On Thursday, March 26, 2009, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill designed to expand the AmeriCorps from 75,000 positions to 250,000 positions. Experts claim that such a drastic change should cost the government—er, the taxpayers—over six billion dollars. For some backround, AmeriCorps allows 18 to 24 year-old high school graduates to serve their country by helping the poor, elderly, or disadvantaged individuals in their community. Such an opportunity allows them to improve their world and gain valuable experience for their future jobs.
On the surface, expansion of this organization seems like a positive development. What could be better than teaching the disadvantaged but talented American youth to work, gain valuable experience for future endeavors, and make a significant impact in the lives of a fellow countrymen? Yet, further research unveils disturbing evidence that the expanded AmeriCorps will negatively impact the lives of both taxpayers and the volunteers involved.
First, Americans must come to terms with the fact that America is in debt: the greatest debt that it has ever faced. The National Debt Clock reports that this country is sinking in almost 11 trillion dollars of deficit. To put that in more blatant terms, the government has spent an average of 3.48 billion dollars per day. Debt constitutes dishonesty, and yet the government continues to raise taxes and increase its spending. Not surprisingly the debit only continues to rise. Expansion of the AmeriCorps would aggravate an already desperate situation. Most other programs cut their budget when they lack funds. The government has even more of an obligation to start shrinking because it receives its funds from the American public itself.
Next, the young people in AmeriCorps are volunteers only in name. The AmeriCorps website clearly states, “Many AmeriCorps members receive a modest living allowance. You will not get rich from it, but most AmeriCorps members have found that it covers their basic expenses” (http://www.americorps.org). Apparently a significant percentage of AmeriCorps members work full time, making it necessary for someone to support their cost of living. Statements such as these thinly veil the real meaning of the AmeriCorps. These “volunteers” really constitute low-wage workers who receive educational benefits as an additional profit for working in the public sector.
The extra six billion dollars contributes to the earnings of these employees, but fails to promote the spirit of service. This situation provides little advantage to the “volunteers” in the long-run because the government is giving them a sense of entitlement for supposed “free service,” lowering the American work ethic even farther than it has already fallen. True volunteers may receive petty compensation, honor, or enriching memories. When they work full time and accept “modest living allowances,” and substantial “educational benefits” they simply become paid professionals who depend on the tax money of the very people they profess to help.
Neither the Senate nor President Obama seems to realize that many actual volunteers who work to promote a higher standard of living among the less fortunate often work through non-government sponsored programs, such as local churches. Is it fair to take their tax dollars and give them to someone else, just because the recipient is under government approval? I don’t think so. I call that slavery. If we allow this to happen, we will be implying that working for the government is the highest good. Quite frankly, this is not the case, considering all of the other worthwhile, non-government-sponsored organizations available.
Yet, perhaps most disturbing of all, liberal Democrats have managed to pass this bill without important preventative amendments regarding the funding of certain organizations. After listening to concerns voiced by conservatives, Representative Virginia Foxx, R-NC, added amendments to the bill that would prevent taxpayer funds from going to for-profit organizations or politically charged groups. However, Senator Barbara Milkulski, D-MD, managed to pass a bill without these important provisions through a democratically controlled Senate. What possible objection could the Democrats had to these necessary precautions, unless they really wished to skirt them? They have made it possible for a Democrat’s taxpayer dollars to go to Republican organizations, and probable for a Republican’s tax dollars to go to a Democratic organization. It simply doesn’t look good.
The AmeriCorps and its expansion package arose from the good motivations of bad politicians. Everyone should serve his country in some way, but the government fails to recognize that this “service” should not fall on the back of taxpayers. It forgets that the true spirit of service only becomes manifested when the volunteer has nothing to gain. It neglects to think about ordinary Americans who serve their communities by supporting a family, promoting morality, or serving for a non-government sponsored, non-profit organization. Unfortunately, the expansion of the AmeriCorps will only take funds away from these individuals, promoting the liberal ideal of large, centralized government.
Classical,
First, I should mention you expressed yourself very well. Your argument about safeguards in the bill are valid and should be in the bill. I should mention the stipend Americorps’ volunteers receive is truly a stipend. no more than $75 to 150 a month. The living allowance will cover an efficient apartment or house in a modest neighborhood. While there is some financial compensation for time and effort, it doesn’t compete with a job by any means. Also, the point of this program is to get America’s youth &/or educated out in the communities where help is needed. While many people volunteer their hours to non-profits, I think there should be some reward to recruit the smartest individuals to come up with creative solutions to resolve issues that hurt the country. Also, this is an investment into America. It’s not like a Citibank bail out. Also, this give Americans who couldn’t afford college a chance to pay for tuition. It’s a good way to get people motivated about their country, help others, and gain something to promote their future and others.
If we’re going to cut spending and decrease the national debt, why not do so in the area of military spending (36% of US spending)? We’re dumping close to a trillion a year into that. It seems to me that if we really wanted to make a dent national debt, that would be the place to start.
Also, I didn’t quite follow your slavery assertion. Care you clarify or expound?
ok, ok, I certainly do need to clarify.
First, I got pretty much all info for this from the Americorps website. I saw the news about its expansion and so I went on the website and saw “modest living allowances.” That to me said salary. I could find no actual figure. Based on the info you just gave me, I can now understand where they got “modest living allowances” from. I still think that it is too much to give a ‘volunteer’ and I think that the website should redo its wording, but I did not do the research that I should have done and for that I am sorry. I should have kept going until I found an actual figure. Ah well, it is a learning experience.
I would also like to clarify that I think that Americorps is a wonderful thing…I just don’t think that it is practical to expand them at this time if we are compensating them at all. I also don’t approve of taxpayer dollars going toward that compensation. This is where the slavery analogy comes in. Lets say that Joe is working in a local organisation, say, Special People United to Ride and is recieving NO compensation whatsoever. Now, he must give his taxdollars to Bill, an AmeriCorps volunteer so that BIll can recieve compensation. That seems unfair, and it enslaving the American people to government sponsored organisations. If Americorps volunteers truly want to serve, they should not be recieving such significant stipends and educational benefits.
It is great that we are sending Bill to college, but we must keep in mind that people who serve in non-government sponsored organizations might want to go to college too. You might argue that people like Joe could easily switch to AmeriCorps if they need educational benefits. However, if everyone did this, the non-government sponsored organisations would go under. Do you understand my concern that we are creating a monopoly here?
