect, if not just plain wrong.

So, in the spirit of American Independence, I chose not to vote early. I vote on the 2nd Tuesday of November, period. I wait until the last minute, allowing for any late-breaking scandals, and proudly deliver my vote, in person. So, today, in true Oregonian fashion, I filled out my ballot (in black ink), sealed and signed it, and drove down in the pouring rain to the City Hall.

Our City Hall is an unobtrusive structure – in fact, it’s cleverly disguised as a steel building with a partial brick facade, with all of the character of a double-wide trailer. So, I parked in the lot, stepped out into the drizzle and wandered around the building looking for the front door. I found it around the corner and opened it, allowing for 3 other patriotic citizens to exit the lobby.

Our City Hall lobby is reminiscent of many other cheap government offices, filled with posters, stacks of forms and people behind counters who completely ignore you. But, I quickly found the ballot boxes, two highly-secure Rubbermaid tubs with rectangular slots cut into the ends. I selected a box, and proudly deposited my ballot. Unlike the many other voting halls I have been in over the years, no one thanked me for voting or handed me an “I Voted!” sticker. No one checked my ID, or even watched me to make sure I didn’t toss a match into the boxes.

Voting isn’t what it used to be, at least in Oregon.

So, all of you people in Ohio, Tennessee and Florida, don’t complain. At least you seem to have people who actually care about the process.

But wait, there’s more…

Some of you may be familiar with Orson Scott Card, author, Mormon & Democrat. He’s written several very intriguing sci-fi and fiction novels. He also is the author of an article published yesterday, titled “The Only Issue This Election Day.”

Card is no Venusian (see yesterday’s post if you need that explained). He, though a Democrat, expresses very succinctly and logically why the worst thing that could happen to this country would be for the Democrats to control the House and the Senate. It’s worth reading, so please do so.

This just goes to show you that not all Democrats are Venusians. It is possible to be a liberal while retaining your ability to think. It’s encouraging.

Posted in Liberal Logic, Politics/Current Events | 3 Comments

Liberal Logic

Posted on November 7, 2006 by me

(Just one more side-track, then I’ll get back to the Entitlement issue.)

This week’s Newsweek includes an article by Sam Harris, author of such spell-binding books as The End of Faith. Harris is a Stanford grad, an atheist who seems to think he’s God’s gift to rationalists. Oh, wait…

Anyway, the Issue is about faith and politics, and Harris’ piece is entitled, “A Dissent: The Case Against Faith.” This is a wonderful article, because in just a few words it reveals Harris’ thinking and methods, so you don’t have to bother reading his books to find that out. It’s also a fair example of Liberal Logic. I presume that Harris is a political liberal, though I don’t know. However, that’s not the point; his approach to logic, in my opinion, follows classic liberal thinking.

If you haven’t noticed, conservatives and liberals have completely different worldviews, and completely different approaches to logic. It is nearly impossible for them to communicate with each other. In a nutshell, conservatives are from Mars, liberals are from Venus. Sam Harris is a Venusian.

Harris is actually amazing in his boldness (as are many liberals); for example, here is his opening sentence:

Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago.

More than half? Americans? I don’t think half of Evangelical Christians would say that. Of course, he gives no indication of where he pulled this information from. He also is embarrassed that many of our leaders believe in God, but that’s no surprise. He also claims that “44 percent of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years,” another questionable statistic. 50 years? Confident? Or, perhaps, who believe it is possible? The 2 are completely different concepts.

Now I could pick apart his article paragraph by paragraph, but I just don’t have time. (This would be a good project for a logic class, however.) I will, however, give you one prime example of his liberal logic. He states that the problem of religion is that it is “unreasonable and incompatible with genuine morality.” He goes on, “One of the worst things about religion is that it tends to separate questions of right and wrong from the living reality of human and animal suffering.” What?? He apparently has never actually heard the Gospel.

He does not provide anything to back up this completely foolish assertion; apparently with Venusian logic, the conclusion is all that matters. I wonder… just where does he expect morality to come from? Society? That’ll work.

Here’s the deal: Harris doesn’t like religion. Since most of the people in the world have some type of religion, it only follows that most of the people who cause problems have one of those religions. So, the fact remains that many religious people do some very bad things. Therefore, religion is bad and the cause of all evil.

People, this is not logical (in the “Martian” sense); this is, in fact, an emotional response. Liberal logic (it’s my term, so I can define it as I wish…) usually starts with an emotional response, moving quickly to a conclusion that “feels” right, then the middle is filled up with “facts” that support the conclusion. Try it – listen to Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, whoever. I don’t think it’s intentional, for the most part. I think the emotions are valid, and the conclusions are wishful thinking, like in John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Many liberal-thinkers are wonderful, sincere people who really care about things. Some of my best friends are Venusians. (There are some, however, as there are some Martians, who are just plain wacko.) The emotions are often valid; the process is just flawed.

It’s interesting, and somewhat humorous, that Harris claims that religion is not rational, and then fails to be rational in response. Of course, many other Venusians think he’s brilliant. But then, considering the Venusian worldview, that’s entirely logical.

Posted in Liberal Logic | Leave a comment