Responsibility is differentiated, mutual and complementary, not exclusive, binary and competitive

One point, 10 reiterations, 10 links to longer, more thorough expressions of and arguments for that same one point:

I’m hoping that by repeating that 10 times, at least one of them will sink in for Douglas E. Baker, who seems to think that either the church or the state has a responsibility to care for the indigent and the elderly, and thus arrives at the profoundly confused conclusion that when the state fulfills its legal and moral obligations, the church is somehow prevented (or excused) from meeting the moral obligations it has.

Basically, what I’m trying to say here is what every branch of Christianity has taught for centuries. What I’m trying to say is that responsibility is never exclusive, never binary and never competitive, but rather that it is always differentiated, always mutual and always complementary.

  • Sailorsaturumon

    The problem with the whole thing is that practically, stated DOES cut out from others – because it’s the state which decides WHEN to declare others ‘ failure.
    In childcare, for example, the question of when does the state gets the right to declare parents “unfit” and take children from them is the biggest debate point. That children with no relatives should be forced to live on the street is really not argued by any major group (what they THINK is another question, but I never heard such an argument)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X