FInally, I would like to adress concerns about cutting benefits for military members. Here is an argument that justifies educational benefits for the military members. Even if you think that military involvement is wrong, it holds good logical value. Keep in mind though that I do not neccessarily agree with keeping educational benefits in the military though. I will explain why in a minute:
The whole idea behind GI bill was to offer benefits to those who risked their lives in service to their country. Most other service workers do not do this. I am not denying that other government service members occasionally risk their lives, but we must admit that the military is the most dangerous occupation in general.
Now, remember. I cannot stress enough that the government is an employer like any other organization. some people get different packages than you did, such as different salaries, health insurance policies, vacation days, etc. Generally, the employees with the least desirable jobs, the most experience, or the most education got more benefits. I ask you, does that mean that the company is being unfair to its workers with lower benefits? Of course not! Why, then, should the government be any different?
I would also like to point out that the GI bill was initiated to aid in the retraining to former military workers. Other voluntary workers do not need retraining for new jobs because these jobs often mirror occupations outside the government. Also, they tend to be more permanent than military positions. New veterans often found themselves stranded because they were not trained for other jobs, and they could not afford the education. They did not want welfare; they wanted a new life. Researching the effect of the GI bill on his state, Scotty Osborn, Professor of the University of Wisconsin noted, “The original intent of the G.I. Bill was to provide economic relief to the veterans until they could obtain a job.”
Peter Gaytan, director of veteran’s affairs in the American Legion flatly states, “We didn’t wanna just create legislation that would write a monthly check to a veteran who returned from combat. We recognized that they needed a transition into a life, not a payment for service. What the GI bill originally did was allow them to go to school, to purchase their home, to become part of the work force when they took the uniform off.” Thus, we can clearly see that an extension of this bill for workers in government sponsored programs would be inappropriate and unnecessary due to the nature of their job.
That is reasoning behind education benefits in the military. HOWEVER, our nation is in debt. SO yes, we should certainly cut EVERY department. We must also keep in mind that the military is a job. So people choose to enter it and they should be responsible for the costs, just like any other worker. For that reason, I think that the government should only offer educational benefits during drafts.
Really, my biggest point in this article was that no matter what the govenrment does concerning other programs, and no matter how much the volunteers are getting, we should certainly NOT be spending even more now.
Thank you for calling me into account
I challenge the slavery analogy. In the example you gave of Joe and Bill, I would agree that it is unfair that Bill receives compensation at Joe’s expense. However, I don’t think Joe’s experience is tantamount to slavery. Joe works voluntarily for no compensation. Unless Joe is forced to work for said organization for no compensation, I wouldn’t call it slavery.
Furthermore, I am disturbed by the comparison. In contrast with the 27 million slaves in the world today and the millions throughout human history, it seems insulting to compare their experience Joe’s who is out $150 at the expense of the government. Is it an injustice that Joe is out that $150? Absolutely. Is Joe’s experience comparable to lives of sex slaves in the slums of Kolkata, child sex slaves of Bangkok or slave miners in West Africa? Absolutely not. It seems insulting to put the two in same category.
I apologize if anything I said was hurtful. It’s hard for me to not get emotional with this issue. If you feel I’ve misunderstood your position, please clarify. I’d love to continue the dialogue.
O.K why would you cut educational benefits for military and only give them to draftees?
After all, wouldn’t you have less people joining the military if there were less benefits? Probably so.
So, you would need to draft more (which can have nasty affects like riots – remember Vietnam) and would, in a sense, be rewarding the ones who didn’t show the initiative or the commitment of the ones that joined up.
Yes, we should cut, and cut, and cut some more, until we are rid of the debt (though it is NOT a good idea to start cutting with the military engaged in war where OUR NATIONAL SECURITY is at stake. I am hoping Davo replies on this : ) )
Yes we should cut benefits, especially for Congressman, but after we’re out of debt I think it only reasonable to give some sort of reward to men and women who risk their lives (not just the risk of dying, but also the living a life commanded by the United States Armed Forces about anything and everything).
You put a lot of effort into this, Good Job Kristie.
-Trent
Trent:
Ok, I’ll bite. In what way is our national security at stake in such that we need to be fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? And, if there are hostilities in threats in those places, in what ways did we or did we not have a hand in creating them?
No, we didn’t create the hostilities, Islamic fundamentalist did. If we don’t fight them there we will have to fight them here, if not today, sometime in the near future. No matter what the reason for going into Iraq was, Saddam Husein aided the very people who attacked us on 9/11. If you are an ally with our enemies you need to be told very soon that it’s not “O.K”.
Showing ourselves strong sent a clear message, mess with us or even just help people messing with us however, remotely, and we’re gonna’ mess with you. Remember, these are American lives we’re talking about protecting.
I do agree however on your statement on the slavery analogy, a little too hyperbolic (although I probably would have done something similar myself ).
-Trent
Hey everyone,
Sorry for taking so long to get back.
I certainly see your point with the slavery issue. While I believe that there are differing degrees with slavery, Joe is not a slave. Perhaps it would be better to say that Joe lacks some liberty that he should have. Guess I got a bit over enthusiastic here. That is actually one of my struggles. Sometimes my writing just seems to lack passion, and other times…well…
As for the war in the Middle East, I think that we should certainly get out of Iraq as fast as we are able without leaving that country totally exposed. I firmly believe that democratic government can not suceed without Christian priciples. Our military can stabilized things in an earthly way, but ultimatly, it cannot change the hearts of the radical islamists.
That said, we had just cause to go into the Middle East. In the case of Afganistan and Pakistan, we tried to irradicate Al Queda in response to the 9/11 attack, as Trent said.
Iraq is a bit more complicated, but I still think that we were justified in going in there. Sadam was making no secret about the fact that he was a threat to our country. He was also abusing human rights of his own subject–something which no one should have the right to do. When it was suspected that he had nuclear weapons, he refused to allow diplomats to search certain storage areas–an action that only confirmed the suspicion. That was the last straw. Even though it turned out that there were no nuclear weapons, we had to make a descision based on the intelligence that we had. As bad as the violence is there now, Iraqis are free from that reign of terror and the country is slowly making its way toward democracy.
Trent:
You bring up a great point about why the military should get these benefits. You might have just changed my mind (And you know from personal experience that this is a mighty feat, seeing that I am of a stubborn and tenacious personality!) No, seriously, my worldview is not as developed as I wish it would be. That is why I am delaying my entrance into the political realm until I feel firmly grounded. I still think, though, that if the government has to cut, the military should not go untouched.
