• Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t have an issue with the fact that the church decides whom they help.

    But that the state has so little in the way of social security that they instead have to forward people to a church instead, that’s crazy.

    3rd world country.

      • Captain_Shakespeare@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed - working as intended, and it’s not just LDS. I’m in FL and churches here have been opposing publicly funded safety nets for my whole life, in favor of voluntary, often church-led, donations.

    • liv@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      They appear to have set it up that way on purpose.

      A single mother of one here is eligible for $399 a month in state assistance, and only if she has a net income of $456 a month or less.

      Utah doesn’t do more for those in need in part because a contingent of its lawmakers, the overwhelming majority of whom are Latter-day Saints themselves, assume the church is handling the poverty issue; they also are loath to raise taxes to do the state’s share, a review of Utah’s legislative history demonstrates.

      • pbjamm@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        us$10k/year

        I doubt there is anywhere in the US where that is an adequate amount to pay for food and shelter. That is monstrous.