Reverse Logic

"Every heresy contains a grain of truth" is something I have heard quoted a number of times, which led me to think of what our modern equivalents to heresies might be. 

Here's a heresy I named this morning: Charity begins at home.

At face value, that has to be true. We can't show authentic compassion and love to the wider world if we can't even love those closest to us. At best it's inconsistency; at worst it's flagrant hypocrisy. For example, you wouldn't have to dig too far into the news archives to find clergy who seemed perfectly good priests to their parishioners, but who treated their families abysmally and even abusively.

But all too often the reverse logic heresy starts to cut in, and so instead of the home being a launchpad for compassion and concern for all our neighbours, it becomes a reason to keep it close at hand. I have heard the phrase used in discussions about overseas aid and support where it was clear that the speaker believed that charity should not only begin, but end at home.

The same instinct for heresy seems to have poisoned some minds with regard to people in poverty, foodbanks, and where responsibility lies.

Across the country, many foodbanks and other charities such as CAP are supporting people in poverty, running sessions on budgeting, planning and preparing cheap nutritious meals, and other similar projects. Many people who are struggling appreciate these sessions, and are helped towards making ends meet week by week. Nothing contentious there.

But along comes an MP who takes that grain of truth (sessions on cooking helping people make ends meet) and reverses the logic to conclude that failure to make ends meet must be down to not knowing how or what to cook, or being useless at budgeting. It is a subtle change of words, yet a completely toxic shift in the argument. I gather that the existence of budgeting and cooking sessions is now being cited as proof that this nasty allegation is correct, and those who challenge will doubtless be dismissed as ignorant or lefties or both. After all, it's happened before:

Let's be clear on this, poverty is not caused by the masses having no catering or budgeting skills (ironically if it was, that would still be the government's fault for not including key life skills in the school curriculum, but I digress) Poverty is something that millions are born into and struggle with day by day, using all their wit to make ends meet, keep the lights on, and look after their families. 

Solutions to poverty are complex, and with the cost of living crisis are becoming more acute and necessary, but I see no real sense of purpose in the current government to address that. Instead they talk of tax cuts (having raised a lot of tax!). But basic rate tax cuts only benefit those who actually pay tax, and everyone who pays tax. They don't target those most in need of relief. Restoring the £20 uplift in Universal Credit would seem to me to be a much better use of money, but the chancellor may feel that won't produce as many votes as a basic rate income tax cut. 

Foodbanks, charities, churches and more will carry on doing their brilliant work, but don't hold their clients culpable for their predicaments; ask those with wealth and power why this situation exists in the first place, and what they are going to do to solve it.

[You may also be interested in correspondence I had with my MP a few years ago about comments he made about the local Foodbank. He never apologised for the incorrect statements that he made.]