Trent:
You said, “We didn’t create the hostilities, Islamic fundamentalist did.” What are you referring to? Can you fill in a little more of the history on this?
All:
I agree that Saddam was a bad dude. I’m glad he out of power. I don’t think anyone would argue with that.
I’m still hesitant to support our current military involvement. The moral issue of violence aside, I seriously doubt we are committed to following through on truly improving these countries. We can invade countries and destabilize them (an inevitable result of violence) and install friendly governments, but unless we invest in their infrastructure and stability, eventually we’ll just end up with the same problem on our hands 10-20 years down the road.
We helped Saddam into power. We armed the Taliban and helped them into power. We set people up, but don’t give them a foundation. The country disintegrates and becomes a breeding ground for violence. Then a few decades later, we’re surprised when they bite us in the ass. I think we need to claim responsibility for the mistakes we made in the past if we’re going to overcome our current conflicts.
That’s how relationships work. If you make a mistake, and someone gets angry with you, you don’t solve the problem by fighting and forcing them into submission. You admit your mistake and ask forgiveness. If they still react violently, that’s regrettable and wrong, but you’re not morally responsible for their action.
The core of Islam is divide and conquer other nations who do not believe the same way. Believe or die, that’s how Islam was supposed to work, then some of the leaders after Mohamed’s death decided that actually the conquering part should be done at a later date. Extremist, no, fundamentalist (yes, there is point in the difference of words) leaders consistently call for the end of “the great Satan” -what they sometimes call my country. That is what there religion requires them to do and America is one of the biggest targets since it is supposed to be a Christian nation (Christians are also on the bad list- they believe in the Trinity).
Also, why would you ask forgiveness if you armed them, wasn’t that doing a favor for them? Could you explain that part a bit more?
Thanks!
-Trent
Davo, you say:
We helped Saddam into power. We armed the Taliban and helped them into power. We set people up, but don’t give them a foundation. The country disintegrates and becomes a breeding ground for violence. Then a few decades later, we’re surprised when they bite us in the ass. I think we need to claim responsibility for the mistakes we made in the past if we’re going to overcome our current conflicts.
I disagree. As a country we have made alot of mistakes, both at home and abroad. But I don’t think that everything that goes wrong in the international arena is our fault. I dont’ think that Saddam or the Taliban was our fault. Rather, as Trent says, there is misguided hate in these people that comes from fundimental Islam.
Now that we have fought in these countries, I’ll admit that we don’t seem to be making a whole lot of progress and alot of the people seem to be resenting us there. We need to get out soon. But at the same time, our military has done its absolute best in setting up democracy that will be stable. Of course we want the new government to be friendly toward us, but the driving force was to fix a seeming emergency and get that country back on its feet.
Could you clarify this argument and give some sources? This is very interesting to me.
Yeah, I would agree that not everything that goes wrong is entirely our fault. I didn’t mean to imply that, so sorry if that is how you understood it. However, I still feel that we share some responsibility in it. The US rarely, if ever, takes any responsibility for problems we had a hand in creating. We aren’t solely responsible, but we certainly helped.
In both cases mentioned above (Taliban and Saddam), the CIA funded them, armed them and assisted their rise to power because they were convenient to us in fighting communism. (Dig into their histories a little bit. This information is widely available). If you’re doubting it happened, I can recommend a few books, documentaries and articles.
So no, Trent, I don’t think that arming the Taliban was “doing them a favor.” Clearly, that didn’t work out well for the people of Afghanistan. Would you argue otherwise?
You criticize Islam for its hatred and domination, both of which are deplorable and wrong. However, I see much of the same hate and dominion in fundamental Christianity. If such grievances are going to be used to justify violence, then our western “Christian” country is just as guilty. They call us “the great Satan;” we call them “the Axis of Evil.” They bomb our buildings; we bomb their schools and hospitals.
I’m not arguing that are fully responsible for what happened. However, I think that history demonstrates that the approach which we currently adopt doesn’t work. It needs to be rethought.
Again, I go back to what I said before:
If you make a mistake, and someone gets angry with you, you don’t solve the problem by fighting and forcing them into submission. You admit your mistake and ask forgiveness. If they still react violently, that’s regrettable and wrong, but you’re not morally responsible for their action.
Do you disagree with that statement?
Ok, thanks for being more specific about our funding the Taliban. Yep, about 30- 40 years ago, the Middle East was not in the headlines the way it is now. I agree that we could have been a bit more strategic in choosing our “allies,” but are we responsible for the violence of the terrorists just because they chose to handle the things that we gave them unwisely. I think not. If a dog fetches a stick for a small child and the child turns around and beats the dog with the stick, is that the dog’s fault? Perhaps the dog should have chosen a more mature individual, but hindsight is 20/20. Ok, bad analogy, but you get my drift.
If we fail to hold people accountable for thier actions (ourselves included), we imply that they have no moral discresion, no intellectial ability to think things out. This is simply not true. In a way, we demean others and hold ourselves up as the only responsible ones. Now, I am not implying AT ALL that you meant it this way, becuase I know that you would never even consider such a thing. However, we must acknowlege that your argument can leads to this idea.
Following your reasoning, we could even say that our pacifism promotes war. (This is very strong and not the total reason for war, but it is still somwhat true) In early American history, the barbary pirates attacked becuase they thought that America was weak. Osama bin Laden was encouraged to attack on 9/11 by American Pacifists becuase he thought we were weak. It has also encouraged Somali Pirates to capture Americans without fear of retaliation. Are we doing these people a favor with our pacifism? Often, yes. Sometimes, however, it goes a bit too far.
You say you know that we are not fully responsible for what happened, yet you don’t seem to be holding the other side accountable either. Sorry if I am being thickheaded. I really want to understand your point of view.
You say: You criticize Islam for its hatred and domination, both of which are deplorable and wrong. However, I see much of the same hate and dominion in fundamental Christianity. If such grievances are going to be used to justify violence, then our western “Christian” country is just as guilty. They call us “the great Satan;” we call them “the Axis of Evil.” They bomb our buildings; we bomb their schools and hospitals.
That is a good argument. As Christians, we have made huge mistakes in trying to convert people by the sword. We have had our own jihads, only we called them crusades. Clearly, this goes against Jesus’ teachings and is misguided faith. However, won’t you concede that there is a difference between self-defense and holy wars? The war against the Taliban is self-defense, and the war in Iraq is too…well, it was. (There were legit causes for going to war, but I still don’t know if we were too hasty, and we should definatly get out of the country as soon as possible). With respect to war there are three categories of people. Pacifists…People who do thier supposed duty…warmongers. Christians have, unfortunatly, been war mongers in the past while muslims defended themselves. In the present, I see them as the people who engage in self-defense, while the muslims are the warmongers.
If a non-Christian (particularly a Jew or a Muslim) is reading this, I would like to humbly apoligise for the actions of my forefathers in the crusades. It is not at all what we stand for, and it contradicts the teachings of Jesus quite clearly. Let us hope that it never happens again.
Switching gears, it is an impossibility for a pacifist society to exist until Christ comes again. After all, we are depraved and war is part of a sinful world. Does that mean that we should try to avoid it? absolutly. But not at the expense of our values.
Only a liberal society tolerates pacifists. A liberal society that is pacifist will soon be overtaken by a totalitarian society that is NOT pacifist. If you refuse to defend your beliefs, they will be forcefully smothered. Complete pacifism is impossible.
If you make a mistake, and someone gets angry with you, you don’t solve the problem by fighting and forcing them into submission. You admit your mistake and ask forgiveness. If they still react violently, that’s regrettable and wrong, but you’re not morally responsible for their action.
Amen. This is biblical. Check out my article on unconditional love. But if that person threatend your life and safety becuase of your mistake, would you have no right to retaliate out of self defense?
Wow…sorry. Didnt mean to make this into a huge argument about pacifism. but I think that it does tie in very well with the situation in the Middle East.
Re: the dog-stick-child analogy. Obviously it’s not the dog’s fault. It’s not our fault, either. But a stick is a relatively harmless item. If you put a gun in the hands of a revolutionary, there’s no reason to be surprised when it get’s pointed at you.
As for me not holding the “other side” responsible, I admit it sounds like that. Trust me, I would be just as critical of them, given a forum. I would just as readily condemn their violence as ours. However, in this forum we are addressing our violence. Please don’t think I wouldn’t criticize them.
You may well be correct. A pacifist society may not be possible. In all probability, a pacifist society will be overtaken by a totalitarian one. However, one statement that has been true of my Christian experience is this: Just because something isn’t possible, doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.
You said, “It is an impossibility for a pacifist society to exist until Christ comes again. After all, we are depraved and war is part of a sinful world. Does that mean that we should try to avoid it? absolutly. But not at the expense of our values.”
Did Jesus not say the Kingdom is at hand, it is here, it is upon us? The Jews of that time were looking for Jesus to institute a physical kingdom. Yet, God’s Kingdom is in the lives of God’s people. I believe that Jesus preached that we should live God’s Kingdom here on earth, regardless of how the world responds. Even if they mock us, malign us, beat us or murder (even crucify) us, we are called to live the kingdom as Jesus did.
You said, “But not at the expense of our values.” I’m confused at this. If the Kingdom of God is one of peace, how is violence not sacrificing our values?
Pacifism does not mean not defending oneself. As I understand it, non-violence means resisting and passively accepting violence. It means resisting and fighting on an intellectual, emotional and moral plane out of love and respect for your “enemy.” Thus, if an “enemy” resorts to violence, they degrade and demoralize themselves.
Sorry, in that last paragraph, I meant:
As I understand it, non-violence does not mean passively accepting violence.
Religion vs. Christianity
I don’t believe that the Catholics are actually Believers, so no, I can’t agree with the idea that real Christians tried to win people by the sword (as in the Crusades and inquisitions which were caused by Catholicism’s and many ruler’s lust for money and power – and, in the case of the inquisition, hatred of the Jews). Religion, not Christianity, has been the cause of many wars.
Davo,
What I meant by the “doing them a favor” part was that giving bad guys guns was in fact doing the bad guys a favor, no, it wasn’t doing the people of those countries of a favor. So in that case, why would we say “we’re sorry” to them (the bad guys)? They (bad guys once again) are benefiting by our mistakes.
If we give someone a gun then it’s his gun. He is completely responsible for using it. Besides, we didn’t give them (bad guys) the planes that they smashed into the trade towers to kill people who had nothing to do with supporting there great grandfathers, they stole them.
Yes, forgiveness should be sought from the people that have suffered by the hands of poor policy plays.
Also, you said:
“If you make a mistake, and someone gets angry with you, you don’t solve the problem by fighting and forcing them into submission. You admit your mistake and ask forgiveness. If they still react violently, that’s regrettable and wrong, but you’re not morally responsible for their action.”
I say: You are morally responsible if they are killing, and continuing to kill (there many, many cases of other bombing attempts that we stopped after 9/11), your family members and countrymen.
Thanks for the great conversation…
Keep it going.
-Trent
Sorry, What I actually meant by “morally responsible” was…
That we are morally responsible to protect our family and countrymen (it’s that loving our neighbor thing) FROM the bad guys, NOT that we are morally responsible FOR the bad guys being bad.
Please excuse my “typing disability” : )
-Trent
I agree, the institutional theocracy was heavily involved in the Crusades and Inquisition. (Although, it would be a misnomer to use the modern understanding of “Catholic,” since “Protestant” didn’t exist–you were either “Christian” or some other religion). However, I don’t think your example exhaustively considers history. Our country intentionally and violently decimated (bordering on genocide) native populations in the Americas, often with the staunch support of white Christians and local churches. There are innumerable examples of Christians (Catholic and Protestant) actively or passively committing acts of murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide. More recently, white churches (in general) passive or actively resisted black civil rights. Even today many Christians passively enable and support slave labor and deplorable human rights violations through their spending habits. Good, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, born again, saved, filled with the Spirit Christians do this every day. So I believe that it is inaccurate to say that such atrocities are not committed by “Christians” but by “Religion.”
Back to the topic of non-violence vs self-defense:
I’ll concede that self-defense has less ethical issues for me than aggression. While I still believe it is wrong, I can agree to disagree on this one. So, in the case of Afghanistan, I still believe it’s wrong, but I can more easily understand the other side.
However, I draw a distinction between violence as self-defense and violence as preemptive “self-defense.” Self defense means reacting to stop an occurring or unavoidably immanent act of violence. However preemptive self defense acts (not reacts) on a possibility of a future act of violence. It’s like sentencing someone to prison for murder because the own a gun. In the case of Iraq, we did not react to an occurring or immanent act of violence, but rather acted on a possible (but not certain) future act of violence.
Finally:
You said, “You are morally responsible if they are killing and continuing to kill your family members and countrymen.” How are you morally responsible for their actions? Unless you assist them in their actions or can control their actions, how you can be held responsible for things over which you hold no control?
Trent: It is certainly true that the Catholic church was THE church at the time. This was the church just like the early church was the church. If we would have lived in the Middle Ages, we would have been catholics. Granted, it contained many imperfections by the time of the crusades, but it was still the church of Anselm, Aquinas, Witclyffe, and all of the other amazing believers. Thus, the Christians of all denominations must realize that the crusades were the result of misguided faith–not a different faith altogether. It is true that the protestant church has made mistakes in the past too. Huge, dumb mistakes. This is obiously going to happen since the Church is a bunch of sinners who have recieved Christ’s grace.Thus, Christans have cuased wars, but I don’t think that Christ OR Christianity has caused them.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on the self-defense issue. As for the preemptive issue, I really have no firm stance on Iraq. Based on the evidence, I still think that we should have gone in, but I have certainly considered your point many times as well. Let’s just say that I am glad I was not in a position to decide at the start of the war, becuase there was no good solution to that one.
Of course we are not morally resonsible for another’s actions. What Trent is saying is that we are morally responsible to protect those around us from those actions. If someone broke into your house and started shooting (I know, everyone uses this example) would you just sit around and let that person kill your family? If I was alone and just let myself be killed, that is morally justifiable (although personal self-defense is as well). If I let SOMEONE ELSE be killed, I am morally responsible for not preventing a death. It is a sin of omission.
Davo, you are quite right about living the kingdom and standing up for what is right. And I certainly prefer non-violent resistance over violence. There is more dignity in it, as you said. However, I believe that the Bible allows for war and that there is honor in fighting for one’s country and family if there is no other alternative. Of course we should try to avoid war despite the sinfullness of the world, but there may come a time when that is just not possible.
FYI – my screen name for the past twenty years has been Psallo. My actual name is John Hendrickson. Krisitie and I are friends through our church.
I have enjoyed reading through your discussion here. I am tempted to jump in, but as I have not the time and am quite like Kristie in that I find it hard to keep my replies short
, I would just suggest checking out this link.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/papers/NationalDefense.pdf
I am not suggesting it is the answer or not the answer. It is good for thought. That is because we need to have a biblical foundation for our understanding of the role of government that is throroughly biblical and not a syncretization of conservative/liberal presuppositions baptized or intertwined with a few biblical principles.
As the Creator of all things, God has also created the institution of government. It is not some invention or construct of man that has nothing to do with him. He is the one who defines the meaning, role, purpose, understanding, etc. of everything. We are bound to learn what that is and then make it the underlying presupposition of our approach to the topic above or any other area of life.
Exellent article!
Glad you liked that. Maybe this one will garner the same response.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/papers/Judgment.pdf
I like when he says: “Fear of God and politics: Many despise their slavery to the state without considering their slavery to sin. Like those in Christ’s day obsessed with political freedom, they dispose of Jesus when He gets in the way of their politics.”
I have to say I do not know any of you but I am so glad I found this blog. What a great debate. Thank you!!
I am glad that you like it! I am so glad that posts can trigger such great discussions.
In reply to the “morally responsible” bit:
Kristie said excatly what I meant (thanks Kristie!).
Kristie and Davo,
1. How can you call the Catholic “church” a church, which I thought meant a called out local assembly of believers?
2. How could Catholicism actually contain God honoring, light exuding, Bible preaching* churches** if it’s teachings and practices are, well to be blunt, idolatrous?
*not Bible twisting.
**I don’t believe in the “Universal Church”, it’s often confused with the Family of God. In the Bible it’s always “the church at ephesus” etc. – churches, not church.
3. Jesus clearly said that: “upon this rock will I build my church…” so here He’s talking about the church: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Ho
Sorry for being late on this comment. Welcome to the discussion John!
-Trent
Point three continued (forgive the mistake, this should come instead of the half typed “Ho-w”):
If God preserved true Christ following churches as he said in the aforementioned verse, then there would be churches in that time period that really were following the teachings of the Bible.
MAJOR POINT:
These churches existed, according to my sources, and they weren’t Catholic churches.
I’ll do so more research and post my findings on my blog (www.williamsforrep.blogspot.com ) the week after next, the Lord willing, and a condensed blurb here.
In Pursuit Of Evidence…
-Trent
Well Trent,
First of all, I do not understand why you don’t believe in a universal church. Of couse the Bible talks about certain individual churches. It often would have been impractical to always write to the ‘universal church.’ However, you know that not EVERYONE who goes to a church building will believe and God. That type of person is not a brother or sister in Christ. However, I would venture to guess that you would consider me a sister in Christ, even though I don’t go to the same Church. That is all the creeds mean when they say the universal church. Regardless of denomination, if we are truly believers in Christ, are a part of a great spiritual family. The term catholic once meant uniform, universal church, so in a sense we are all catholics.
Unfortunatly, the term became distorted over the years. The early church became the mideval church. By the time of the Reformation, it became very corrupted. Now it is important to understand that the reformers were not the ones breaking away from the Catholic Church, now the ROMAN Catholic Church–they were jerking it back to where it used to be. Unfortunatly, the majority of the people did not like this, so they forced the reformers out to start a new denomination.
But before the Reformation, guess where you would have gone to Church. Yep, as impure as it was that was still God’s church, and there were still many great Christians in it. To deny that the Catholic church was Christian at that time would be to say that Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and others would have gone to hell. Basically, you would have been saying that there were no Christians in the 1300s. There is no documented evidence that the saved people had secret worship services.
I believe that the Catholic church today is very corrupted. I don’t think its the Church, and I think people who are in it are commiting a serious error. However, even today, I think some people (Such as JRR Tolkien) are members of this Church and can be saved. I don’t think about that too much though becuase I don’t belive that I am in a position to judge when it is fuzzy like that.
I am member of the PCA. I don’t believe in a lot of Baptist doctrines, but I do believe that it is part of the Church. I think that the PCUSA is liberal and comprimising, but I think that it is still part of the Church. I think that the Episcopalians are doing terrible things, but I believe that many people in the liberal denomianation are saved. The Anglican Church is way too similar to the Catholic Church for me to ever be comfortable in one (they believe in purgatory) but I believe that people like Dorothy Sayers and CS Lewis were saved.
I will agree that some fruits of certain denominations are really bad. Frankly, though, I feel like I am entering some territory that I shouldnt be in. Only God knows which people from which denominations are going to heaven.
Here is something to keep in mind when looking at the church today. When Israel, the “church” of the OT, had falled into deep idolatry and disobedience to the Law of God, He still dealt with them as his people. He chastised them through the agency of the pagan nations around them, even carrying them off into captivity. The prophets spent most of their time reading them the riot act. But did not abandon them. In fact, many timese He turned their hearts unto repentance and back to obedience to Him.
So, when I look at the countless denominations and contemplate the huge range in how faithful(less) are those who claim the name of Christ, I hesitate to just write them all off. If God did not abandon His people in the past, who am I to write any of them off?
Keep in mind that God often deals with his people as a whole. As we find in the NT epistles, Paul often speaks to entire churches as if they are all elect and bound for glory. Yet we also know that Paul did not teach that each and every member was necessarily saved. I take that to mean we ought not wholesale write any church but at the same time we ought to be challenging each and every belliever to be faithful to Jesus and his Word. He said if we love Him we will keep his commandments. He also said by our fruits we will be known.
But, in the end, we as ordinary church members can do no more than look on the outside. It is not our duty to try peer into another’s heart. Those who are in authority (the elders) are charged to make such calls, but not hastily and only on an individual basis. We should leave it to them and err on the side of charity.
I should know better than to post without proofing first. That or not go back and reread after the fact so I don’t know I should be embarrassed.
I know you know that “had falled into deep idolatry ” should have been “had been done falled into…”
j/k
how about “fallen”
And I will trust that you have supplied missing words, etc. for the rest.
Glad to know we are among friends and we are not going to be graded on this. But it is helpful to not distract from what one is saying with such errors, as they only serve to prove one is not as smart as they are trying to appear.
lol, MY comments are the worst.
I agree that members of Catholic churches can get saved but not by following the teaching of that particular religion (unless by some extreme exception). You can get saved by reading a Catholic version of the Bible (things like the ten commandments have been changed up so as to make them more comfortable and other minor yet not-so-minor changes like that – but it contains salvation texts.)
Now we all know that I am not omniscient, I could be wrong…
but I cannot agree with you that the Catholic church started out on the right tract. Based off of research I’ve made* Catholicism started out because of erring churches (believing in Salvation by Baptism) got together with Emperor Constantine joining religion with government (not a good idea as we can now clearly see) making it truly a “universal church”. Before that individual churches governed themselves by the laws that were already in the New Testament, after the union of “church and state” the erring churches that joined began to add laws and doctrine. Pretty soon “THE Church” is baptizing infants in order to save them.
MAJOR POINT: There is no way every church in the world would just go merrily along with a bunch of churches that were baptizing infants. Think of what would happen today if you got a bunch of churches and pastors today and tried to get ‘em all to agree on a certain set of doctrines, would everyone agree? Would everyone have followed this new shift that joined a pagan government with religion?
The Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): “It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertulllian to the present time.” – Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.
*Right now I am reading “The Trail of Blood” a little booklet on the history of Christianity by J.M. Carroll.
Thanks for your time,
-Trent
I will pass on the debate over infant baptism. Having been raised a Roman Catholic and then after conversion being a Baptist and now a baby spashing Presbyterian, I can at least say I have experienced all three views. I can only say that understanding covenant theology and how it applies in the case of all mankind (as in the Fall) as well as with Abraham, cleared up my misunderstanding of baptism (and I was quite the ardent defender).
I also have read “The Trail of Blood”. In a way, it is like a Baptist form of apostolic succession. That is, it says that because “we have a history that we trace all the way back to the beginning we are, therefore, right and there is authority in what we believe and teach.” Just an observation.
I do not find the argument convincing, having read numerous volumes on church history (Schaff, LaTourette, Bruce, etc.). I would only suggest that what Kristie says is true. We may not like to admit it, but for the most part, there was only one church for a good part of the Christian era.
That it deviated from orthodoxy is true. But the church the Reformers challenged to reform was quite different than the one from 500 and 1,000 and more years earlier. It gradually changed. In spite of its claims to be teaching the same exact things as heard from the lips our our Lord, it was not at the time of the Reformation and is not now.
Nevertheless, I still see an example written aforetime for our learning in the way God dealt with Israel. They aposticized something awful. Even Rome in its distortion of biblical doctrine does not sacrifice babies. And yet God had mercy on Israel and granted his grace and led them to repentance many times. I do not see that as being an impossible thing to happen again. Just keep in mind that repentance means admitting one’s sin and turning from it. Therefore we would know if it does happen because Rome would renounce so many of its heresies. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds.
I brought up the “Universal Church” argument because I don’t want to be roped in with the Catholic faith, but it’s not the major point I am trying to make. For more info see here (one fault of baptists is to write in a harsh style, please forgive the author of this article for that but do read the content): http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0276.htm
The reason I am bringing up the history of Christianity is:
1. Because I want everyone to see that we don’t have to apologize for all the wars and inquisitions caused by Catholicism. The crusades were a response to Islam’s expansion, but there are a lot of other horrible things Catholicism did.
2. We can stand up to critics who reject coming to Christ because of religion or who reject the preaching or teaching of biblical principles on the premise that Christianity is another religion that will “mess people up”. Christianity can be backed up 100% and we can be proud of it’s history.
In case of misunderstanding:
A. I don’t believe in a “Baptist Only” sign over the gates of heaven. There are going to be a lot of wonderful people who aren’t in the baptist denomination in heaven and I am looking forward to having all the questions I have about the Bible answered and the confusing stuff all spelled out when we get there.
B. Davo, I think you made an excellent point about Christians in America making mistakes, I am not going to say that all baptists have never done anything wrong, we’re just as related to Adam as the rest of y’all! But that isn’t a fault of Christianity, it’s a fault of not dying to self and not living Christlike.
C. Yes, Kristie I am assuming that you are a sister in Christ, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t mind reading your testimony on this blog!
-Trent
Trent, am I with you on #1. I am tired of Christianity being excoriated for the Crusades when they were a response to Islam. When will they start haranging Muslims to apologize for conquering Christian nations throughout the Middle East and Africa BY THE SWORD? Why are they the only ones owed an apology.
Speaking of swords, Christianity–just as God intended–spread then as it does now by the sword of the Spirit by his Word. It peacefully conquered, not violently as did Islam.
But the fact that Islam nearly conquered all of Christendom makes me wonder. Knowing I don’t know the mind of God, I do think that just as God used nations during the OT to punish and chastise Israel, I think he did so to the church with Islam. As you have pointed out, they strayed from the truth. Just my speculation.
Re “in case of misunderstanding”, of course there will not be a ‘Baptist Only’ sign. That’s because everyone will then all be convinced Presbyterians. ;-0
Actually, I think God has allowed the proliferation of denominations and sects so that the church does not fall into the Tower of Babel trap (as Rome and the Eastern Orthodox are won’t to do). That is, the danger of becoming puffed up because all are, so to speak, on the same page will never happen if there is no organizational unity. But, his people can show the world we are his and one in the Spirit by our love one for another. Another reason I no longer rip on the RCs as I once did. I will let the Lord either bring them along and back to faithfulness or wipe them out.
Ooo… yay! Denominational squabbling. My favorite! Quick, someone take a stab at Anglicans. (All sarcasm, of course). In seriousness, though, my faith in the church is strengthened when I see everyone working together instead of fighting.
Well, despite any differences between me and Roman Catholics (who these days, I see Jesus more in their local congregations than I do in most local protestant congregations) and Baptists and Methodists and pretty much every denomination, I certainly appreciate dialoguing with each of them. Psallo, I think you hit a good point. The proliferation can be very healthy (indeed, it can be the very invitation to God the Creator to be in our midst), as long as we focus on being one by loving one another. In that, we may all bring each other along to greater faithfulness.
Davo,
When you say “I see Jesus more in their local congregations [btw, nice wording] than I do in most protestant congregations”, are you referring to all the icons? : )
-Trent
Yes, of course the icons. And the communion wafers. Sometimes I can see Jesus in the torn-off hunks of bread in the protestant churches, but usually I have to look pretty hard.
Davo,
How can a man be born again: what do believe gets you to heaven?
I’m all for loving your neighbor. Working together is a great idea, up to a certain degree (unless, of course, the denomination’s doctrine on salvation is not in agreement to the Bible – that would be a pretty major problem!).
-Trent
I disagree. I’ve recently loved on my neighbor with a bunch of Hindus, Atheists and Buddhists. We probably didn’t agree on the same doctrine of salvation, but that didn’t keep us from working together.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant that you couldn’t work together if you didn’t agree on salvation in a evangelistic “campaign” so to speak. Basically if you don’t agree with someone on salvation you don’t want to say “Oh it doesn’t really matter they can come and help us out and give their incorrect message and we can work together” – you really aren’t working together spreading to separate messages.
Basically I meant you shouldn’t work together where they could share their views of the incorrect way of salvation (like a speaking event where you preach one night they preach the next night, that type of a deal) where it would seem like you were agreeing – misleading someone away from salvation is pretty serious.
I am perfectly fine with working together with anybody on ministry projects such as helping the sick, poor, widowed etc.
I completely agree that in a bunch of circumstances it is possible to really work together with people who don’t agree with you.
Davo, you’re right, it’s possible – but not where you are spreading two different messages that conflict, where you are not clarifying the incorrect view.
Hmm… the proliferation of denominations…
Unfortunately, and I mean this in a “speak the truth in love” kind of way: they (denominations) can’t all be right.
2 + 2 = 4, not sometimes, not maybe – always, everywhere. Truth is absolute.
What was this talk originally about…. who cares, this is better (I don’t mean better than Kristie’s article, I mean better than arguing about The War on Terror)!
- Trent
Maybe a little clarification on the Reformed view of the church universal. This is from the Westminster Confession chap 25: Of the Church.
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. …
Trent, I share your concern that since Truth is absolute then we cannot accept any adulteration of the same as acceptable.
For many years I struggled with being as pure and true to this principle as I could. The problem is where do you draw the line? The further out from the core doctrines of the Gospel one goees, the easier it is to allow for differing views. The hard part is where to you start being firm and unbending as you get closer to the central truths?
Here is another question. It is based on what I think you and most of us believe about the Faith. It is that God is Truth and what he reveals about himself (the Bible) is true. Therefore there cannot be any shades or alternatives to what is true. As you put it, truth is absolute. So, the question is, is there only one right form of church government? (I use this as one concrete example, though I could have asked about method and meaning of the sacraments, worship, etc.) If there is then aren’t those who are not of the “true” one, sinning? If not then could there not be some other principle of ecclesiology allowing for variations in church government? Or are we prepared to say–as some do–that God has not specified that there be any form of church government at all?
Finding it hard to be as iconoclastic about denominations as I once was, I find the idea that it is God’s intention for there to be a mulitplicity. But not so we can squabble and conduct pitch battles (as was the order of the day during the Reformation). Rather, it is so we can show we are his people by our love one for another. The true e plurbus unum.
John,
I will get back to you later, good question though…
No time right now, not even to think…
- Trent
My reply is below, thanks for your patience!
- Trent
I think that an incorrect form of church government can easily hinder God’s work (i.e. a church hierarchy where the mother church has to approve of everything the daughter churches are doing and positions they need filling. ) I’m not going to say they are sinning, it so it would probably be out of ignorance – but I’m not saying their sinning. I am saying it can waste time and cause all kinds of problems.
Yes, I believe their is one right form of church government (I mean that in a general way – not “if you don’t have this many deacons you’re mistaken”).
More importantly is the difference in doctrine: eternal security, what is called “hyper-Calvinism”, music/dress standards etc. There are real differences on major issues in different denominations. I know the overall consensus is that the differences are minor things that can be easily overlooked, I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, most of the time these doctrines have ballooning implications – they affect more than it first appears.
I have a hard time with the multiplicity idea. Just because what some denominations is doing isn’t completely evil doesn’t mean it’s great. Yes, I think it’s good that they are serving God, as Paul said: “What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”, but I’m not saying it’s the ideal situation.
Continuing…
- Trent
Hey, alright… back on the original topic of the post: I would like to add an ironic plot twist.
I’m likely going to take a position as an AmeriCorp worker. The reason? It’s absolutely the only job available to me in a city of 8 million people. I’ve sent out hundreds (literally) of applications. It’s the only work I can find. Go America.
For real? lol, If that is the case I am behind you 100% percent…whatever reservations I have about expansion of the program, it is laudable that you are being proactive and doing something.
Yeah, it’s nutso. You’d think a college grad with a couple years of experience could at least find a minimum wage, entry level position in the third largest city in the nation. But then, you’d think wrong. Don’t worry, I’m not bitter.
And it’s great career opportunity. I’ll be writing a curriculum for a program that could be implemented nation-wide. If it does… I figure I’m golden.
Haha. Well, I’m glad for the support despite your qualms. People gotta eat, right?
I found this posting as I was searching for posts that talk about the need of the AmeriCorps program to be reformed. I must say, as a former AmeriCorps member, that this program needs to be completely overhauled and the website needs to be made clear and straightforward about what AmeriCorps is and what it actually does.
AmeriCorps itself is, I’ve concluded, no more than a big funding umbrella. Most of the programs are completely decentralized. There is no actual working for AmeriCorps. You work for a non-profit of your own choosing as an AmeriCorps member (“AmeriCorps member” is also pretty vague). This means that your experience as an AmeriCorps member is completely dependent on the non-profit you choose… so choose wisely. The AmeriCorps offices don’t really do much in the arena of oversight of the non-profits to which they give money. Any oversight has to do only with money and not with how the program that received AmeriCorps funding is helping their members or their community. Sure we were required to fill out forms stating how we served our community, blah, blah, blah, but that’s a little misleading. How would we know whether we were effective unless AmeriCorps actually surveys the communities that were served by us AmeriCorps members? A lot of reform needs to happen to the AmeriCorps program.
I’m a bit torn about your stance on AmeriCorps members being paid too much seeing as how they’re supposed to be volunteers. I agree that people usually volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts and they volunteer to do something knowing that they won’t get paid. On the other hand, if one does AmeriCorps, one does it full time (40+ hours a week) for about a year (11 or 12 months depending on the program). How do you expect someone to work full time for a year without getting paid (or getting paid a pittance)? Have you lived on $930 a month in a major metropolitan city (without parental support)? The health benefits are pretty good, but it depends on which insurance company is administering it. And most members qualify for the maximum amount of food stamps. But if you happen to be at a non-profit that works you 60-70 hours a week, those benefits aren’t going to make you feel any better about your $930 a month living stipend.
As for the education award: that’s a bit of a dangling carrot. My education award is $4725, I believe education awards for new AmeriCorps members (people signing up post 2009) will be $5325, or something along those lines; and you get 7 years to use it. Sounds pretty good, right? What they don’t tell you up front, though, is that the education award is taxed at 18%. Any year that you use $600 or more of the education award, the AmeriCorps office will send you a 1099 form, which is an independent contractor form. My AmeriCorps team didn’t find that out until near the end of our service year.
AmeriCorps promises member development and helping out your community, etc. But there are no set guidelines/curriculum that AmeriCorps sets out for the non-profits to teach their members. Each non-profit is left to come up with whatever they want to teach their members. So if you have a non-profit that doesn’t have their act together, you as an AmeriCorps member are going to have a very difficult and unfulfilling year.
With all that said, I do agree that perhaps the AmeriCorps expansion shouldn’t have gone through. Though my acquiescence comes from different issues at hand with the AmeriCorps program than you may have.
Thank you for that insider info on Americorps. Even if the program itself does not need major reform, the website does becuase it does not make the purpose of Americorps clear. I did not know that it was a big funding umbrella and that people could choose the orginizations that they worked in.
Let me say that I did not know that the government taxes the education benefits. Does that make any sense? The government uses taxdollars to give the benefits, and then taxes the recipients? Unbelievable.
I can see your concern on the reimbursement of the volunteers; living on that amount is truly an exercise in frugality. If you cannot find a job and there is no other alternative, than volunteering full time is a good thing to do. However, my objection is that we must be able to support ourselves first before we volunteer. Where I worked, people had full time jobs or were full time students, yet they took time out of thier schedule and volunteered as much as they were able. That is true volunteering; you need no one to support you (not even the government or society), yet even though you are busy supporting yourself, you donate as much time as is personally possible.
I realize that this is not a perfect world and that this is simply not possible for everyone. However, this should be the model and the goal. Americorps expansion is simply telling people that it is preferable to volunteer full time. We are teaching a generation that they do not always have to support themselves if thier hearts are in the right place, and that is simply incorrect thinking.
Thank you for the insight and the corrections!
I’m also surprised to hear about the taxation on the education benefits. I was going to choose that option, in hopes that it would wipe out the remainder of my student loans. But alas… perhaps it’s not worth it.
One other thing to note for everyone’s general knowledge… many AmeriCorp positions prohibit volunteers from working another job. So the option to do AmeriCorp and support themselves with a part time job is unavailable. Perhaps this helps put the stipend and benefits into perspective. If AmeriCorp didn’t offer the stipend, you would either need a sugar-momma/daddy, or a decent amount of saving to burn through… neither of which seem like responsible life skills to learn.
CC: As for your statement that we should be able to support ourselves before we volunteer, I would tend to agree. However, with the state of the economy, I don’t think that everyone has that luxury. I’ve shared my predicament of being unable to find a job, and therefore taking the AmeriCorp position.
Another one of my team members is in a worse situation. She left a job voluntarily just before the economy spun out. She’s a dissertation short of her PhD, and was a lawyer for 30 years. A few months ago she stood in line for a cashier position at Aldi. She took AmeriCorp because it was the only thing she could find.
In both her case and mine (and many others I know who are doing the program), I don’t think we’re learning lessons that we don’t have to support ourselves if our hearts are in the right place. Most of us are doing it because we have no other option, or see the experience as a valuable launch-pad for careers in the non-profit sector. No one I know wants to be on public assistance, or get paid pennies. The benefits sustain us (barely), but they’re also a good motivation to move on with one’s life after one’s year of service is up.
Davo,
First of all, let me apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I really don’t have a good excuse.
Now, of course I understand that there are alot of people out there like you who have done all they could to support themselves with a job and it just isn’t working out now. You are doing the best thing you can possibly do at this point–full time volunteering. I mentioned in my previous comment that this isn’t a perfect world and there are exeptions to the rule that I am setting out as ideal.
My problem is that the government is setting this full time volunteering out as the model, the goal, if you will, that should be striven for by expanding Americorps. Instead, it should be encouraging and aiding most of its participants in getting a good job and serving part time.